This is the twenty-first in a series of teaching letters. I would like to impress upon you again just how important this message of Israel Identity and understanding who the enemy of Israel is. We not only have to understand who the enemy is, but his motives and modus operandi (manner of operating or proceeding). While many have discovered the message of Israel Identity (which is great), yet, out of these, are some who have never come to a full understanding of who this all important enemy of Israel is. There are some leaders in Israel Identity who go to long and loud efforts to proclaim there is no enemy, that the only enemy is the flesh. I would like to point out one example which illustrates what is meant by my warning statement. The enemy (the “Jews”) are trying their damnedest to destroy Israel by getting them to intermix with other races. On page 37 of her book The Red Network, Elizabeth Dilling makes the following comment and you will realize upon reading it, that we have come a long way since the mid 1930’s:

“ The time was, when Methodism in its zeal for personal purity frowned upon dancing. Some Methodists nowadays (mid 1930’s) who are little opposed to dancing even in a church were a bit surprised, however, when several colored men were introduced into circle dances at a dance given in the parish house of Tittle’s church and were thus forced upon the young white girls as partners. An M. E. Guide member whose daughter attended this dance reported that when she phoned the assistant pastor about this he said that these colored men had been invited by Dr. Tittle himself (one of them (the colored men) being the son of a classmate of his at college), who felt that it was now time that the young people learned to mingle with other races. (God created separate races, but Communism insists upon racial inter-mixture and inter-marriage.) ”

 

Ernest Fremont Tittle had a Communist record a mile long (too long to include here). And for anyone who has done their homework on the subject, they know Communism is “Jewish.”

 

Now Continuing The Topic:

JUST WHO IS THIS PATRIARCH, JUDAH? (PART 21)

WHY THE NATION OF JUDAH WAS TO PASS OUT OF EXISTENCE FOREVER

 

We are not talking about the people of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a branch of Levi which made up the larger part of the southern Kingdom of Judah, we are talking about the nation itself. Actually the people which constituted Judah were made up of both good figs and bad figs. The good figs of the Tribe of Judah were to be incorporated back into the main body of Israel. E. Raymond Capt puts his finger on the problem with Judah in his small booklet Abrahamic Covenant, pages 27-29 which I will quote here, but not necessarily in its exact order:

“ There are many so-called Jews, today, that are not descended from Abraham, that claim to be God’s people ‘ Israel ’, because some of them are of Judah. However, being of Judah does not necessarily mean they are still His people, for some of Judah were cut off from the promises to Israel. In Jeremiah we find God showing the prophet how He separated the bad figs (mixed seed) from the good figs of Judah who were to be Christian people for only of them could God say ‘ I will give them a heart; to know me that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart ’.” (Jer. 24:7) ...

“ Josephus records that the portion of the nation of Judah carried into Babylon captivity by King Nebuchadnezzar was a million and a half (Neh. Chapter 7). Seventy years later, when Judah was allowed to return to their homeland, although still in subjection, only some forty-two thousand (Neh. 7:66) went back into Jerusalem, rebuilt the temple and set up the nation, later to be called the nation of the Jews. While in Babylon, many of the forty-two thousand intermarried with Babylonians, adopted the Babylonian financial, political and ecclesiastical systems.

“ Josephus further reports that many non-Israelites joined themselves to the returning Judahites. Later, Christ identified these people, also called Jews, as not of Galilee, (John 7:1-13) not of Abraham or of God, (John 8:39-47) and not His sheep (John 10:26-30).  These Jews themselves testified to not being a part of Israel by their answer to Christ’s words, ‘ the truth shall make you free ’, that they ‘ were never in bondage to any man ’ (John 8:33). All Bible students know every tribe of Israel was in bondage in Egypt (Deut. 5:6).

“ It was this mixed remnant of Judah, upon returning from the Babylon captivity in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, that became known as the nation of the Jews; a name not applied to Judah prior to the Babylonian captivity. Included in this nation were the Edomites (known to the Greeks as Idumeans) who had occupied Jerusalem during the captivity period. King Herod the Great was an example of this as he was of Idumean (Edom) origin and thus not an Israelite. King Herod filled the ranks of the Sadducees with his own kind. This explains why the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection and said there was no angel, nor Spirit (Acts 23:8).

“ By the time of Christ, continued mixing with Amorites, Philistines, Canaanites, Babylonians and Hittites resulted in a racially mixed nation. From the Hittite infusion came the so-called ‘Jewish nose’ (Hammonds World Atlas 1954 - page 266) ...

“ It is evident that among these mixed people in Israel (Judah) at the time of Christ were literal descendants of Cain, for Christ said of these ‘ Jews ’: ‘ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God ’ (John 8:44-47). (underline emphasis mine).

“ But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My father which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my father’s hand. I and my Father are one ’ (John 10:26-30) . …

“ Christ clearly shows the separation of the people of Palestine into two classes in His answer to the question as to why He spoke in parables, “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it is not given” (Matt. 13:11).

“ The parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24-30) again points up two classes of people, and Christ’s explanation (Matt. 13:37-43) identifies one class (the good seed) as the children of God, and the other class (the tares) as the children of the wicked one (devil) ’.” Thank you, Mr. E. Raymond Capt!

 

For more information on this subject and period of time, you will need my Watchman’s Teaching Letters #8, #9, #10 and #11. Jeremiah the prophet made a prophecy (Jeremiah chapters 18 &19) that this bad branch of Judah would in time cease to exist forever. Yet, many today arrogantly want to dispute this foretold Scripture. For a narration on this passage, I will quote from Destiny Magazine (Yearbook), July, 1946, pages 244-246:

“ The Clay Vessel. God next instructed Jeremiah to go down to a potter’s house. The prophet obeyed the command and there he found the potter working upon a vessel on the wheels.

“ The shaping of vessels on the wheels dates back to very early history. In their original form the wheels were stone disks arranged to be turned by hand on a vertical axis. The wheels used in Palestine and Syria today probably differ in no respect from those used in Jeremiah’s time. The wheel or, to be more exact, the wheels, are fitted on a square wooden or iron shaft about three feet long. The lower disk is about 20 inches in diameter, and the upper one 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The lower end of the shaft is pointed and fits into a stone socket or bearing in which it rotates. A second bearing just below the upper disk is so arranged that the shaft inclines slightly away from the potter. The potter leans against a slanting seat, bracing himself with one foot so that he will not slide off, and with the sole of his other foot he kicks the upper face of the lower wheel, thus making the whole machine rotate. The lower wheel is often of stone to give greater momentum. With a marvelous dexterity, which a novice tries in vain to imitate, he gives the pieces of clay on the upper wheel any shape he desires. Jeremiah watched the potter at work moulding the clay upon the wheel and the vessel he was making was spoiled in his hands so he remoulded it until he was satisfied.

“ The Divine Potter. The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying: ‘ O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hands, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.’ (Jer. 18:6) Now the House of Israel [along with those of Judah captured by Sennacherib] was in exile and away from Palestine as a result of the Assyrian invasions and captivity. They had been living in the land of their captors for over a hundred years at the time Jeremiah was speaking.

“ The Broken Bottle. In contrast with the illustration of the House of Israel the condition of the House of Judah [that part of Judah which Sennacherib was unable to capture, being the city of Jerusalem itself] was depicted in the command of Jeremiah to get a potter’s earthen bottle (fired pottery) with which he was to demonstrate the judgment upon [the remaining portion of] Judah. Jeremiah was told to take with him some of the leaders among the people and the priests and to the valley opposite the pottery-gate where he was to proclaim a message of judgment upon them for their evil ways. He was then to break the bottle in the sight of those who went with him and say to them: ‘ Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again.’ (Jer. 19:11.)

“ The captivity of [this portion of] Judah was imminent for, together with Benjamin, a tribe of Israel, they were about to be carried away into Babylonian captivity. We know the fate of [this portion of] the House of Judah for nationally they were broken and after 70 A.D., ceased to be a nation any more ...

“ Judah, the nation, likened to a fired bottle, was broken in pieces and could never again be restored to nationhood. Though the Zionists are today endeavoring to set up a Jewish state in Palestine, an abortive attempt to restore the Kingdom of Judah, their efforts are doomed to ultimate failure. There is not one shred of scriptural justification whatever for their sponsored program for an independent state in the endeavor to make Judah a nation among the family of nations once more ... This is confirmed in the fig tree emblem (symbolical of the Jews) which Jesus cursed for being unfruitful with the consequence that it withered and died. When the Kingdom was taken from the Jews for their unfruitfulness and given to a nation which would bring forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43) the end of the Jewish nation was at hand. They withered and died to nationhood when the Roman armies destroyed the city and Temple in 70 A.D.”

 

It should also be mentioned that the Tribe of Benjamin left the area of Palestine and headed into Europe just before Titus besieged Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (the “light” was totally removed never to return). That the meaning of the breaking of the bottle was the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. is confirmed by the Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged By Ralph Earle, page 628, concerning Jeremiah 19:11 (this is a view from about 1830 A.D.):

“ 11. Even so will I break this people and this city. The breaking of the bottle was the symbolical representation of the destruction of the city and of the state. That cannot be made whole again. This seems to refer rather to the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, than to what was done by the Chaldeans. Jerusalem was healed after seventy years: but nearly eighteen hundred years have elapsed since Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by the Romans; and it was then so broken that it could not be made whole again.”

 

We should include the comment of verse 9 of this chapter from this same commentary:

“ 9. I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons. This was literally fulfilled when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans.”

 

For more comment on the broken bottle nation, I will quote from Destiny Magazine (Yearbook), an article entitled “The Potter’s Vessels”, March, 1952, page 92:

“ This breaking of [the remaining part of] Judah’s Kingdom was wrought by Babylonian power; the city of Jerusalem was laid low and the people were deported to Babylon. After a period of seventy years, a small remnant of the broken bottle returned to the Holy Land and became known as the Jews. They never re-established the Kingdom of Judah and the Throne of David, but remained a subservient people under various powers, including Persia, Egypt, Syria and Rome. During the more than four hundred years from Nehemiah to New Testament times, ‘no inspired writer, historian or prophet appeared, and it is called the ‘ Period of Silence’’.” (New Analytical Bible, p 1097).

“ Then the time came for the Advent of Israel’s Redeemer and King, Jesus the Christ. The Jews refused Him as  their Savior; they refused Him as their King. They said, ‘ We will not have this man to reign over us.’ With characteristic callousness and arrogance the mob cried: ‘ Crucify him! His blood be on us and on our children!’ Defiantly they shut themselves out of the Kingdom by crucifying the King. The die was cast. Henceforth the Kingdom of God would be taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth fruits thereof, as Jesus had said (Matt. 21:43). The last fragment of Judah’s bottle was broken, never to be made whole again. ...

“ Theologians generally have taught that the Throne of David was broken and came to an end along with the Kingdom of Judah; however, that is not the teaching of the parable. Note the reading, ‘ I will break this people and this city.’ Although the words were addressed to the ‘ kings of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,’ the sentence is against the people and the city — but not against the throne. After Zedekiah’s death, the Throne of David was transferred from Palestine to Israel in the Isles, where it stands securely to this day. If Jeremiah had declared the downfall of David’s throne and royal line in chapter 19, he would have contradicted himself in chapter 33, verses 17-26, in which he calls upon the ordinances of heaven and earth to bear witness that God’s covenant with David could never be broken, and that every generation would find the Davidic throne occupied by a descendant of King David. Therefore it is most interesting and significant to find that the British royal family stems from the House and lineage of David.”

 

JEREMIAH’S COMMISSION

 

The next thing we really need to know is what all 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. Its 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.

To bring you the details surrounding this verse commissioning Jeremiah, I will quote Destiny Magazine (Yearbook), May, 1947, the last of a series called “Study In Jeremiah” entitled “Building and Planting”, by Howard Rand, pages 163-165:

“ We now come to the most important part of Jeremiah’s mission. It concerns the task God assigned to him to build and to plant. The first part of his mission was carried out in Palestine and finally in Egypt. He was hated by his countrymen because he told them the truth, denouncing their sins and calling upon them to restore righteousness in the nation.

“ The holy Scriptures are silent concerning Jeremiah’s whereabouts after describing his journey to and sojourn in Egypt. But we do know that the Bible records only the fulfillment of the first part of the prophet’s mission: ‘ 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.’ (Jer. 1:10.)

“ Jeremiah accomplished in its entirety the destructive phase of his commission and we have every reason to believe God would see to it that he was prepared to accomplish the building and planting for which he was also commissioned. The daughters of Zedekiah became the prophet’s wards and because God had promised that his covenant would not be broken with David, that he would never lack a son to reign upon his Throne, the building and planting obviously had to do with preserving this royal branch of the House of David.

“ Daughters of Zelophehad. When Nebuchadnezzar killed the sons of Zedekiah, allowing his daughters to go free, he did not know of the Israel law. Under a decision rendered by the Lord in the matter of the daughters of Zelophehad, a judgment was incorporated into the Israel Law of Inheritance to provide for the daughters so that they might inherit as though they were males when there were no sons. The case of Zelophehad’s daughters was presented to Moses when they appeared before him and demanded an inheritance in the land, for their father died leaving no sons: ‘ And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, 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 ’ (Num. 27:6-7.)

“ The Judgment was laid down: ‘ 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. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the Lord commanded Moses.’ (Num. 27:8-11.)

“ Daughter of Zedekiah. Zedekiah’s sons were killed so there were no male heirs to the throne. Under the above law a daughter would inherit as though she were a son and the right of descent would pass to her. This fact was evidently unknown to Nebuchadnezzar who thought that in slaying Zedekiah’s sons he had destroyed every heir to the Throne of David. It became Jeremiah’s responsibility to see to it that the Throne of David was established in the appointed place.

“ Escaping Remnant. While Jeremiah prophesied that those who had gone down into Egypt would be destroyed by the sword and famine, he also said, ‘ For none shall return but such as shall escape ’ (Jer. 44:14), indicating that a remnant would leave. The prophet also declared that the Lord would not prevent evil from befalling those who had gone down into the land of the Pharaohs against His command but he qualified this statement by referring again to a small number who would escape (Jer. 44:28).

“ At an earlier date, during the time the prophet was experiencing troubles and turmoil in the violent opposition he was meeting from his countrymen, he exclaimed: ‘ Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.’ (Jer. 15:10.)

“ The Lord then said to Jeremiah: ‘ Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction ’.” (Jer. 15:11.)

“ Unknown Land. This statement is followed by the promise that Jeremiah would pass into a land which he did not know. Where was this unknown land to which he was to go? Before answering this question let us review the statements of other prophets. Isaiah tells us of a remnant that was to go forth from Jerusalem and escape from Zion, of whom he says: ‘ And the remnant that is escaped, of the house of Judah, shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.’ (Isa. 37:31.)

“ These promises are entirely overlooked by those who seek to end Jeremiah’s career in Egypt. It is well known that Jeremiah was fully alive to the importance of securing every evidence which might be of value in carrying out his work. He could not begin the building and planting until after the fall of Jerusalem and the dethronement of Zedekiah. This part of the mission must be completed somewhere, evidently somewhere other than in Palestine or Egypt. He could no more fail to accomplish this, or avoid its deliberate undertaking, if he was (Yahweh’s) agent, than he could prevent the preceding and predicted destruction of Jerusalem and Egypt to which he bore testimony.

“ Long before the days of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, Na/strongthan told David of this place of planting (II Sam. 7:10). We have already referred to Jeremiah’s purchase of the title deeds of Anathoth, concealing them prior to his departure from the land. To date this hidden evidence of Jeremiah’s right to Palestine has never been produced, for they were to continue in concealment for many days (Jer. 32:14-15), a period which evidently has not yet run out.

“ Tea Tephi. Jeremiah had every means at his command to fulfill his mission, for he was as greatly honored and respected by the King of Babylon as he was persecuted by his countryman, who looked upon him as a traitor. After the capture of the city by the armies of Babylon, Jeremiah could go where he liked and do as he liked, and Bible history traces him to Egypt with the King’s daughters where he vanished from Biblical records.

“ The signs of Jeremiah in Egypt are his own writings and the testimony of the Jews, all of which was corroborated by E. Flanders Petrie. Jeremiah disappeared with an escaped remnant from Jewish sight out of Egypt. That he doubtless visited Palestine to complete his work in gathering certain relics to be taken by him to the far country is clear from the record of the things he had with him when he arrived in that far country. Following the disappearance of Jeremiah from Egypt, there appears in western history a man with a group of people who answers in every respect to the description of Jeremiah and the remnant — who had with them certain valuable possessions. The evidence of all this from Irish history would fill a volume.

“ To enumerate a few recorded facts, we have Tea Tephi (whose name means ‘ tender twig ’), a Princess from thfont-family: Jeremiah had every means at his command to fulfill his mission, for he was as greatly honored and respected by the King of Babylon as he was persecuted by his countryman, who looked upon him as a traitor. After the capture of the city by the armies of Babylon, Jeremiah could go where he liked and do as he liked, and Bible history traces him to Egypt with the King’s daughters where he vanished from Biblical records.e East, coming to Ireland at this time. She was known as the King’s daughter, and her guardian was the prophet, Ollam Folla. With them was the Urim and Thummin breast plate, or the Jordan Moran, and the Stone of Destiny, or Lia Fail, which accompanied them to this Isle in the sea. The Harp of David hung in Tara’s Halls and the evidence also bears out the claim that the Ark of the Covenant accompanied this remnant to the Isles.

“ The Irish Chronicles record the fact of the coming of an Eastern Princess. In these chronicles appears an interesting poem purporting to set forth the facts told by the Princess: ‘ We were five that rode upon asses, And five by the mules they led - Whereupon were the things brought forth - From the house of God when we fled; The Stone of Jacob our father - The seat wherein Yahveh dwells - Upon Sacred things whereof the Book of the Prophet tells - And the signs of my father David, On whom was the promise stayed - Bright as the crown of the dawn, Deep as the midnight shade, * * * Upon me was that promise fallen. For me was the Prophet’s toil. He had signed me with David’s signet, Anointed my head with oil. He had set my hands to the Harp; He had bidden me hold the spear [scepter]; The buckler was girt to my bosom, And Barach and he drew near - To set my feet upon Bethel, The stone that is seen this day. That my seed may rest upon it - Where’er it is borne away: And its promises be sure beneath them, Strong to uphold their throne; Though the builders cast it aside, It shall never be left alone.’

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

“ Zarah’s Ambitions. It seems certain that the family of Zarah aspired to the sceptral honors of Judah but failed to attain their ambitions, and Zarah’s entire household seems to have moved out of Goshen. The three sons of Mahol evidently were schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt as was Moses.

“ Professor C. A. L. Totten states: ‘ Where the Sacred Canon (purposely, as we believe) allows the record of Zarah’s line to lapse, there they are blindly taken up and continued by no less than three, perhaps more, independent and widely separated secular colleges of history.

“‘ For if Darda, the Egyptian, son of Zarah, was Dardanus, the Egyptian founder of Troy, and if Chalcol was the Egyptian Cecrops or Niul and the contemporary founder of Athens and Thebes, and if Heman, the brother of Niul, was likewise contemporary Egyptian Agenon who inherited Phoenicia, and Mahol, the son of Zarah and the father of these famous Egyptians, was Scytha, or Fenesia Farsa, the Egyptian ancestor of the Milesians, whose records, full and complete, enable us to blend the whole into one continuous recital down to the present day, surely we have means at hand in Trojan, Grecian and Milesian sources to continue out the record of the Sacred Chronicles, and lend them greater reverence as we come to understand and prize them at their worth!

“‘ And it is just this claim that we now advance, for by rescuing this fragmentary reference to Zarah’s line, found in I Kings (4:30-31), from the ignorance and misconception with which all former generations seem to have treated it, and by reading in it a clear and intentional reference to the famous Heroes of Secular History, to the founders of Phoenicia, Grecia, Troy, and the Milesians, and indirectly to Rome, the child of Troy, to Carthage and to the Brigantes of Hispania. we place in the hands of our race, and before their opened eyes the peer of the Rosetta Stone itself. ’ (The Secret of History, pages 164-166.)

“ Jeremiah in Ireland. There are two distinct phases to the Hebrew story concerning Ireland. One deals with the Milesian records, the history of which line originated in Egypt and Palestine, while the other line concerns Jeremiah and the King’s daughters, one of whom married Eochaidh, the Heremonn of the line of Zarah, upon her arrival with the Prophet in Ireland.

“ All the authorities agree in stating the following facts that at this time (circa 583 B.C.) a ‘ notable man ’, an ‘ important personage ’, a patriarch, a saint, an essentially important one, according to the various ways of putting it, came to Ulster, the most northern province of Ireland, accompanied by a princess, the daughter of an eastern king; and that in company with them was Simon Brach, Breck, Barech, Berach, as it is differently spelled; and that this royal party brought with them many remarkable things. Among these were the harp, the ark and a wonderful stone called Lia Fail, or stone of destiny.

“ The Coronation Ceremony. Just at this time as Jeremiah, with the King’s daughter, his ward, arrived in Ireland, a ceremony was taking place. Under the laws of Ireland, and according to the ritual of Druidism, Eochaidh, the Heremonn, a Prince of the Tuatha de Danaans on his mother’s side and a direct descendant also of Fenesia Farsa, and thus of the line of Zarah, twin brother of Pharez of the Royal House of Judah, was about to receive national recognition as the ‘crown Horseman ’ of the four principalities of Ireland.

“ God had removed the crown from the head of Zedekiah of the line of Pharez and placed it upon the head of a Prince of the line of Zarah who at this time was united in marriage with the daughter of Zedekiah, heir to David’s Throne. Here, then, the prophet began the building and planting for which he had been divinely commissioned.

“ School of the Prophets. The Eastern Princess married Eochaidh, the Heremonn, upon a condition made by this notable patriarch that the Heremonn should abandon his former religion and build a college for the prophets. This he did, and the name of the school was Mur-Ollam, which is the name in both Hebrew and Irish for the school of the prophets.

“ Year of Jeremiah’s Arrival. Mr. Thomas W. Plant in his article The Date of Jeremiah’s Arrival in Ireland, Destiny for March, 1938, refers to his visit at Glastonbury, in the summer of 1935 when the subject of Jeremiah’s arrival in Ireland came up for discussion. He was asked by Mr. George Dansie of Bristol if he was interested in the decipherment of hieroglyphics. He was then shown a jumble of lines, circles, dots and spirals. Later, in a letter to Mr. Plant, Mr. Dansie wrote:

“‘ These are the particulars that I gave you, when at Glastonbury, of the carved stone in the tomb of Ollam Fodhla, which is in Schiabhna-Cailliche, near Old Castle, Co. Meath, Ireland. It shows a Lunar Eclipse, in the constellation of Taurus, also a conjunction of the planets Saturn and Jupiter in Virgo. The prow of a ship is shown in the center, with five lines indicating the number of passengers it carried. On the left a part of the ship, which might be the stern, is shown and only four passengers, one having been left behind or lost as indicated by the line falling away from the ship. The wavy lines indicate the passage of the ship across the ocean, terminating at a central point on an island.

“‘ Ollam Fodhla having been identified as Jeremiah, this stone would be a record of his journey from Egypt to Ireland, having in his care the two daughters of Zedekiah, and his scribe or secretary, Baruch, and probably an attendant for the two Princesses. [The fifth passenger might have been Ebed-melech, the Ethiopian.] One of the Princesses appears to have been left at a country en route.

“‘ The date of arrival according to the necessary stellar calculations made by an expert, V. E. Robson (a friend of Mr. Dansie), being Thursday 16th October, 583 B.C. At this date there was an eclipse of the moon in the constellation of Taurus, and a conjunction to within 10 degrees of Saturn and Jupiter in Virgo. The bird at the top may be a representation of Ezekiel’s eagle which carried the tender twig to a mountain in Israel.

“‘ I believe the date of departure from Egypt was stated by Rev. W. M. H. Milner in an article or book, I cannot remember which, to be 584 B.C. At any rate, Mr. W. Campbell, writing in 1914, states that Jeremiah arrived in Ireland 230 years before the death of King Cimboath, which was in 353 B.C., and that, added to 230 years, gives us 583 B.C ’. (See Northern British-Israel Review, Vol. 4, p 171.)

“ Eochaidh, the Heremonn. Eochaidh, the Heremonn, changed the name of the capital city, Lothair, (sometimes spelled Cothair Croffin) to that of Tara. It is a well known fact that the Royal Arms of Israel is the harp of David. Further, the crown which was worn by the sovereigns of that hitherto unaccounted for kingdom of Ireland had twelve points. Who shall say that ‘ the King’s daughter ’ was not planted there and that the first of the three of Ezekiel’s overturns was not accomplished in the removal of the Royal line of David from Palestine to Ireland?

“ Stone of Destiny. Because their King had passed on before them to the unknown country into which Israel was later to be regathered, Hosea declares of them: ‘ For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim.’ (Hos. 3:4.)

“ The marginal rendering of ‘ without an image ’ is ‘ without a standing pillar ’ while Young’s Analytical Concordance gives other definitions, i.e., ‘ memorial stone, and pillar ’. Scholarly men who have investigated this passage in connection with its context give a correct rendering as ‘ pillar rock and pillar stone. ’ Jeremiah journeyed from Egypt with this stone in his possession, and the other sacred emblems, and first landed in Spain from whence he sailed to Ireland according to the records. Beginning with Eochaidh, the Heremonn, and his young bride, Tea Tephi, who were crowned on this stone in Ireland, their descendants in succession were crowned on this stone of destiny. The ancient kings of both the Danaan and Milesian races (being the same people) were for many ages crowned at Tara. This stone was sent to Scotland about 350 B.C. for the coronation of Fergus, King of Scots, who was a descendant of the Milesian Kings of Ireland. For many centuries this stone was used by the Scottish Kings in their coronation and was kept in the Abbey of Scone. This removal of the stone from Ireland to Scotland was its second overturn (Ezekiel 21:27).

“ In 1297 A.D., when King Edward I invaded Scotland, the stone was taken to England and was placed in Westminster Abbey where it has remained to this day. This removal from Scotland to England was the third and final overturn! Following this final overturn the promise is made that it will remain in its present resting place until He comes whose right it is.” [Note: It has recently been returned to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland.]

 

As you can see, the nation of Judah in Palestine (not the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and part of Levi) but the so-called nation of the bad fig, Cain-Satanic-Edomite-Canaanite “Jews” was shattered forever, never again to be reestablished as a Royal House. This “broken bottle” nation of the “Jews” is now history, it is in the past!!!

This is the twenty-second teaching letter since I started to publish them in May of 1998. The first twenty-one letters were on the subject “Just Who Is This Patriarch, Judah?” The reason I continued that series so long is because there is more confusion on the subject of Judah than almost any other particular subject in Scripture. John Wilson and Edward Hine, the founders of Israel Identity, were not able to distinguish the difference between a member of the Tribe of Judah and a “Jew.” That same confusion has continued down to this very day. If you are one of those who are still bewildered on this question, you really need to contact me and request teaching letters #1 through #21. Once you study these comprehensive presentations, you will never again have any problem knowing who the true Judahites are. 

THE DEADLY DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSALISM 

With this lesson, we are going to explore the unscriptural doctrine of “universalism.” We are going to start by examining a passage of Scripture which many point out as authenticating such a tenet. This passage is found in Isaiah 56:4-8: 

“4 For thus saith Yahweh unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to Yahweh, to serve him, and to love the name of Yahweh, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. 8 Yahweh simgular-Elohim which gathereth the outcast of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

 

Except for the underlined clause, “taketh hold of my covenant”, it would appear from this passage, at least on the surface, that somehow Yahweh wants to bring everyone regardless of race into His House of worship. Being translated, “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people”, it would seem to be the gist or essence of what is being said. Before we leap to a conclusion, let’s take a better look at the word “all.” Before we consider the word all, let’s examine one commentary which suggests that it is an invitation for all other races to join in with the Israelites. Believer’s Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald says this of this verse on page 982:

“The Temple will then be a house of prayer for all nations, not just Israel. God will gather Gentiles (heathen) to His fold in addition to the house of Israel.”

 

I don’t know about you, but it sounds like universalism to me. Universalism is now taught in almost every church, Catholic or Protestant alike. Let’s now return to that word “all.” It is the word #3605 in the Strong’s Concordance. It seems that the word “all” doesn’t mean all, in every case, in Hebrew. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament says this on page 396:

“... English all and whole ... In western languages it has to be rendered by adjectives ... in English this has to be expressed either by whole preceded by the article, or by all followed by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed, it must be rendered in English by all without the article, or else by the whole of ... the whole earth, all the earth, Genesis 9:19; 11:1; ... the whole people, Genesis 19:4; ... the whole flock, Genesis 31:8; ... the whole circuit of Jordan, Genesis 13:10; ... all my people, Genesis 41:40; ... all of him, Genesis 25:25; ... the whole vision, Isaiah 29:11; ... all the wicked, Psalm 145:20; ... all those who fall, Psalm 145:14 ...”

 

In other words, if this passage meant all people regardless of race, it should have been rendered, “a house of prayer for all [the] people [or the whole people]”. #3605 is the same Strong’s number found in Genesis 3:20 where it says:

 

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”

 

Therefore, if it meant that Eve was the mother of all the races, it would have said, “because she was the mother of all [the] living.” In Israel Identity, from overwhelming evidence long accumulated, we know that Eve was not the mother of all the races. The only child that Eve mothered besides those of the Adamic race was Cain who was fathered by Satan through seduction. Now we can know for sure that Yahweh didn’t want all other races in his “house of prayer.” Now that we have resolved the word “all”, let’s consider the word “people” like in: “mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” The word “people” is the word #5971 in the Strong’s Concordance which says:

“5971 ... ‘am, am; from 6004; a people (as a congregated unit ); specifically a tribe (as those of Israel); hence (collectively) troops or attendants; figuratively a flock;—folk, men, nation, people.”

 

From this definition of the Hebrew word #5971, it is obvious that the phrase “all people” neither means “all” nor just any kind of “people.” The word people in this verse is speaking of a particular kind of people, “a people”, “a congregated unit”, “a specific people”, “an Israel people”, “troops, as a collection of a particular kind of people”, “flock, as a group of like-kind.” Plain and unmistakably, the phrase “all people” doesn’t mean the same thing in English as it does in Hebrew! The Ferrar Fenton translation renders Isaiah 56:7 as follows:

 

“For My House, a House of Prayer, Shall be called for every tribe.”

 

This is quite a contrast to the KJV which says: “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” Naturally, Israel was divided into tribes, and thus, “My House shall be called a House of Prayer for all the tribes of Israel.” It’s not talking about bringing the heathen into Yahweh’s House!

 

YAHWEH DIDN’T PROMISE TO GATHER “OTHERS”

 

The next verse we are going to consider in this passage is verse 8 (Isaiah 56:8) which reads:

 

“Yahweh singular-Elohim which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

 

The first important thing to notice in this verse is that the word “others” is not in the text, as it is in italics! It was inserted in there by the translators! Evidently, the translators were biased toward the false doctrine of universalism or they would not have put it there. The best rendering I have found on this verse is from The New English Bible With The Apocrypha. According to the information presented on the cover:

“The New English Bible is a fresh and authoritative translation of the Bible into modern English. It is a complete translation from the original tongues, enriched by the most recent biblical scholarship and enlivened by a fluent literary style which is clear, vigorous and often majestic. The work began more than twenty years ago (twenty years before 1970) and has been carried out under the authority of a Joint Committee on which are representatives of the major Protestant churches of the British Isles. In the later stages the Committee was joined by observers representing the Roman Catholic Church.”

 

This translation was planned and directed by representatives of: The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland; The Church of England; The Church of Scotland; The Congregational Church in England and Wales; The Council of Churches for Wales; The Irish Council of Churches; The London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends; The Methodist Church of Great Britain; The Presbyterian Church of England; The British and Foreign Bible Society; and, The National Bible Society of Scotland. With this kind of a lineup, you can be sure that each faction was watching the others to see to it there was no hanky-panky going on concerning the Scriptures. I believe it is quite interesting how they translated Isaiah 56:8:

 

“This is the very word of Yahweh singular-Elohim, who brings home the outcast of Israel: I will yet bring home all that remain to be brought in.”

 

This properly translated verse hardly leaves room for “others” besides Israel to be “gathered” (#6908, to take, to grasp with the hand). If they had translated it “Yahweh” instead of “Lord God”, it would have been even a better translation. It’s not talking about bringing “others” besides Israel, it’s talking about bringing Israelites, and then more Israelites until all the Israelites are brought or gathered in. There isn’t any room for universalism here! I believe I will set my copy of The New English Bible along side of my Ferrar Fenton!

 

Amazingly enough, I have another modern version which I sometimes consult called “God’s Word, Today’s Bible translation that says what it means.” I am sure there are many passages in this translation that might not be trusted, but guess how they translated Isaiah 56:8? Let’s take a look:

 

“The Almighty Yahweh, who gathers the scattered people of Israel, declares, ‘I will gather still others besides those I have already gathered’.”

 

The implication being that Yahweh will gather more Israelites besides the Israelites He has already gathered. Taking the context and the time period of this verse into account, this is being addressed to the remnant House Judah that were still gathered to Him at Jerusalem, while the House of Israel, along with rest of the House of Judah captured by Sennacherib, had already been scattered into Assyria. This verse is simply speaking of gathering back these scattered Israelites, and not particularly to Jerusalem. Its not speaking about heathen!

 

THE TIME FRAME

 

It is always well to take notice of the approximate date at which something is written. If you have a KJV with a center reference there is usually a date for each chapter (although some have them and others don’t). Sometimes Bibles other than the KJV have the dates listed for each page of each chapter. That is why it is nice to have more than one Bible. The KJV I use most was printed by The World Publishing Company in the mid 50’s and has the proper center reference to prove Two Seedline and also has the dates listed for each page of each chapter. I also have a Southwestern Bible with large print which is the same as my World Bible. In my two KJV’s every chapter in Isaiah from and including chapter 38 to and including chapter 56 is dated B.C. 712. That is 19 chapters in all. This is the approximate date for the writing of these chapters. Although the writing time is approximately B.C. 712, the prophecy’s fulfillment can be dated many years (10’s, 100’s and 1000’s of years) later. For instance, Cyrus, king of Persia, is spoken of in Isaiah 44:28 (dated B.C. 712) who began his reign about 560/559 B.C., or approximately 153 years after Isaiah’s writing. For the chapter of Isaiah we are considering (Isaiah 56) it would be about the time of the return of the Judean captives from Babylon which happened about 538-529 B.C. When we understand these dates, it accounts for some of the many seeming discrepancies we find in this particular chapter.

For instance, we need only to back up to verse 3 in Isaiah chapter 56 to see a couple of very glaring discrepancies. It reads thus:

 

“Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to Yahweh, speak, saying, Yahweh hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.”

 

For a “eunuch”, this would seem to be a contradiction according to Leviticus 21:18-21 and Deuteronomy 23:1 which say respectively:

Leviticus 21:18-21: “18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, 20 Or crookbacked or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.”

Deuteronomy 23:1, “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh.”

 

When we consider these passages which are seemingly in conflict with Isaiah 56:3, we have to consider the time frame and conditions under which they were written. It is almost certain that Daniel was a eunuch, at least, according to Herodotus. No doubt, all of Daniel’s Hebrew companions in the high offices of Nebuchadnezzar were all eunuchs. This would account for a change in disposition toward a eunuch at this time. For more information on “eunuchs”, I will quote from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 179-180:

“EUNUCH [... to emasculate]. Alternately: OFFICER; CAPTAIN. A Chamberlain for the woman’s quarters in the royal household; usually a castrated male person. There are married eunuchs (Gen. 39:1), but Potiphar may not be literally a eunuch, as the word may indicate his office only. However, if he were a eunuch, his anger against Joseph would have more force. Usually the word implies sterility (1 Sam. 8:15; Isa. 56:3) in Israel (cf. in Babylon [Dan. 1:3]; in Persia [Esth. 2:3]; in Ethiopia [Jer. 38:7; Acts 8:27]).

“These men could be high officials (Gen. 39:1; Acts 8:27). But in Israel they were excluded from the covenant congregation, as were all impaired and defective persons (Lev. 22:24; Deut. 23:1). This made the threat of exile calamitous (Isaiah 39:7):

 

“And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shall beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

 

“There is no certainty that this prophecy was carried out, or that Daniel was a eunuch (II Kings 20:17-18), although Herodotus suggests that captives were commonly made eunuchs. The Tyrian Jezebel used eunuchs (I Kings 22:9; cf. II Kings 8:6; 9:32). David had such officers (1 Sam. 8:15; 1 Chr. 28:1). The last kings of Judah knew them (II Kings 24:15; Jer. 41:16). Herod the Great used a eunuch for cupbearer (Jos. Antoq. XV, viii. 4; XVI, viii. 1). The law-abiding eunuch is praised (Wisd. Sol. 3:14); and in the messianic kingdom, despite Deuteronomy, these castrated outcast will rank before the unfaithful of Israel (Isa. 56:3-5). ...”

 

There is evidence in Jeremiah 41:16 that Zedekiah had made eunuchs of his people for his harem of wives and children. This may have been one of the reasons Yahweh was so angry with him. It was also an Ethiopian eunuch by the name of Ebedmelech which rescued Jeremiah from a dungeon. This Ethiopian was a Cushite, no doubt of the same tribe as Moses’ wife came from, who was a White woman. Therefore, the “stranger” spoken of along with the “eunuch” in Isaiah 56:3 are more than likely also Ethiopian Cushites. There were two different peoples who were referred to as Cushites and to understand the “stranger” and “eunuch” of Isaiah 56:3, we are going to have to know the difference. For this I am going to use a short quote from Bertrand L. Comparet’s complete works of radio sermons entitled Your heritage under the title, “Whom Did Moses Marry?”, page 67. If you don’t have this book of Bertrand L. Comparet’s complete works of radio sermons entitled Your heritage (354 large pages in all) you can get it from me for $20 plus 10% handling. This complete works of radio sermons is much larger and comprehensive than an earlier 54 page small stapled booklet titled by the same name, Your heritage.

“When you think you have found some discrepancy in Yahweh’s word, some contradiction which can be used as the foundation for conflicting doctrines, you can never safely rely upon what you find in the English translation, until you have [at least] checked it in a good lexicon. The best references are the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries included in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which is more thorough than most of the others. You often find that defective scholarship in early translations, has become accepted as doctrine. It is continued, although the original word will not support the meaning given it in the translation. Let’s get back to Moses and his wife. In Numbers 12:1, the Hebrew does not say Ethiopian, it says Cush, a descendant of Cush, or a resident of the land of Cush. Remember that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 10:6 tells us the sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, Noah and his wife were both white, so their children naturally were of the same race. ... (Also Gen. 6:9 says Noah was perfect (pure) in his generations as were (the sons he generated.))

“There were two different countries named Cush in Bible times, one was Ethiopia, lying south of the Sudan in Africa. However, there was another Cush in ancient times, it was in eastern Mesopotamia, or what at other times was part of the Babylonian empire. These people were certainly not a black race at any time. This Cush flourished about 1500 B.C., during the time of Moses, the exodus from Egypt occurred in 1486 B.C. Who can we expect to find living in this Cush, on the east of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and from what people that lived there did Moses take his wife? In the first place, note there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Bible which says, or even hints, that Moses was ever in Ethiopia or any place else, where he could have found a negro woman to marry. The Bible does tell us where Moses got his wife, and who she was. Remember Moses had killed an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite.”

 

From this, you can see we can drop the word “Ethiopian” in the above references, and replace it with the word Cushite, as the word Ethiopian only confuses the issue. You should be beginning to see this passage in Isaiah 56:1-8 has nothing whatsoever to do with universalism, but quite the opposite. You should also be beginning to see how dangerous it is to read any of the English versions of the Bible without consulting the original languages they are written in!!! You simply cannot understand the Bible message otherwise!

 

 

A SIMILAR PASSAGE IN THE APOCRYPHA

 

There is a similar passage in the Apocrypha like the eunuch of Isaiah 56:3. It is found in the Wisdom Of Solomon 3:14 and reads:

 

“And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against Yahweh: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of Yahweh more acceptable to his mind.”

 

This passage, like Isaiah 56:3, is not speaking of universalism either. To show you this, I will quote the entire 3rd chapter of the Wisdom Of Solomon. I will add explanations in brackets as I go along. I will use brackets [  ] so you will understand my explanations are not part of the text. This is a very outstanding passage when understood in the proper light. I believe you will be surprised:

“1 But the souls of the righteous [Yahweh’s sons and daughters] are in the hand of Yahweh, and there shall no torment touch them. 2 In the sight of the unwise [other races] they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, 3 And their going from us to be utter destruction [no life hereafter]: but [truly] they are in peace. 4 For though they [Yahweh’s people] be punished in the sight of [enowsh] men, yet is their hope full of immortality. 5 And having been a little chastised, they [the sons and daughters of Yahweh] shall be greatly rewarded: for Yahweh proved [tested] them, and found them worthy for himself. 6 As gold in the furnace hath he tried them [sons of Adam], and received them as a burnt [purified] offering. 7 And in the time of their [future] visitation they shall shine, and [with a glorified body] run to and fro like sparks among the stubble [‘Jews’ and others]. 8 They [the saints of Israel] shall judge [reprove] the [Israel] nations, and have dominion over the [Israel] people, and their Mighty One shall reign for ever. 9 They that put their trust in him [Yahweh] shall understand the truth: and such [of them] as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect [Israel]. But the un-Yahweh like [the literal descendants of Satan] shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken [repudiated] Yahweh. 11 For whoso despiseth wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their [the ‘Jew’s’] hope is vain, their [the Jew’s’] labours unfruitful, and their [the Jew’s’] works unprofitable: 12 Their [the Jew’s’] wives are foolish, and their children wicked. 13 Their [the Jew’s’] offspring is cursed. Wherefore blessed is the barren that is undefiled [by another race], which hath not known the sinful [race-mixing] bed: she shall have fruit [children] in the visitation of [living Adamic] souls. 14 And blessed is the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against Yahweh: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of Yahweh more acceptable to his mind. 15 For glorious is the fruit of good labours: and the root of wisdom shall never fall away. 16 As for the children of adulterers [race-mixers], they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed [children] of an unrighteous [race-mixing] bed shall be rooted out [destroyed]. For though they live long, yet they shall be nothing regarded: and their last age [future generations] shall be without honour. 18 Or, if they die quickly, they have no hope [of resurrection], neither comfort in the day of trial. 19 For horrible is the end of the unrighteous [race-mixed] generation.”

 

If you think this is something outstanding, just consider the following six verses of chapter 4:

“1 Better it is to have no children, and to have virtue [purity of race]: for the memorial thereof is immortal [life]: because it is known with Yahweh, and with [Adamic] men. 2 When it [race purity] is present, men take example [notice] at it; and when it is gone, they desire [grieve for the loss of] it: it [pure race] weareth a crown, and triumpheth for ever, having gotten the victory [of racial purity], striving for undefiled [racial] rewards. 3 But the multiplying brood [progeny] of the un-Yahweh [non-Adamic] like shall not thrive, nor take deep rooting from bastard [mamzer hybrid] slips [grafting of another race], nor lay any fast [racially sound] foundation. 4 For though they flourish in [our family] branches for a time; yet standing not fast [not racially sound], they shall be shaken with the wind, and through the force of winds they shall be rooted out [of our family tree]. 5 The imperfect [racially-mixed] branches shall be broken off, their fruit [offspring being] unprofitable, not ripe to eat [not suitable to offer as mates to others of our kind], yea, [they are] meet [fit] for nothing. 6 For children begotten of unlawful [race-mixing] beds are witnesses of wickedness against their parents in their trial [ordeal].”

 

You may not agree with the comments I have included in brackets [ ] with the above passages from the Wisdom of Solomon from The Apocrypha, chapters 3 and 4, but you cannot take away the terms “bastard slips”, “children of adulterers” and “unlawful beds.” Anyway, getting back to the subject of eunuchs as priests in the temple, we have to consider that this was an instruction only to the children of Aaron, for Leviticus 21:17 says:

“Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.”

 

Inasmuch as this offering of bread (communion as we would call it) represented the body of Yahshua the promised Messiah to come, at that time it was needful to have priests who were perfect in health and appearance. The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 171, says this concerning verse 17:

“Never was a wiser, a more rational, and a more expedient law enacted relative to sacred matters. The man who ministers in holy things, who professes to be the interpreter of the will of God, should have nothing in his person nor in his manner which cannot contribute to render him respectable in the eyes of those to whom he ministers.”

 

While this is a very good comment, I would rather believe that this law was enacted for the respect of the body of the promised Messiah. It was a token on the part of the Aaronic priesthood to expect a perfect sacrifice as the future Redeemer of Israel, and otherwise could only be flawless in nature. Thus, these priests of Aaron, perfect in health and appearance, represented Yahshua who Himself would be perfect in His Priesthood and His body a perfect sacrifice. The other Aaronic priests with physical defects were allowed to perform lesser duties in the temple. It is simply amazing, sometimes, what some read into these passages! I could only find one commentary which really spelled it out (not being a long extended observation), and it was Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Bible, volume 1, page 244:

“... The reason hereof is partly typical, that he might more fully represent Christ, the great High Priest, who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish ...”

 

Thus, we can conclude that a castrated male would not and could not represent a priest or sacrifice without blemish, and therefore not suitable to represent the perfect Redeemer Messiah. To represent the perfect Sacrifice in Yahshua, it had to be a male of the family of Aaron with zero blemishes, which included non-castration. When we understand these things in their proper light, they make a lot of sense. To propagate the doctrine of universalism from Isaiah chapter 56, verses 1 through 8, is simply fallacious!

 

SOME SAY THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT ISAIAHS

 

Because there is seemingly so great a disparity in the style of writing between the early chapters of Isaiah and the latter chapters, many comment with the premise that there must have been more than one writer, or two different Isaiahs. For a more positive view concerning this, I will quote from The Post-Captivity Names Of Israel by Rev. Wm. Pasco Goard, page 16:

“So great is the difference of tone and viewpoint between the first section which deals with the breakdown of the nations in the B.C. period and the restoration described as coming at the end of the prophetic period that many have supposed that there were two Isaiahs. However this may be, the theme is one.”

 

SOME MISLEADING COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 56:1-8

 

Every once in a while it is my displeasure to have to quote from a source which, by its very nature, is not the best. This time it is from a book called The Institute of Biblical Law by Rousas John Rushdoony. Whatever else he might have written for the better, his comments on Isaiah 56:1-8 leave much to be desired. I even hesitate to use this quote for fear of causing confusion among those who are not well established. Nevertheless, it is a very good example of a miscarriage of interpretation concerning a vitally important subject. For an exercise in mental adeptness, see how many misplaced statements you can detect as we proceed with this one. It is found on pages 84-85:

“Not only death and disease were to be separated from the people of life, but also eunuchs and bastards (Deut. 23:1-2). Various forms of self-mutilation (Deut. 14:1, 2; Lev. 19:27) were forbidden, as was tattooing (Lev. 19:28) ... With respect to the ban on eunuchs and bastards, i.e., their being barred from the congregation, it is to the tenth generation. According to one editorial footnote in the Talmud, entering in to the congregation of the Lord meant ‘eligible to intermarry with Israelite’, and according to another editorial note, the expression ‘to his tenth generation’ meant ‘the stigma is perpetual.’ The ban on intermarriage was probably a real factor; certainly the penalty would work to make intermarriage difficult. But this does not get to the root of the matter. The ban was not on faith; i.e., it is not stated that the bastards and eunuchs nor, in Deuteronomy 23:3, that Ammonites and Moabites, cannot be believers. There is, in fact, a particularly strong promise of blessing to believing eunuchs in Isaiah 56:4, 5, and their place as proselytes was real even in the era of hardened Phariseeism (Acts 8:27, 28). The Moabitess Ruth intermarried twice, first with a son of Naomi, then with Boaz, to become an ancestress of Jesus Christ (Ruth 1:4; 4:13, 18-21; Matt. 1:5). There is no reason to doubt that eunuchs, bastards, Ammonites, and Moabites regularly became believers and were faithful worshipers of God ... All the integrity and honesty required by the law was due to every ‘stranger’ (Lev. 19:33, 34), and it was certainly not denied to a man’s illegitimate child, nor to a eunuch, an Ammonite, or a Moabite ... There is some ground for such an interpretation in terms of Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, where the Edomites are given entrance into ‘the assembly of the LORD’ on the third genera- tion.”

 

I hope you were wide awake on this one! You should have readily recognized several anomalies in this short portion presented here. Sometimes it doesn’t take very many words to expose just what a man is thinking. Did you notice how he made our Redeemer a descendant of a Moabite? He is far from being alone on this one, as almost everyone else assumes the same thing. And this man is writing a 900 page book on Bible Law? Did you notice how he groups the bastards, eunuchs, Ammonites and Moabites all into one basket and treats them all alike, and even suggested that Edomites were to be allowed into the congregation? In one place he groups the eunuchs with the bastards together, and makes the remark their being barred from the congregation, it is to the tenth generation. I was wondering, how do you get a eunuch to the tenth generation inasmuch as he cannot have any children? Obviously, he didn’t get anything remotely like this from Scripture! Actually all of these topics should be treated separately, and this is a good illustration to show you why. Did you notice how he uses the term “stranger” as an all inclusive word, while the Hebrew in the Strong’s Concordance uses the numbers 1616, 4033, 5235, 5236, 5237, 2114, 8435, 1121 and 376 for various types of strangers? If he is using the biblical word “stranger” wrongly in the general English sense, how many other words has he taken out of context? I really hate to point someone out as an example, but we are going to have to learn to scrutinize all books, and every man’s work should be open for critical review. We dare not even trust any of the Bible translations as being 100% correct. Did you notice how he treats the eunuchs of Isaiah 56:4, 5 as proselytes, as if they were of some other race and being accepted because they are “believing eunuchs?” From this remark, it is detectable that he believes in universalism, that any race can be in the Kingdom if they just believe. And while speaking of Ammonites, did you know the Japanese of today’ are the modern day Ammonites? Alan Campbell wrote a small booklet called The Kings of The East to this fact. Also Thomas E. Plant wrote a booklet, The Japanese, Who Are They? on this very subject. In other words, it was Ammonites which attacked Pearl Harbor. The booklet by Plant tries to say the “Jews” are of Israel on page 15, otherwise his Japanese premise is quite interesting. While we are considering the various groups that could not mingle with Israel, we should include the Edomites which Rousas John Rushdoony mentions above.

 

EDOMITES FORBIDDEN TO MIX WITH ISRAEL FOREVER

 

I know instantly you are going to quote me Deuteronomy 23:7 which reads:

 

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

 

I have four reasons for believing the above passage was either added or modified from the original. All of Esau’s children were bastards (mamzers), and, therefore, verse 2 of this chapter applies to them. There is simply no way, according to verse 2, that the Edomites could qualify for entry into Yahweh’s House. Secondly, the Edomites were just as hostile to Israel as were Ammon and Moaletter-spacing: 2.5pt; b when Israel was on the march to Canaan. For this, Ammon and Moab were forbidden forever from entering Yahweh’s House (v. 4). Edom’s hostility is recorded in Numbers 20:18, 20-21:

 

“18 And Edom said unto him (Israel), Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword ... 20 And he (Edom) said, Thou shalt not go through, And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.”

 

It is obvious, from this, that Edom had treated Israel just as badly as Ammon or Moab had done. Not only this, but the Amalekites (an Edomite tribe) were the first to oppose Israel and were prophesied to be at war with Israel from generation to generation throughout history which is still going on to this very day. It is downright ludicrousness and nonsense that Israel should incorporate any Edomites among them (Exodus 17:16)! Not only this, but Saul, first king of Israel, was commissioned to kill every Amalekite (Edomite) man, woman, child and all their cattle (I Samuel 15:3). This hardly sounds like brotherly love for the Edomites to me! This is the third reason I believe Deuteronomy 23:7 was added to or altered by some scribe later on (some “Jewish” scribe, no doubt). Fourthly, the Edomites had mixed with the descendants of Cain by the time period of Deuteronomy 23. In Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten Canaanite tribes, and among them is listed an Edomite tribe of the Kenizzites. The Kenizzites are indeed of Esau. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782, has this to say of Kenaz and the Kenizzites:

“KENAZ Singular form of the clan name Kenizzite, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11; 1 Chron. 1:36), one of the chieftains of Edom (KJV Dukes) (Gen. 36:15,42; 1 Chron. 1:53).”

TEN NATIONS BECOME SEVEN

 

This is interesting and important, it seems that Esau has mixed his blood with this group of ten nations too! Now in Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten nations and they race-mixed so much that in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 there are only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group from which the “Jews” are extracted. The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, has this to say:

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

 

In the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116 we find the following 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.”

 

I have just recently found the discrepancy concerning the word “Edomite” in Deuteronomy 23:7, and I will explain and document the problem in the next teaching letter. Once I explain the problem, you’ll never again be confused with this passage. What we might think this verse says, and what it really is saying, are two different things. Once this verse is cleared up, it should create quite an explosive bomb throughout all Identity circles. It is amazing, once things like this are straightened up, how much more sense they make!

This is the twenty-third monthly teaching letter since I started to publish them in May of 1998. In the last lesson, I presented some facts on the deadly doctrine of universalism. I am planning to bring you more on this subject in future lessons. Before I finished the last lesson, I ended up getting on the subject of Esau-Edom. With this lesson, I am going to go more in depth into the subject of Esau and his progeny. I am not sure how long this will take, but I will continue until the topic is pretty well covered. Most people in Israel Identity seem to understand Edom better than they do Cain, but there is much more to understand about Esau than has been presented in the past. Before I get into this subject in detail, I will present some “facts” that are simply not true. There is nothing like getting some dead wood out of the way at the start. For those who believe the scriptures are without scribal errors, I will be showing you such an error of monumental proportions. These kinds of errors can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. Once we deal with the translation errors, then we must contend with the idioms. Unless we make an effort to understand the idioms, we will miss most of the message of Scripture. Scripture simply cannot be taken literally when idioms are involved. Every serious Bible student needs to get the small booklet Idioms Of The Bible Explained by George M. Lamsa published by Harper-Collins.

 

THE DEMISE OF EDOM 

As I promised you in my last teaching letter #22, I am going to clear up and document the problem with Deuteronomy 23:7. As I told you before, there are approximately 27,000 translation errors in our present Bibles. Some various translations by various translators have attempted to clean up many of these discrepancies, but the errors are very numerous and overwhelming. The translation of Deuteronomy 23:7 is one them. I will start by quoting this passage:

 

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

 

From this verse it would appear that we should welcome all Edomites into our congregations with open arms and with no questions asked, and that we are somehow guilty of some dire contemptible sin for even thinking an evil thought against them. I ask you: Is this not the impression which seized upon you when you read this passage for the first time? Remember the guilty, dirty, condemning feeling which came over you for even giving the Edomites the slightest hint of disparaging thought, that somehow Yahweh might suddenly kill you in your very tracks for even blinking your eye? If this has been your reaction when reading this passage in the past, forget it, for that is not what this verse is saying — not even remotely. I happened on this verse many years ago when I listened to a presentation by an Identity speaker making reference to the Edomites and using this verse as one of his points. At the time, I decided to look into the Hebrew meaning of the word for myself. I found the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible assigned the term “Edomite” the Hebrew word #130 which says:

 

“ #130 ... Edômîy, ... Edôwmîy, ed-o-mee’; patronymic [derived from father’s name] from 123; an Edomite, or descendant from (or inhabitant of) Edom:— Edomite. See 726.”

 

Inasmuch as I didn’t want to overlook anything important, and I felt there was something desperately wrong with this passage, I decided to check on the word #726 which had the following to say:

 

“ #726 ... Arôwmîy, ar-o-mee’; a clerical error for 130; an Edomite (as in the margin):— Syrian.”

 

At once this struck me (and this was about 15 years ago), for if the proper rendering was “Syrian” instead of “Edomite”, it would make all the difference in the world. Over the years, since that time, I have pointed this clerical error out to many people of our persuasion. At the time, I knew this made more sense if Deuteronomy 23:7 were to read Syrian rather than Edomite for the Syrians were Abraham’s relatives, in which case this verse would read:

 

“Thou shalt not abhor a Syrian; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

 

Over the years, I have been satisfied that the word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. I remember one party gave me a challenge and indicated that it was only a clerical error, and really didn’t mean anything. I finally came to the conclusion that it would be a hard proposition to prove and decided not to push the point openly any further. That is, until recently, when I was preparing for this lesson, I accidentally discovered what the clerical error was. I will now reveal to you how I made this discovery. As I had decided to take up the topic of Esau, I was in the process of reading anything and everything I could find on the subject. I was reading along in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom when I read this: 

 

“ ... there are places where, because of the similarity between letters ד (d) and ר  (r),  the text has wrongly read ארמ, ‘Aram’ (i.e., Syria), and ארומי, ‘Arameans’ (i.e., Syrians), for אדמ, ‘Edom’, and אדומי, ‘Edomites’, such as II Kings 16:6; II Chr. 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.”

 

Note: I have followed the Hebrew characters as faithfully as I know how to do on my computer — I may have made a mistake. In my original lesson, I enclosed my documentation on page 8 of that issue so the reader could check it against my references. The main thing to notice here is the “similarity between the letters ד (d) and ר (r).” You can see very readily, that a very small slip of the pen can change the word from Edomite to Syrian, or Syrian to Edomite. I will enlarge these two Hebrew letters and place them side by side so you can observe the difference in them: 

 

Just this very small change in the Hebrew writing, and the word can be changed from Syrian to Edomite!!! Think of it this way, syRian or eDomite. By this above slight change, the Hebrew “r” sound is changed to a “d” sound. What we have here so far is: the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible pointing out that there is a clerical error, and, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible pointing out the nature of the error. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible is actually making references to two other passages, but the principal here is the same. I will also include the Hebrew alphabet from the Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies on page 8 of this issue so you can check the phonetic sounds of these two letters. When we find discrepancies of this nature in Scripture, we are going to have to prove them by the context of the entire Bible. Deuteronomy 23:7, with the use of the term Edomite, definitely is not in scriptural context, but with the term Syrian, it is very much in context, for it fits perfectly. With all of this, we are at a loss to know whether this is an honest scribal error or a deliberate piece of sabotage by the enemy. A very short reference to the problem of confusing Syria with Edom, or confusing Edom with Syria is alluded to in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 204 which says:

 

“ ... in 2 Kings 16:6, ‘Edom’ should read for ‘Aram’ ...”

 

Let’s check this out in two different versions to get an idea of the nature of this error. Notice the underlined words in 2 Kings 16:6 in each version:

 

King James Verson: “At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.”

 

The Modern Language Bible, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English: “At that time Rezin king of Syria regained Elath for Edom, clearing the Jews completely out of Elath. So the Edomites came back to Elath and lived there to this day.” (underlining mine)

 

Now let’s try the other passage (2 Chronicles 20:2) mentioned by The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 204 quoted above on this same type of error of getting Syria mixed up with Edom:

 

King James Version: “Then there came some that told Jehoshaphat, saying, There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea on this side of Syria; and, behold they be in Hazazontamar, which is Engedi.”

 

Revised Standard Version: “Some men came and told Jehoshaphat, ‘A great multitude is coming against you from Edom, from beyond the sea; and behold they are in Hazazon-tamar’ (that is, En-gedi).”

 

You can see very readily, from the two translations on each of these two verses, how great an error can come from a slight change in the Hebrew letters. If we are truly interested in Bible history, these passages can really be confusing if we didn’t know someone had made an error and how the text should really read. Now we know something that is absolutely not true about Esau-Edom. If Yahweh says that He hates Esau and all of his progeny, we, being kinsman to Him, have the same right. As a matter of fact, to hold back this hatred and keep it within us, can and will make us mentally and physically ill.

ESAU’S PROGENY

 

Genesis 36 lists fourteen Dukes of Edom. All of these fourteen chieftains can be traced back to three of the women Esau took for his wives, Adah, Aholibamah and Bashemath. Adah was the Canaanite daughter of Elon the Hittite. Aholibamah (Oholibamah) was the Canaanite daughter of Anah, and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite. Bashemath was the daughter of Ishmael, the granddaughter of Abraham and Hagar. Some confuse Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, with Adah (Genesis 26:34-35). Maybe Adah was known by two names, but Esau only had three wives, not four, or even six as some say. Adah, the Hittite, had one male child by Esau, Eliphaz, but had six grandsons, Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, Korah and Gatam who became six of the fourteen dukes. Aholibamah, the Hivite, had three sons, Jeush, Jaalam and Korah who became three of the fourteen dukes. Amalek was a real bastard as he was both Hittite and Hivite. Amalek’s mother was Timna the Hivite, and his father was Eliphaz, the half-breed son of Esau and Adah the Hittite. Amalek was one of the fourteen dukes. Bashemath the granddaughter of Ishmael had four male children, Nahath, Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah who became four of the fourteen dukes. Esau gave his wives Hebrew names, thus making it confusing.

 

THE GENERAL OVERVIEW HISTORY OF ESAU

 

Before Esau and his brother Jacob were ever born, there was a war going on between them in their mother’s (Rebekah’s) womb. Before their birth Yahweh had informed their mother that the older should serve the younger (Genesis 25:23), and that two national groups would be separated from her inward parts. Rebekah, knowing this, never deviated from this goal. At the critical necessary points in her son’s lives, she was always there doing what she knew to be the will of Almighty Yahweh even though it didn’t conform to the normal protocol of her day. Before their conception, for Rebekah had remained childless for about nineteen years, Isaac entreated Yahweh, and she became pregnant. Led by peculiar feelings to inquire of Yahweh, Rebekah was informed that she should give birth to twins whose destiny would be as diverse as their character, and what was in those days even stranger still, that the elder should serve the younger.

Esau was the firstborn, thus the eldest of the twin brothers, (Esau and Jacob), sons of Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 25:22-26). Isaac being the son of Abraham, and Rebekah the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-aram, and also, sister to Laban the Syrian. We have no account of the early life of Esau beyond an incident or two connected with his birth, approximately 1980 B.C. As he grew up, his natural tendencies and inbred characteristics began to surface. In the process of time, the different natural endowments of the two boys began to display their effects in dissimilar aptitudes and pursuits. Quite unlike his brother Jacob who was led by his less robust makeup and quiet disposition to fulfill the duties of a shepherd’s life and occupy his time in and around his tent, Esau become a skillful and adventurous hunter, man of the field, a thorough son of the desert, a wild man who was worldly minded and materialistic, only being concerned about his immediate desires and needs. Esau showed his lack of concern for the Covenant promises by marrying two local girls who were not closely related to the people of Abraham. The mixed marriages caused grief to Esau’s parents, particularly his mother. It is not possible to have two brothers more unalike in every respect both mentally and physically than these two were. One wonders how they could even have been of the same race.

The first born of Isaac and Rebekah, and the twin brother of Jacob, Esau became the forefather of the Edomites. He was given the name Esau because of his unusual “red” appearance at birth, but got the name Edom (meaning “red”) from the red lentil stew for which he sold his birthright. This color “red”, the descendants of Esau were destined to carry through time immemorial. The color red has followed Esau right down to the Communism of this very day. There is more to be said about the color red, but I will save that for later.

In a hunter’s life there is much uncertainty as well as hardship; many days pass in which the greatest and most strenuous exertions are required to stalk the game. Hunters in the days of Esau had little in the way of the equipment known to us today. Much more expertise was required in order to get close enough to get off a deadly shot with their primitive bows and arrows. No doubt, the disappointed hunter came home many times without anything to show for his futile efforts. Esau had on one occasion experienced such a disappointment, and, wearied with his fruitless efforts, completely exhausted and overcome with hunger and for want of sustenance, and despondent, desperate and forlorn from not killing any prey, he was anxious beyond all measure to turn his steps hurriedly toward home where he could recuperate from the tiring chase and find rest.

On this particular day, Esau being tired and hungry, came alone from the field while Jacob was boiling up some red lentil stew. In response to Esau’s desperate demanding request, “Quick, quick. please share with me some of the red stew you are cooking.” Jacob, quickly observing and sizing up the situation and recognizing Esau’s weakened and desperate need, at once realized the time was an opportune moment to strike. The same spirit seized him which caused him to grab onto Esau’s heel at birth in an effort to pull him back so he could be born first instead of his brother. Jacob realized it was now the ideal time to make his move. Jacob very manipulatively stated to Esau a conditional contract. “For your birthright, I will share with you this red stew.” Jacob saw the urgency which Esau was in, and determined not to let it pass idly by. Accordingly, Jacob put a price on the required food. Esau was the elder, and had, in consequence, immunities and privileges which were quite high in value, especially the headship of the family or tribe, and the possession of the great bulk of the family property, and carried with if the Covenant blessing (Genesis 27:28, 29, 36; Hebrews 12:16, 17). Urged by the craving of extreme hunger, alarmed even by the fear of death, Esau would sell his birthright to his younger brother, even confirming the contract by the sanction of an oath. Because the birthright would not take effect for many years in the future, and Esau being very materialistic, and not valuing the birthright to any great degree, made the agreement with Jacob and sold it for the red pottage. Having no appreciation for sacred (set apart) things, namely, the promise by Yahweh to Abraham concerning the seed through which all the Israel nations were promised to be blessed, Esau impetuously, by swearing an oath, sold his birthright to Jacob for one meal of lentil stew and bread. Jacob having thus gotten his price, supplied the famished Esau with the needed refreshments to recover his sp class=trength. By thus despising the birthright; viewing it as of little value, Esau showed a complete lack of appreciation for things sacred (set apart) to his family.

When Esau saw Jacob sent away to obtain a wife from his mother’s relatives, he understood that the Canaanite wives he had married did not please his parents. Esau showed his ultimate lack of concern and consideration for the Covenant promises of Yahweh by intermarrying with two local girls who were not closely related to the ancestors of Abraham (Genesis 26:34, 35; 36:1, 2). The mixed marriages caused inordinate grief, anxiety and distress, “a source of bitterness of spirit”, to both Isaac and Rebekah, Esau’s parents; especially his mother (Genesis 26:35). At the age of forty, he married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34). Actually it was a Hittite and a Hivite. Arriving, then, at the age of maturity, being forty years of age, he married Adah and Aholibamah. Actually, Esau made his own arrangements for these marriages which was something unusual in those days, and on account of their origin, they were not acceptable to Isaac and Rebekah. To say the least, some unhappy feelings appear to have previously existed in the family, and these marriages by Esau didn’t improve family matters any.

When Isaac was grown old and feeble and advanced in years, he realized in the consciousness of his approaching death, that he desired to give his blessing to his older son, Esau. The time for the fulfillment of the compact between the brothers at length arrived. At this juncture of time, Isaac is ‘sick unto death’, but still fully aware of the import of his responsibility of his older son’s inheritance as the Law required. At this crucial point, in the state of Isaac’s family affairs, Isaac already knew the Law required him to pass the inheritance on to Esau even though he had married Hittite and Hivite wives who were a grief of mind to him and Rebekah. When a person is stricken with a grief of mind, their whole world is pulled out from under them. It is a state of living in which nothing seems to be worthwhile anymore, a total withdrawal into overwhelming and crushing disappointment. In spite of this, he was fully ready to pass his blessing on to the mixed descendants of Esau to become the heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant. Upon fulfillment of the blessing by Isaac, the people of Esau-Edom would have become the chosen people of Yahweh. Isaac was aware of the full ramifications and consequences of the outcome of his actions. In order to forestall the inevitable, he sent for Esau, requesting him to bring him some savory venison which he loved so well, although, in his weakened condition, he probably didn’t have a very healthy appetite. Isaac knew very well that this could take some time to acquire, on the part of Esau, perhaps several days. No doubt the thought of his blessing going to Esau and his Canaanite wives was no comfort to his troubled mind. His appetite as well as his strength having failed, he is only to be thwarted by provocatives and reasons for anger. It would seem that if Isaac was anxious to pass the blessing on to Esau, he would have completed that first, and then sent Esau after some venison. But Esau proceeded to do this with the view that he would be receiving the blessing as firstborn, though he actually was no longer entitled to that blessing by reason of his having sold his birthright. Thus, he was willing to break his oathbound covenant made with Jacob at the sale of his birthright. In this action, Esau became just as much a supplanter as Jacob. If Esau had been completely honest with Isaac, his father, he would have informed him, at the time, of the former event in which he sold his birthright to Jacob. Esau ought to have told his father that the blessing did not rightly belong to him, that, in fact, he had sold it to his brother. But he did not. On this dilemma, Rebekah began to feel that the critical time for action had come, for she fully remembered the promise of Yahweh that the elder would serve the younger. Recalling what Yahweh had said to her before the birth of her twins, Rebekah was ready to intervene, advising Jacob to present himself before his father as Esau and thus procure the blessing which was rightfully his. Because Esau did not honestly inform Isaac of the sale, this put Rebekah into a bind, for then she would have been considered a betrayer of both of her son’s to their father. If the hated Hittites were not to enter along with her less favored son into possession of the family property, the dedication of the birthright must, in some way, not be confirmed and consummated upon Esau as Isaac was planning to do. It was now time for Rebekah to frustrate this plan, and in some way, secure the inheritance for Jacob. One particular remains at this point — the father’s blessing. If this should be given to Esau and his progeny, all hope was gone; for this, like our modern wills, would deed the inheritance and the accompanying family headship to the tribe of Esau and his wives. It was now time for Rebekah to use her cooking skills to make goat taste like savory venison.

All the while, Rebekah was listening to every word, and heard all that Isaac had said to Esau during their father to son conversation. Rebekah realized it would be better (in fact, it was expedient) for Jacob to have the blessing rather than Esau. Not only this, she loved Jacob much more than Esau. She wasted no time in calling Jacob, to inform him what Isaac had said to Esau, and she said: “Now, my son, do that which I tell you and you will receive the blessing instead of your brother. Go now to the flocks and bring me two kids from the goats: and I will cook them in the same manner as the meat Esau cooks for your father. And you will present it to your father; and he will think that you are Esau, and will thus give you the blessing; which in reality belongs to you.” But Jacob said: “But you are aware that Esau and I are not alike. His neck and arms are all covered with hair, while mine are quite smooth. Therefore, my father will feel of me, and he will discover that I am not Esau; and then, instead of giving me a blessing, I am fearful that he will more likely curse me.” But Rebekah answered Jacob her son, “Never you mind, you do as I have instructed you, and if something goes wrong, I will intercede for you and inform your father of the sale in which Esau sold his birthright to you, and your father will have no alternative but to follow through by blessing you. If any harm comes, it will come upon me; so do not be afraid, but go now and bring the meat.”

On Rebekah’s direction, Jacob proceeded and brought a pair of small kids from the flock, and from them his mother prepared a dish of delicious tasty food, so that it would be to his taste buds very similar to the way Isaac liked it. Then Rebekah brought some of Easu’s clothes, and dressed Jacob in them; placing on his neck and hands some skins of the kids which Jacob had slaughtered from the flock, so that Jacob’s neck and hands might feel rough and hairy to Isaac’s touch.

Then Jacob came into his father’s tent, walking much in the manner Esau might approach , carefully bringing the prepared dinner and disguising his voice to sound like Esau as much as he could, and said: “Here I am my father.” And Isaac replied, “Who are you, my son?” Jacob answered Isaac, and said: “I am Esau, your eldest son, and I have done as you asked me; now sit up and eat the dinner which I have prepared; and then give me your blessing, as you promised on my leaving you would do.” And Isaac replied: “How is it you have found it and returned so quickly my son?” Jacob then answered, “Because Yahweh singular-Elohim, your Mighty One, showed me where I should go and gave me expeditious success.” Isaac did not feel quite sure this was Esau, his firstborn son, and said, “Come nearer unto me and let me feel you, so I might know for sure you are really my son Esau.” And Jacob drew closer to Isaac’s bed, and Isaac felt his face and his neck along with his hands and said: “The voice seems like that of Jacob, but the hands are those of Esau. Are you really my eldest son, Esau?” With this, Jacob again continued to deceive his father, and said, “I am.” Then Isaac, in the blindness of his old age, ate the food that Jacob had brought to him, and he affectionately kissed Jacob, believing he was kissing Esau, and he gave to Jacob the blessing which Esau so earnestly sought for. In blessing Jacob he proclaimed the following: “May Yahweh give you the dew of heaven and the riches of the earth and plenty of grain and wine. May nations bow down to you and become your servants. May your mother’s male descendants bow down to you , and may you be the master over your brother; and may your family and descendants that come from you rule over his family and his descendants. And Blessed be those that bless you, and cursed be those that curse you.” No sooner had Jacob received the blessing of inheritance, than he rose and hastened from Isaac’s presence.

Upon Jacob’s departure from Isaac, Esau suddenly returned bringing his dish of food that he had cooked, and said: “Let my father incline and eat of the venison I have for you, so you may grant me my blessing.” And Isaac said, “Why, who are you?” Esau replied, “I am your oldest son, your son Esau.” Isaac replied with much consternation, and said, “Who then is the one that came before and brought me food? And I have eaten his food and have blessed him; yes, and he shall be blessed.” Upon hearing this Esau knew that he had been cheated; and cried aloud, with a bitter cry, “O my father, my brother has taken away my blessing, just as he took away my birthright.” (Is this the first time Isaac had heard about Esau selling Jacob the birthright? If so, Jacob could not have conferred upon Esau the blessing in such a case anyway, as Esau had no legal standing.). “But cannot you give me a blessing also? Have you given everything you have to my brother?” Thereupon Isaac related to him all that he had said to Jacob. He said, “I have told Jacob that he shall be the ruler, and that all his brethren and their children will be under him. I have promised him the richest land for his crops and rains from heaven to make them grow. Now that all these things have already been spoken, they must come to pass. What is there left worthwhile for me to promise you, my son?” After Esau had begged urgently for a leftover blessing, Isaac said: “My son, your dwelling place shall be in the riches of the earth and of the dew of heaven. By your sword shall you live and your descendants shall serve Jacob’s descendants. but in a future time, they will break the yoke of Jacob’s rule and shall free themselves.”

In researching for this lesson, I have noticed something which I have never pondered before. I become aware that Rebekah was the leading light in all of these events. Not only was Isaac blind to what was going on in his family, but he blindly demanded that Esau should receive the birthright and the blessing regardless of his marriage situation with the Hittites and Hivites. It was not until Rebekah declared her stand on the racial issue that Isaac finally woke up. Rebekah stated, Genesis 27:46:

 

“And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: If Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?”

 

After Rebekah made this outstanding and demanding statement, in the very next verse (Genesis 28:1), both Isaac and Rebekah are in mutual agreement. I believe when the Rebekahs of our people finally take a stand on racial issues, we will finally see a change in our respective lands for the better. This verse is where Isaac finally takes a definite stand himself. Maybe when we can get both the fathers and mothers in agreement, there will be great strides for the better. Let’s read this verse:

 

“And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him and charged him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.”

 

I know in Genesis 26:35, speaking of the Hittite and Hivite wives of Esau, it says:

 

“Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.”

 

Because the book of Genesis is not particularly written in chronological order, I believe a scribe added this last verse which is placed before the fact. It almost appears like a marginal note which was later added to the main text.

We should ask other questions: Would Isaac have really pronounced such blessings upon Esau with his Hittite and Hivite wives along with their crossbred descendants?, or was Isaac more aware of what was going on, and only pretended to play Rebekah’s and Jacob’s game? If Esau’s wives were a “grief of mind” to him as stated in (Genesis 26:35), would he really have blessed their descendants? It is obvious the old man had a lot more savvy in his old age than it first would appear. Maybe what he lost in his eyesight, he gained in hearing. Why would Isaac determine to bless Esau, then turn around and instruct Jacob not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan (Genesis 28:1)? Isaac knew full well that Esau had taken wives of the Canaanites before the episode concerning the blessing. After considering these possibilities, I still contend that Isaac fully intended to confer the blessing of the birthright upon Esau in spite of his wives, and that if it had not been for Rebekah’s maneuvering, Jacob would never have received the birthright and the blessing. Although it is not recorded, I believe Rebekah may have had something to do with Jacob asking Esau to sell it, by planting the idea in Jacob’s mind.

Thus deprived forever of his legal family birthright, and in virtue of the now unalterable blessing to Jacob, Esau began to entertain a hatred for Jacob which would become a natural enmity between the descendants of Esau and the descendants of Jacob and would last throughout time immemorial. Esau resolved within himself to seize the first opportunity after the days of mourning his father’s death for slaying his brother. Words to this effect were overheard and reported to Rebekah his mother, who thereupon instructed her younger son to flee to his uncle Laban, who lived in Haran, and that he should continue there for some time. Or, at least, until Esau’s wrath was fully dissipated. Later, Esau would reconcile with Jacob, but the old hatred would surface again from time to time. Later they had an amicable reunion after which Jacob went on to Canaan, and Esau went back to the region of Edom. Esau, who lost his birthright and blessing, forfeited the rights of the firstborn forever. In the providence of Yahweh, Esau was made subservient to Jacob. In Hebrews 12:16, 17 he is described as a profane person. Long after Esau’s death, Yahweh declared he loved Jacob and hated Esau (Malachi 1:2, 3).

This should give you a pretty good general overview of the story of Esau, but all of this is only just a generalization and there is much more intrigue to this story than has been presented here. Now that we have a general overview of the story, we will go over it in very fine detail. You might wonder, what more could be said? There is a lot more to Esau’s story than what is presented in the Bible.

 

ESAU IS THE GREAT “RED” DRAGON OF REVELATION 12:3

 

While the serpent of Revelation 12:3 represents the entity which seduced Eve, the great dragon represents Esau as he is called the “great red dragon” in verse three of this chapter. Although the “Jews” we know today have, for the most part, both the blood of Cain and Esau flowing in their veins along with other entities It is almost impossible to get anything creditable from Bible commentaries on this passage, but I found one that was somewhat reasonable although most of his comments cannot be trusted. I will now quote the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald on Revelation chapter 12 on page 2369:

“A great sign appeared in heaven, namely, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. The woman is Israel. The sun, moon and stars depict the glory and dominion which has been promised to her in the coming kingdom, just as they pictured Joseph’s ultimate rule over his father, mother, and brothers ... The Woman is in labor, awaiting the birth of a baby (Yahshua). Much of the history of Israel is telescoped in these verses, with no indication that time gaps exist, or that events are necessarily in chronological order ... A second sign in heaven is a fiery red dragon ... The dragon is ready to devour the Child as soon as He is born — fulfilled in the attempt of Herod the Great, vassal of Rome, to destroy the newborn King [to be]. The male Child is clearly Yahshua, destined to rule all [His] nations with a rod of iron. The record here jumps from His birth to His Ascension.”

 

To Impress upon you just how important this story of Esau is, had Esau gotten the birthright along with the blessing, he would have been in the line of, and an ancestor of the Messiah. This makes every move and countermove in this story very important. The slightest little change in this episode could have changed our entire Israelite destiny. With Esau’s Hittite and Hivite wives, the Cain-Satanic seedline would have been incorporated into Yahshua’s lineage. Someone other than Mary would have had to have been the virgin mother of Yahshua. Our Israel family would never have been under the Covenant, nor would we be Yahweh’s chosen people above all the people of the earth. And last, and most important of all, with Esau’s mixed line, there could never have been a Kinsman Redeemer. Had this story changed in any way, there would be no future life for us.

Note: When I originally presented this teaching letter in printed form, I included photocopies of the passage found in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 24 and #130 and #726 from the Strong’s Concordance. Sorry that it cannot be reproduced here.

This ministry is growing like a skyrocket and I am going to have to make some changes. Therefore, this will be the last Watchman’s Teaching Letter with this format. Due to necessity, I need to cut expenses. To give you a brief financial report: about 3% of you are supporting the larger part of this ministry, with about another 3% carrying their own weight. At present, I have about 325 names on my list. The way it is growing, there could be close to 500 by the end of this year. (If there are any of you who are discarding my letters without reading them for some reason or other, please notify me so I may take you off of my mailing list, and thereby, I may be able replace you with someone else!) I have been testing out different fonts and formats, and find that I can get all the present contents of my letters on two pages (front and back). By doing this, I will be able to send you two teaching letters in one mailing for 33¢. After this issue, you will receive my mailings every second month. This will allow me to cut my expenses by 50%, and you will still receive the same amount of teaching materials as usual. This is the twenty-fourth monthly teaching letter which I have produced since I started publishing them May, 1998. Each year at the end of April, I bind the last 12 issues into a yearbook. This next yearbook will contain twelve issues from May 1, 1999 to April 1, 2000. This will be my second completed yearbook of my monthly teaching letters. These teaching letters are written in such a manner as they won’t go out of date; they will be just as relevant and pertinent any time in the future as they are at present. You will be able to purchase these back yearbooks at any time from me. You may well ask: What is the purpose for my publishing these teaching letters anyway? The answer to this question is: I am duty bound by Yahweh’s Law to witness to the truth to the best of my ability as I understand it. In other words, if I know a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed or there is a danger of a crime about to be committed, if I do not witness to what I know, I become as guilty as the person/s committing the crime. In this case, we are not talking about a single individual crime, we are talking about tens of thousands of crimes. Everyone who understands the “Jewish” conspiracy has this same obligation. I go a step farther; I prove from the scriptures just who the enemy is and what his primary motive is. Some spiritually project this enemy a thousand years into the future, but I maintain he is with us today! The news of these crimes has been withheld from the public by the usual news media and history writers of the past. The law concerning the witness of a crime is found in Leviticus 5:1 which reads: 

“And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.”

 

If we do not comply with this command, it becomes a very serious violation of Yahweh’s Law on our part. I, for one, do not want to found equally guilty for another person’s crime. A second Scripture which commands us to expose the truth is found in Ephesians 5:11, which says:

 

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

 

The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith says this on page 132:

 

“... such an one shall bear his iniquity — shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, and must expect to be punished for hiding the iniquity with which he was acquainted.”

 

In the last letter (#23), I started a series on the subject of Esau. In that lesson, I proved the passage in Deuteronomy 23:7 to be in error. As it turns out, it is the Syrian we are not to abhor, instead the Edomite. Then I gave a general overview of the story of Esau. If you don’t have a copy of that lesson, you will need it to bring yourself up-to-date on this lesson.

THE DEMISE OF EDOM

 

In the last lesson, I was explaining how Esau married three wives, a Hittite, a Hivite and Ishmael’s daughter. From these three wives there came fourteen dukes of Edom. I had a person bring to my attention that these Hittite and Hivite wives of Esau were descendants of Ham, and therefore they were white people. Now it is true that the Hittites are descendants of Heth, the second son of Canaan (Gen. 10:15), and therefore descendants of white Ham, the Hivites are somewhat similar and are of Canaan also (Gen. 10:16), the son of Ham. You may wonder, what does Esau have to do with all this? In order to understand the relation of Esau to Canaan, the son of Ham, we really have to understand the origin of Canaan. If we don’t have a good foundation for the genealogy of Esau to set all the building blocks in place, we will never understand his story in its proper sense.

 

CANAAN BORN OF INCEST

 

It all starts with the passage found in Genesis 9:22:

 

“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

 

Ham had several other children that could have been mentioned in this verse, but why was Canaan singled out from the rest? There is a very good reason, for Ham, like Reuben later, had incest with his father’s wife; or in other words, his mother. From this union Canaan was born. This was the reason for the curse that Noah placed upon Canaan. Curses like these are very serious as they will follow all the offspring of that person forever. This was no light matter! You will notice that none of the rest of Ham’s children had a curse placed on them! We can prove that this is what happened in this passage of Scripture by referring to Leviticus 18:7-8:

 

“7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.”

 

It was not Noah’s personal nakedness that Ham looked upon, but the nakedness of his mother. Genesis 9:22 is a passage, that when you refer to the various commentaries, concordances and dictionaries of the Bible, you will find nothing but confusion. But for the passage, Leviticus 18:7, 8, the commentators are a little more responsive. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 99 has this to say about this passage:

 

“The nakedness of thy father. These laws were addressed to men. Hence this verse contains a prohibition not against incest between father and daughter, but against incest between son and mother only. The shame brought upon the mother was brought also upon the father. As they were of one flesh (Gen. 2:24), any act committed against the mother could be considered to have been likewise committed against the father.”

 

One other thing should be mentioned here: the book of Genesis is not necessarily written entirely in chronological order. When Moses was recording all of this at a much later time, he was looking back at these things. Obviously Noah didn’t curse Canaan immediately on learning of this incident with Ham, for at the time, he could not have known whether or not Ham had caused his mother to become pregnant. But somewhere in the space of time, probably at the birth of Canaan, he pronounced his curse. Because Genesis 2:24 is mentioned in this last reference, let’s take a look at it and see what it has to say:

 

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

 

“Flesh” is the Hebrew word #1320 in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible and is described as follows:

 

“#1320 ... bâsâr, baw-sawr’; from 1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extension body, person; also (by euphemism) the pudenda of a man: — body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind + nakedness, self, skin.”

 

Now let’s check in The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary to see the meaning of the word “pudenda.” You will find it spelled “pudendum” in most dictionaries:

 

“Pudendum ... (1) The external genital parts of the female; vulva. (2) The external genitals of either sex ... [Latin neuter of pudendus, gerundive of pudere to be ashamed] ...”

 

I know this is sort of graphic, but I believe from all of this, we can better understand what was involved concerning the episode when it says, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father. It’s the Hebrew way of saying, he looked upon the nakedness of his mother. To prove that the word flesh can mean “pudenda” or the genitals of both a male or female, I will cite the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 13th and 19th verses of the 15th chapter of Leviticus (truly, you need to read the entire chapter):

 

“Verse 2: When any man hath a running issue out of his pudenda ... Verse 3: And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his pudenda run with his issue, or his pudenda be stopped from his issue ... Verse 7: And he that toucheth the pudenda of him that hath the issue ... Verse 13 ... and bathe his pudenda in running water ... Verse 19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her pudenda be blood ...”

 

You can see very clearly that we have to learn to read the scriptures in the correct context of their true setting, as the words being used may only be a substitution of a genteel expression for an unpleasant or offensive one. This is called a euphemism, or genteelism. In other words, the word “flesh” is a euphemism, and in the case above literally means “the pudenda” of a man or a woman. Many times we miss the entire meaning of passages, lacking understanding of an euphemism when we encounter it. If we understand these euphemisms, then we can understand why Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. And later, we can also understand what kind of “aprons” they made, and what part of their body they were trying to hide. It’s one thing to find the various Hebrew and Greek meanings of the words, but it is quite another thing to put them in their proper context with the Scripture involved. In order to understand the context, one must have a working understanding of how any one passage fits with the rest of the scriptures. If one finds a conflict with other passages, his mental context has to be wrong. The above application is a good case in point.

 

NOAH’S CURSE UPON CANAAN AND ALL HIS DESCENDANTS

 

By the actions of Ham, we find a curse placed by Noah (and Noah had every right to do so as the head of his family) upon the child Canaan and all his descendants forever, born of the incestuous union, Genesis 9:25:

 

“And he (Noah) said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

 

This was no idle threat against Canaan, for Yahweh had just caused a flood to eliminate this sort of thing. The reason the curse was on Canaan instead of Ham is because Canaan was the product of Ham’s union with his mother. When we understand the nature of Noah’s curse, we can then also understand why the other members of Noah’s family would refuse to intermarry with Canaan’s offspring. The only way Canaan could obtain a wife would be to take one of the non-Adamic heathen women in the area where they were dwelling, and this is just what Canaan and his descendants did. With this curse, Canaan and his descendants were effectively banished from the rest of the family. Momentarily, put yourself in the place of the members of Noah’s family. Would you want to marry your sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters to Canaan’s issue and thus they would come under Noah’s curse also? While we are on the subject of Noah, let’s take a look at what was going on just previous to the flood, and Yahweh’s reason for bringing it about. We will find it in The Book Of Jasher (which book is mentioned twice in our present Bibles), chapter 4, verse 18:

 

“And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.”

 

This should give us some background on the reason for Noah’s curse on Canaan. You have to understand that Noah and his family had witnessed all this interracial mixture and crossbreeding of the plants and animals. Noah had to make a very quick and hard judgment upon this situation to prevent it from happening again. You can be sure that the rest of the family of Noah sat up and took attentive notice of this pronounced curse upon Canaan, and reminded their children for many generations concerning this thing. But we have forgotten, for this is exactly the same thing we are witnessing in our own day. Not only do we have the intermarriage of the races, but the scientists are experimenting with genetic engineering. An article dated Saturday, January 29, 3:03 PM ET on Yahoo News, Associated Press, titled “Deal Reached on Biotech foods”, Montreal (AP). Where the U.N. is trying to produce rules governing genetically engineered products. I cannot go into all the details here, but on page 2 of this report it says: Genetically modified crops are already widespread. About 70 million acres of genetically engineered plants were cultivated worldwide in 1999. In the United States, genetically engineered varieties account for about 25% of corn and 40% of soybeans. On page 1 of this report is says: The protocol is intended to protect the environment from damage due to genetically modified organisms. Environmentalists and some scientists worry that bioengineered plants, animals and bacteria could wipe out native strains or spread their genetic advantages to weeds and other undesirable species ... “There’re fish genes in fruit, poultry genes in fish, animal genes in plants, growth hormones in milk, insect genes in vegetables, tree genes in grain and in the case of pork, human genes in meat”, said Steve Gilman, an organic farmer in Stillwater, N.Y. It seems there is nothing new under the sun.

 

WHERE COULD CANAAN HAVE GOTTEN A WIFE?

 

It is obvious that Canaan could not have gotten a wife from Noah’s family with this curse upon him. Where, then, could Canaan have gotten his wife and or wives? For this I am going to quote The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton, Genesis 10:5, 20, 31:

 

“5 From these they (the sons of Japheth) spread themselves over the sea-coasts of the countries of the nations, each with their language amongst the gentile (non-Adamic) tribes ... 20 These were the sons of Ham in their tribes and languages, in the regions of the heathen ... 31 These are the sons of Shem, by their tribes and by their languages, in their countries among the heathen.”

 

As Noah and his family members were the only surviving White people on the earth of pure blood after the flood, the only place for Canaan to have gotten a wife is from the nonwhite heathen in Ham’s area. The way Ferrar Fenton translates Genesis 10, the flood couldn’t have drowned all the people on the earth as promoted in some circles. Now that we know from where Canaan could have gotten a wife, let’s examine some archaeological proof concerning the Hittites which were Canaan’s descendants through Heth. I will be quoting from Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, chapter 3 entitled “The Hittites”, pages 74-75:

 

“The more our knowledge of the Hittites grows, the less simple seems the problem of their racial affinities. Some features of their speech clearly resemble features of the Indo-European family of languages, but other features would seem to denote Tartar affinities ... Two distinct types of faces are there portrayed. One type has high cheek bones, oblique (slanting) eyes, and wears a pigtail, like the people of Mongolia and China; the other has a clean-cut head and face which resemble somewhat the early Greeks ... Among the Hittite allies Semitic Amorites are also pictured. These have receding foreheads and projecting beards ... The tablet on which the chronicle was written was inscribed in the Persian of late Babylonian period, but there is evidence that it was copied from an earlier original. If its statement is true, the Hittites had made their appearance in history and were prepared to mingle in that melee (mêlée; medley - a mingled and confused mass) of the races which occurred when the first dynasty of Babylon was overthrown ... It may well be that Indo-Europeans followed by Mongols came about 2100 or 2000 into this region, or that the Mongols were there earlier and that the Indo-Europeans then came. In the resultant civilization it would seem, from the information that we have, there was a mingling of the two races.”

 

For more information corroborating that the ten nations mentioned in Genesis 15:19-21 were such a mixed race as described here above can be confirmed by the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116. This group of nations included the Hittites and the Canaanites, both having the curse of Noah on them, and any others with whom they intermarried:

 

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

 

In Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten nations and they race-mixed so much that in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 there are only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group from which the “Jews” of today are extracted. As you can begin to see, the seedline of Cain was beginning to mix with the line of Canaan, born-of-incest, and of course, among this group were the Hittites and the Canaanites. 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.”

 

Let’s now take a look at Genesis 15:19 and see what kind of a mixture of races were developing at this period of time in Palestine. In order to get a better portrayal we will include verses 18 through 21:

 

“18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

 

One of these nations among the Canaanites were the Kenites (#7017) which were descendants of Cain. Being that Cain was of the Satanic seedline, he would infect his Satanic blood among all these nations mentioned in this passage. Both the curse of Cain (Genesis 3:14) and the curse of Noah (Genesis 9:25) would come on these intermixed peoples. This is what it would take eventually four hundred years to accomplish.

There is one other nation among these ten nations worth mentioning, the Kenizzites as they are related to Esau who married into the Hittites and Hivites bringing the curse of Noah on his children by these two of his three wives. This particular nation would be from the union of Esau and his Hittite wife, Adah. Here is what Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 1, page 38 has to say about the Kenizzites:

 

“The Kenizzites, thought to be the Idumeans, who sprung from Kenaz of Esau’s race. But it seems not to agree with Deut. ii. 5, where God expressly said to the Israelites concerning the Idumeans, I will give you none of their lands, &c.”

 

As Kenaz was only one of the fourteen dukes of Edom, this statement about agreeing with Deuteronomy 2:5 is superfluous. The Kenizzites are indeed of Esau. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782, has this to say of Kenaz and the Kenizzites:

 

“KENAZ Singular form of the clan name Kenizzite, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11; 1 Chron. 1:36), one of the chieftains of Edom (KJV Dukes) (Gen. 36:15, 42; 1 Chron. 1:53).”

 

Some may wonder why the Kenizzites are named before the apparent time of Esau. It is a matter of “predictive prophecy.” You have to consider that Moses wrote all of this after the fact, and that all of the scriptures are not necessarily in chronological order. Later, all these groups mentioned in Genesis 15:19-21, became politically related to the composite group generally termed Judah. (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. K-Q, page 6)

 

PARALLEL WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF LOT

 

The other famous case of incest in Scripture involved the daughters of Lot. To understand the similarity of this story, it is necessary to comprehend the background of the story of Lot. Lot was the son of Haran and nephew of Abraham (Abram), who by the premature death of his father had already come into his inheritance, and when Abraham decided to go to the land of Canaan, (Genesis 11:31), Lot united his substance, consisting chiefly in cattle, which was not then too large to prevent them from living together in the same encampment. Eventually, however, their possessions increased so greatly, they were pressured to separate company, whereupon after some quarreling among their respective shepherds, they agreed to part. Part of their problem came from the fact that not only did Abraham and Lot both need more land for their cattle to graze, but there were, then, also Canaanite shepherds in the land with whom to compete. Lot then took advantage of the generosity of his uncle, as he demanded the better more bountifully watered land by fixing his abode toward Sodom. This decision on Lot’s part would prove, in time, his family’s undoing.

About eight years after Lot and Abraham separated due to the lack of land for their cattle, Lot was carried away prisoner by Chedorlaomer, along with the other residents of Sodom, whereupon Abraham raised an army and proceeded to rescue them. Abraham charged upon the enemies during the night while they were asleep, and chased them away so suddenly that they left behind everything including their armor, and ran far into the mountains. In their camp Abraham found his nephew, his wife and his daughters with all their goods safe and secure. This exploit secured for Abraham much renown and prestige among the Canaanites, which also should have procured for Lot the respect and gratitude of the people of Sodom, who, by Abraham’s effort, delivered them from slavery and also restored for them their homes and belongings. This does not appear to have been the case.

As I was preparing this lesson, I thought to myself: I wonder who Lot’s wife was? where did he get her? Surely he didn’t get her from among these people of Sodom! As usual, I was looking up everything I could find on the subject of this lesson. I was reading in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume K-Q, page 162:

 

“Although the narrative in Genesis 12:10-20 does not explicitly state that Lot accompanied Abram and Sarai to Egypt, the three are named together upon their return to Palestine (Genesis 13:1) Moreover, the Dead Sea Scrolls Genesis Apocryphon xx. 11, 33, 34, has Lot not only accompanying Abram into Egypt, but also functioning as spokesman to Pharaoh’s agent (lines 22, 24), acquiring great possessions, and obtaining a wife (line 34).”

 

This is becoming very interesting, for it was on this very same occasion that Abraham and Sarah procured the Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar, who, in time, became mother of Ishmael, who in turn had a daughter named Bashemath, whom Esau married. So we know from this, Lot didn’t marry among the people of Sodom. We will be getting back to this information as we get deeper into the study of Esau.

You will remember that Lot, the nephew of Abraham, chose for himself the area of Sodom for his dwelling place and lived there in the presence of very wicked and sexually perverted men, and their tolerance of evil became disastrous. You will recall also, how Lot was carried away a prisoner when the city of Sodom was taken captive by its enemies and how Lot was rescued by Abram. In spite of all that had happened, Lot returned to Sodom to take up his residence there once again; and he found himself there when the angels which had been at Abraham’s tent came to Sodom. Two of the angels who had been entertained by Abraham went into Sodom looking for ten just men that the city might be saved from destruction. But, after searching, the only just man they could find was Lot himself. Lot brought the angels, who had the appearance of ordinary men, into his home, and hosted them in the custom of that day, and treated them as honored guests with a delicious meal.

No sooner had they finished their late evening meal than all the men of Sodom began to gather around Lot’s home. For when the men of Sodom found there were strangers in Lot’s house, men of a desirable physique, they assembled in front of the house standing in the street and tried in every conceivable manner to entice them to come out to them. Lot knew the men of Sodom were wanting the men for sexual purposes, and offered his two young virgin daughters to the men of Sodom in place of the angels. Not having natural desires, the men of Sodom refused Lot his offer. After Lot did not yield to their desires, the men of Sodom tried to break Lot’s door open and force their way into the house where the two young men were. Just before the men of Sodom broke Lot’s door down, to lay their hands on the two angels, the two angels struck them instantly blind. In spite of being blind, the men of Sodom continued to feel their way around in the dark for the door and still tried to make entrance into Lot’s house for the two angels who appeared as young men.

At this point, the angels instructed Lot: Roundup immediately all the members of your family and get them out of this city, for this very night, this city, with all of its inhabitants, is going to fry. Knowing this, Lot proceeded to the homes where the two young men lived who were betrothed to his daughters and informed them of the peril they were in. But these his two son-in-laws, the legal husbands to be of his daughters, refused his seemingly alarmist message, making only derisive replies. At last, as morning was approaching, the two angels urged Lot to hasten, and get his wife and daughters to quickly depart so they would not be destroyed along with the city. But Lot was hesitant to leave the home he had made for himself in Sodom along with anticipated future grandchildren through the marriages of his sons-in-law to his daughters, and all his belongings he had worked so hard to accumulate. So the two angels finally took hold on Lot, his two daughters and his Egyptian wife, and literally dragged them from the city before it was destroyed. One of the angels then instructed Lot and his immediate family to escape for their lives, and what ever they did, not to look back behind them; also not to stop or linger in the plain; but climb up the mountain quickly so they would not be destroyed!

As soon as Lot and his family were at a safe distance from Sodom, Yahweh caused a rain of fire to fall upon Sodom and the other cities of the plain. In addition to the fire came huge clouds of sulfur and smoke covering the entire plain, the cities being destroyed along with all the people in them; not a single man, woman or child escaping this great inferno of destruction. Last of all, Lot’s wife lingering behind a bit to rest, and looking back toward Sodom, found herself being pelted by millions of particles of salt and sulfur residue congealing around her until she became totally encrusted with it standing in her tracks. There is one other reason why Lot’s wife looked back toward Sodom. It is recorded in The Book of Jasher, chapter 19, verse 52, that she had other “daughters who remained in Sodom.” When we consider all the aspects of this story, it really is a sad one.

Lot and his daughters became so frightened and terrified at all this destruction, and out of fear of further fire and brimstone, they decided not to stay at Zoar, a city in the plain that was spared by Yahweh to give them a place to reside, and they continued on up into the mountains and found a cave to live in. Lot ended up losing his wife and all his earthly possessions because of his decision to pitch his tent toward Sodom. After some time at this place in the mountain cave, the daughters of Lot became somewhat apprehensive that the family of their father should be lost for lack of male descendants, a situation which was considered a calamity of great magnitude in those days. From their vantage point, except for the city of Zoar, it appeared to them that the whole earth had been destroyed. In any event, the two daughters took it upon themselves to preserve Lot’s seed. Dwelling with their father in this cave, through incestuous relations, the older daughter of Lot became pregnant by him, and became the mother of the Moabites; likewise, also, his youngest daughter became pregnant by him and became the mother of the Ammonites (Genesis 19:23-38). Like Canaan, whom Noah cursed, the children by Lot’s incest would not prosper. Also, like Canaan, the Moabites and the Ammonites were doomed to marry out of their race. For the next part of the story, we will go to The Book of Jasher, chapter 19, verse 60:

 

“And after this Lot and his two daughters went away from there, and he dwelt on the other side of the Jordan with his two daughters and their sons, and the sons of Lot grew up, and they went and took themselves wives from the land of Canaan, and they begat children and they were fruitful and multiplied.”

 

When Lot’s sons, Moab and Ammon took wives of the Canaanites, they took upon themselves the curse of Noah upon Canaan. The curse of Noah upon Canaan didn’t stop with him, but continued throughout all his descendants and all who married among them. These curses in Scripture are very serious. This is one of the best reasons in the world to prove that Ruth was not a Moabite, for if she were, the curse of Noah on Canaan would have fallen upon the genealogical line of our Redeemer!!!

As you will remember, when I quoted from the book Archaeology And The Bible by George A Barton beforehand: “One type has high cheek bones, oblique (slanting) eyes, and wears a pigtail, like the people of Mongolia and China.” You may also remember that in lesson #22, I mentioned: “And while speaking of Ammonites, did you know the Japanese of today are the modern day Ammonites? Alan Campbell wrote a small booklet called The Kings of The East to this fact. Also Thomas E. Plant wrote a booklet, The Japanese, Who Are They? on this very subject. In other words, it was Ammonites who attacked Pearl Harbor.” If you look at the Japanese of today, you can see in them these same Mongolian features, especially the slanted eyes. You can tell by this that the Ammonites and Moabites mixed with these same Hittites of Bible times. From all this, we can have a better idea how the Hittite and Hivite wives of Esau appeared to Rebekah when she said (Genesis 27:46): “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth.” Therefore, a white service man bringing home a Japanese wife since World War II, was bringing home a woman with the curse of Noah upon Canaan on her, notwithstanding the fact that she was and is not racially pure.

 

HOW BAD DID THINGS GET IN SODOM

 

To get an idea of just how bad things were getting in Sodom, I will quote The Book of Jasher, chapter 18, verses 14-15. Actually this is only just a small part of the story for the things that were going on in Sodom were much greater than I am going to quote here:

“14 And in the time of rejoicing they would all rise and lay hold of their neighbor’s wives and some, the virgin daughters of their neighbors, and they enjoyed them, and each man saw his wife and daughter in the hands of his neighbor and did not say a word. 15 And they did so from morning to night, and they afterward returned home each man to his house and each woman to her tent; so they always did four times in the year.”

Jude 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

2 Peter 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample (example) unto those that after should live un-Yahweh like.”

Genesis 19:24: “Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.”

 

Like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, the ten nations making up the Canaanite nations consisting of Cain’s and Canaan’s descendants along with some Rephaim were also a sexually perverted group of people. How, then, do we know that they were such? We know tletter-spacing: 2.0pt;Arial/emheir lifestyles and what kind of people they were, as it is recorded in the 18th chapter of Leviticus, verses 24 and 25:

 

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

 

We will not read the entire chapter, but just point out what kind of people they were according to this passage:

 

Ø  The sons were having incest with their mothers.

Ø  The fathers were having incest with their daughters.

Ø  The brothers wtext-decoration: underline;/spanfont-family: ere having incest with their sisters.

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

Ø  The nephews were having incest with their aunts.

Ø  The uncles were having incest with their nieces.

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

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

Ø  The grandfathers were having incest with their granddaughters.

Ø  The grandsons were having incest with their grandmothers.

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

Ø  They were also committing homosexuality.

 

Now if they were doing all of this, you know very well they were breeding interracially. Now in this four hundred years, this Satanic seed spread throughout Canaan. Not only was the Satanic seed of Cain involved here, but there was also the Satanic seed of the Rephaims and the Edomites. The Rephaims were the children of the mixture of fallen angels (who left their first estate) and the daughters of men, and it is recorded that there were giants among them (mutants with six toes on each foot and six fingers on each hand). This is why Yahweh gave Israel the commission to kill every single man, woman and child among them, and He has never rescinded that commission — He has just put it on hold.

This is my twenty-fifth monthly teaching letter and begins my third year of publication. It is my striving goal to make each succeeding letter to transcend, eclipse and outshine the ones preceding it. It is a very rigorous, difficult and demanding goal to try to meet each month. I established in the last lesson that Canaan, the son of Ham, was born of incest and pointed to a couple of scriptures to prove the point. It was a case of Ham looking upon his father’s nakedness which turns out to be his mother’s nakedness. It was hard to find anything of value in the various commentaries on the subject, as the writers seem to want to dance a jig around the topic trying to suppose it means a stepmother or a concubine, and in some instances this is what is intended. They also try to insinuate that these prohibitions were for the prevention of disease, and in some cases this might also be the purpose. In other cases they will just generalize that it was an immorality of some kind, or just skip over the verse as if it weren’t there.

I only found one comment from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 99, which was worth quoting and I will repeat it here: 

“The nakedness of thy father. These laws were addressed to men. Hence this verse contains a prohibition not against incest between father and daughter, but against incest between son and mother only. The shame brought upon the mother was brought also upon the father. As they were of one flesh (Gen. 2:24), any act committed against the mother could be considered to have been likewise committed against the father.” 

There still may be some of you who are not convinced that Ham had incest with his mother. For those of you who are not convinced one way or the other, I will quote every passage in Scripture referring to such an incident between son and mother. You may be surprised at how much is said in Scripture along this line:

 

KJV  Genesis 9:22: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

KJV  Leviticus 18:7-8: “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.”

KJV Leviticus 20:11: “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be  upon them.”

KJV Deuteronomy 22:30: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his fathers skirt.”

KJV Deuteronomy 27:20: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt.”

RSV Ezekiel 22:10: “In you, men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they humble women who are unclean in their impurity.”

KJV 1 Corinthians 5:1: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles (pagans), that one should have his father’s wife.”

KJV Amos 2:7: “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.”

KJV Genesis 35:22: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it.”

KJV Genesis 49:4: “Unstable as water, thou (Reuben) shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.”

KJV 1 Chronicles 5:1: “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright ...)”

KJV 2 Samuel 16:22: “So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”

 

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 1, page 236, says the following concerning Leviticus 18:7:

 

“Here it notes that the nakedness of the father, and the nakedness of the mother,  are one and the same thing, because they two are one flesh, and therefore her nakedness is his also; which further appears, because the mother only is mentioned in the following words, which contain the reason of the law. She is thy mother; and therefore even nature teacheth thee to abhor such incest. Yet the Persians used to marry their mother; therein worse than the very camels, whom no force will drive to that act with their dams.”

 

Since I am doing a series on Esau, you might wonder what all of this has to do with him. This is a foundation to understand Esau! It is imperative that we go back and pick up all the pieces of the story so we can put it all together in a very comprehensible package. If we don’t do all this, we will not understand the end product. If we can understand why the curse of Noah was placed on Canaan as a result of a deed committed by Ham, then we can understand this same curse was upon the Canaanite wives of Esau, and as a result, was passed on to Esau’s progeny. Curses in the Scripture are not to be taken lightly as they follow the genealogy of that person unremittingly, and as a result, the “Jews” of today have this very same curse by Noah upon Canaan, also on all of them. You may wonder why I use quotation marks around the words “Jew/Jews.” The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, page 1926 says, “Quotation marks are used to set off words or phrases that the writer does not wish to claim as his own.” Because Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 designate the “Jews” as false Judaites, I choose to disclaim the term, and I do not, in any way, desire to elevate them by doing this! I have been trying to think of another way to designate the term, but this is the only ethical way I can find to write this erroneous term under the circumstances. When I am quoting someone else, though, I have to reproduce it as written.

THE DEMISE OF EDOM

 

To start establishing the groundwork for this series of Esau-Edom, we need to take into account some secular history. Really, secular history is very much compatible with Bible history if we understand them both correctly. As I have said before, we need a Bible on one side of our lap and a history book on the other. I have an excellent history book entitled The Dawn Of History, edited by C. F. Keary, M.A. F.S.A. published in 1889. We have to take into account this book was written before a lot of important archeological discoveries were unearthed and long before the discovery of carbon-dating. Still, in spite of this, this book spells out racial history better than most. Not only this, but it is written in a very concise and comprehensive way. The author of this book makes a very interesting statement early in his book in the preface: “We still hear the Russians described as Tartars: and the notion that we English are descendants of the lost Israelitish tribes finds innumerable supporters.” Inasmuch as John Wilson started to declare the Israel message in the 1840’s, it should not be surprising to find this observation in a book written in 1889. Especially interesting is the comment concerning the Russians being described as Tartar. By the way, if this man were writing in our day, he would be considered very “politically incorrect.” I will now be quoting from this book, pages 118 to 121:

 

“The White Race. From the results of the previous chapter we see that to the yellow race must be attributed all those peoples of Europe and Asia which speak agglutinative (gather into a clump or group) languages, and therefore that for the white race are left the inflected (change in the pitch of loudness of the voice) tongues. These, it will be remembered, we divided into two great families, the Semitic and the Aryan or Japhetic. We thus see that from the earliest times to which we are able to point we have living in Europe and Asia these three divisions of the human family, whom some have looked upon as the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japhet. What relationship the other excluded races of mankind, the black and red, bear on the Hamites, Shemites, and Japhetites, has not been suggested. It seems more reasonable to consider Noah as merely the ancestor of the white races, and, therefore, so far as our linguistic knowledge goes, of the Semetic and Aryan families of speech only. But outside the pure Semites there lived a race of a less pure nationality, springing, probably, from the mixture of Semites with earlier black and yellow races. These people [the mixed ones] we may distinguish as Hamites. A division of this race were the Cushites, the stock from which the Egyptian, the Chaldæan, and many of the Canaanite nations were mainly formed.

“But though from the earliest times there were probably in Asia these three divisions of mankind, their relative position and importance was very different from what it is now. At the present time the Turanian races are everywhere shrinking and dwindling before the descendants of Japhet. At the moment at which I write it is the Aryan Slavs who are pushing the yellow-skinned Tartars farther and farther back in Siberia and Central Asia, and are endeavouring to push the Mongolian Turks from their foothold in Europe. The Tartar races have had their era of great conquest too, for to them belong those races — Huns, Avars, Magyars — who have spread such devastation in Europe, to them belong such conquerors as Attila, Genghis Khan, and Tumûr Lenk (Tamerlane). In the first few centuries after Mohammedism was introduced among them, the Turanians of Central Asia rose into power. Several different Tartar races in succession — Seljûks, Ayyubites, Mongols (Moghuls), etc. — rose upon the ruins of the Arab Chalifate, and invaded India, Persia, Africa, and Europe. The last of these is the race of the Osmanlîs, or, as we call them simply, the Turks. Their days of conquest are past, and therefore, great as is the space which the Turanian people now occupy over the face of the globe, there is reason to believe that in early prehistoric times they were still more widely extended. In all probability the men of the polished-stone age in Europe and Asia were of this yellow-skinned Mongolian type. We know that the human remains of this period seem to have come from a short and round-skulled people; and this roundness of the skull is one of the chief marks of the Mongolians as distinguished from the white races of mankind.

“We know, too, that the earliest inhabitants of India belonged to a Turanian, and therefore to a yellow race; and that Turanians mingled with one of the oldest historical Semitic peoples, and helped to produce the civilization of the Chaldæns. And as, moreover, we find in various parts of Asia traces of a civilization similar to that of Europe during the latter part of the polished-stone age, it seems not unreasonable, in casting our eyes back upon the remotest antiquity on which research sheds any light, to suppose an early widespread Turanian or Mongolian family extending over the greater part of Europe and Asia. These Turanians were in various stages of civilization or barbarism, from the rude condition of the hunters and fishers of the Danish shell-mounds to a higher state reigning in Central and Southern Asia, and similar to that which was afterwards attained toward the end of the polished-stone age in Europe. The earliest home of these pure Turanians was probably a region lying somewhere to the east of Lake Aral. ‘There’, says a writer from whom we have already quoted, ‘from very remote antiquity they had possessed a peculiar civilization, characterized by gross Sabeism [maybe the Sabeans of Job 1:15], peculiarly materialistic tendencies, and complete want of moral elevation ... This strange and incomplete civilization exercised over [a] great part of Asia an absolute preponderance (excess power), lasting, according to the historian Justin, 1500 years’.”

 

If you have followed this expose’ on early history, by this book, and have been on your toes, you have learned more about this subject than reading 15 to 20 huge volumes on ancient history. You can observe very quickly, the author didn’t buy the premise of the universal flood of Noah, as he credited Noah with only white children. He refers to the racial mixtures with white, yellow and black are known today as “Hamites.” This is significant, for it would then appear that the descendants of Ham, especially the descendants of Canaan, were the ones who mixed with these other races, thus being dubbed “Hamitic.” The Palestinians of today’ are good examples of Hamitic peoples. I would believe that much of the Arab world, as it exists today, is basically Hamitic under this definition of the term. It is interesting, too, what the writer has to contribute concerning the Tartar races, for this appears to be the same origin as the Ashkenazi “Jews” — “Huns, Avars, Magyars etc.” (check Arthur Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe, page 17). I know that of the “Jews” their Mongolian features are very outstanding. Of very special interest is the remark: “We know, too, that the earliest inhabitants of India belonged to a Turanian, and therefore to a yellow race; and that Turanians mingled with one of the oldest historical Semitic peoples ...” From many indicators, this was the people that invaded Palestine and mixed with the white Canaanites, descendants of Ham, and were called Horites or Hurrians. Then we are told that this materialistic people of very low morals were a world power that lasted for a period of 1500 years.

At this point, in this study, I am finding this a very difficult subject to pursue. The reason for this is because I have different sources of information telling me contradicting versions of the Horites of the Bible, or Hurrians as they are called by some historians. I believe, though, there is enough evidence to connect them with the Hittite and Hivite wives of Esau. I believe the problem lies in the prospect they are a people called by two different names. It is very similar to the Mexicans of today’ as they are called both Spanish and Indian. Another problem found with the Horites (or Hurrians) is: their inscriptions have been found to be bilingual, as some of their words are found to be of Semitic origin and other words Hurrian in origin. We have the same bilingual problem with the many Hispanics coming so-called legally and illegally into our country today. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, with two diverse peoples mixing together in history that this same bilingual situation would have existed. We should probably be more surprised if it didn’t exist. I would like to refer back to part of a quotation I used in lesson #24 from Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, chapter 3 entitled “The Hittites”, pages 74-75: “The more our knowledge of the Hittites grows, the less simple seems the problem of their racial affinities. Some features of their speech clearly resemble features of the Indo-European family of languages, but other features would seem to denote Tartar affinities ...” From this observation, we can be reasonably sure the yellow-skinned Tartars mixed with the Semitic Hittites and these are the kind of women which Esau took for his wives, except for Bashemath, Ishmael’s daughter. (By the way, I did find that Esau had a fourth wife, but had no sons by her, and, therefore, there is no accounting in the genealogies (Jasher 28:22-23; Jasher 30:21-22).

The above partial quotation from Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, chapter 3 entitled “The Hittites”, page 74 is very important. I am aware that language does not always prove race, but in this case should have some bearing on the case primarily because it is speaking of the ancient languages and in a contemporary time period. Barton went on to say on page 75: “It may well be that Indo-Europeans followed by Mongols came about 2100 or 2000 [B.C.] into this region, or that the Mongols were there earlier and that the Indo-Europeans then came. In the resultant civilization it would seem, from the information that we have, there was a mingling of the two races.” Since we have some evidence that there was a mixture of the Semitic and Tartar races, let’s next investigate what is meant by the term “Tartar.” For this we will go to The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 18, page 38b:

 

“Tartar was the name given early Mongol races of Central Asia. They lived in northeastern Gobi during the 400’s [A.D.], but were later driven southward by the Khitan tribes. During the 800’s, the Tartars founded the Mongolian Empire. In the 1200’s, the Mongols began a movement through Hungary, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Russia, and Bulgaria. Today, the term Tartar describes peoples of Turkish origin and other groups who live in western Asia and the European part of Russia. Their physical features and original stocks depend upon where they live. Most of the present-day Tartars are Moslems, and speak some form of the Turkish language. Some are nomads. Others settled permanently and worked on farms or gardens. A typical Tartar group is the Kirghiz. Tartar comes from the Manchu word tatar, which means archer or nomad. Tartar early took the form of Tartar because it was associated with Tartarus, the word for a mythical Hades.”

 

For a more ancient observation of the peoples of Asia, I will turn to The Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition 1894, volume 2, page 608, under the topic “Asia”, under the division “Ethnology”:

“Mongolian group. Asia, including its outlying islands, has become the dwelling-place of all the great families into which the races of men have been divided. By far the largest area is occupied by the Mongolian group. These have yellow-brown skins, black eyes and hair, flat noses and oblique eyes. They are short in stature, with little hair on the body and face. In general terms they extend, with modifications of character probably due to admixture with other types and to varying conditions of life, over the whole of Northern Asia as far south as the plains bordering the Caspian Sea, including Tibet and China, and also over the Indo-Malayan peninsula and Archipelago, excepting Papua and some of the more eastern islands.”

 

The following is a comment concerning the Horites or Hurrians of Genesis 36:21 by Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 69: “These are the dukes of the Horites. It appears pretty evident that the Horites and the descendants of Esau were mixed together in the same land, as before observed.”

 

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 38, has this to say about the same passage: “Edom and Its People. Genesis 36:1-43. Before recounting the life story of Joseph, the writer of Genesis describes something of the land of Edom and its inhabitants. The original inhabitants of Mount Seir were called Horites or Hurrians. In the course of time. Esau and his descendants took over the territory. Esau became wealthy and possessed much cattle and sheep. The principal cities of the area were Sela, Bozrah, Petra, Teman, and Ezion-geber.”

 

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 18, has the following to say about the reference to “Horites” of Genesis 14:6: “And the Horites in their Mount Seir. Archaeology has contributed much to establish the basic historicity of these early narratives. These people, called Horites, are now well known as Hurrians, a non-Semitic group. Their records, uncovered at Nuzu by archaeologists, have thrown much light on patriarchal customs. William F. Albright believes that these Hurrians came into prominence as early as 2400 B.C., and became competitors of Hittites and Sumerians for supremacy in culture and learning. They must have found their way to the region south of the Dead Sea quite early. They were displaced [later] from the region of Mount Seir by Esau’s descendants (Deut. 2:22).”

 

You will notice that verses 20 to 23 of Deuteronomy chapter 2 were not in the original text. The question arises, then, did Esau displace the Horites or did he absorb them? It appears from the biblical record that he did, at least, absorb part of them. Rebekah also recognized these people as being the “children of Heth” (Genesis 27:46), the descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham. Therefore, it would appear that the Hittite-Hivite-Canaanite sons of Heth mixed with the Mongol-Horite-Hurrians.

 

To refresh our memory concerning the lineage of Heth, I will quote from Insight On The Scriptures, volume 1, page 1102: “Heth. The second-listed son of Canaan and great-grandson of Noah through Ham. Gen 10:1, 6, 15; 1 Chron. 1:13) Heth was ancestral father of the Hittites (1 Ki. 10:29; 2 Ki. 7:6) , one branch of which settled in the hill country of Judah. (Ex. 3:8) It was in the vicinity of Hebron that Abraham purchased from Ephron the Hittite the field of Machpelah and the cave therein, as a burial place. (Gen. 23:2-20; 25:8-10; 49:32) Of its 14 occurrences, the name Heth appears 10 times in connection with ‘the sons of Heth.’ Two of Esau’s wives were from among ‘the daughters of Heth’ (also called ‘the daughters of Canaan’), these wives being a source of grief to his parents. — Gen. 26:34, 35; 27:46; 28:1, 6-8.”

For further information concerning the Hittites, Horites, Hurrians or whatever other name you wish to reference them by, I will quote from The Revell Bible Dictionary, page 487:

“Hittite. (1) A great northern empire, which at its height included all of Syria, as in Josh. 1:4; (2) an ethnic group, widespread in Canaan by patriarchal times, as in Gen. 15:20. ‘The Hittite Empire developed in northern Anatolia (modern Turkey) around 1800 B.C. By 1650 B.C., Hittite armies sacked Babylon. After a decline, the Hittites became a major power again under Suppilulimas around 1350 B.C. At that time the empire included all of Syria. But by 1200 B.C., the empire had been scattered by the aggressive Sea Peoples, among whom were the biblical Philistines. The Hittite Empire was gone, but Hittite culture was preserved in Syrian city-states. Although the empire never included Canaan proper, later Assyrian and Babylonian records refer to the northern fertile crescent area, extending into Syria and Palestine, as the ‘land of the Hatti [that is, Hittites].’ By Abraham’s time, groups of migrant Hittites were already settled in Canaan. Most biblical mentions of Hittites refer to these ethnic groups rather than the Hittite Empire. Abraham purchased a cave from Ephron the Hittite as a tomb for Sarah (Gen. 23). Exodus identifies Canaan as the land of the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, etc. ...”

 

Not only are the “Jews” descended from Cain, who was the product of the union of Satan with Eve, but they are also the offspring of the incestuous union of Ham and his mother, and thus, they also are of Canaan, and received the curse put upon him by Noah. Let’s refresh ourselves to the names of Canaan’s sons as recorded in Genesis 10:15: Sidon, Heth, Jebusite, Amorite, Girgasite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite & Hamathite. All of these eleven tribes of Canaan’s sons, along with any daughters, had the curse of Noah on Canaan upon them. This curse has followed Canaan’s descendants down to this very day. They were also white people, at least from the start with Ham. We have to remember, though, Ham had other children and descendants who did not come under Canaan’s curse.

 

MORE INFORMATION ON THE HURRIANS

 

From The Sacred Name Broadcaster, June, 1983, we get the following information from an article entitled “How Did the Hittites Infiltrate Israel?”, page 9:

 

“... Introduction to the Hittites. The original Hittites were descendants of Heth, the second son of Canaan (therefore of Hamitic origin), according to the Biblical genealogy, Genesis 10:15; Chronicles 1:13. By the third millennium B.C.E., they were established in the area of central Turkey. Shortly after 2000 B.C.E., they were conquered by Indo-Eurpoeans who set up a number of city-states. The most important of these was Hattusas, located about 90 miles east of where Ankara is located today. The name Hattusa is now changed to BoghazKoi.”

“... ‘As early as 1600 [B.C.E], they appear to have had a certain monopoly in the manufacture of iron’, says the article published in Collier’s Encyclopedia. ... ‘Iron was a precious metal from which ornaments were made and not weapons’, The Secrets of the Hittites, pages 211-212. In the times of the Hittites, iron was five times more expensive than gold and forty times dearer than silver. For centuries it must have been among the rarest of luxuries. This was not the Iron Age, for the sea people which dominated Asia Minor from 1800-1200 B.C.E., who overthrew the Hittite Empire, introduced the Iron Age.”

“The Hittites were short and stout, yellow in color with black hair and beardless” (emphasis mine). They migrated from northeast Mesopotamia, and worked south toward Palestine, and west into Asia Minor. According to Numbers 13:39, they lived in the mountainous regions, which include Lebanon and Syria. Joshua 1:4 describes them as inhabiting the land, ‘From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even to the great river, the Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites.’ According to Deuteronomy 7:1-2, they became populous and mighty, and became a major nation among those of the Fertile Crescent. Yahweh, in Exodus 3:8 describes the land of the Hittites and other nations of the Fertile Crescent  (with the land of Canaan as the southwest point) as flowing with milk and honey. Being descendants of Canaan brought them under the curse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan, and like the other nations descended from Canaan their religion was primarily pagan.”

 

I know someone is going to point out immediately that the above quotation is from the “Jew”, Jacob O. Meyer, and try to disqualify it on that account; guilt by association in other words. I have another non-Jewish source which is saying essentially the same thing. I will now quote from this book which is entitled The Westminster Dictionary Of The Bible, page 251, under the topic “Hittites”:

 

“... The racial affinities of the Hittites are not clearly understood. One type frequently seen on the monuments of Egypt has the large nose; it seems that the modern Armenians are lineal descendants of one group of this nation. The Hittites were short and stocky and had thick lips. The large nose and retreating forehead are also represented on the Hittite monuments. The Hittites were not Semites. According to the monuments they wore heavy clothing, coats that reached down to the knees, and high woolen headdress. They wore shoes which were turned up at the toes, which suggest that they came from the snowy mountains. It is inferred from their appearance that they were a people from a cold climate. In fact, the plateau of Anatolia varies from 4,000 to 3,000 feet above sea level.

“ Historically a sharp distinction must be made between the Hittite Empire and the Hittite states of north Syria and southeast Asia Minor. Archaeologically the word Hittite applies to [the] remains of the remarkable and unique culture found in Asia Minor, northern Syria, and northern Mesopotamia ... It is now generally agreed that Hittite is somehow related to the Indo-European languages. It seems that Hittite and primitive Indo-European are connected by virtue of a common descent from a parent speech, which may be called Indo-Hittite.

“The real key to the Hittite problem was discovered by Hugo Winckler of Berlin, who in 1906-1907 and 1911-1912 discovered at Boghazköi (the site of ancient Hattushash) about 10,000 clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform characters. Here were represented a number of languages: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hattic, Hittite (Nasi or Nesi), Luian or Luish (the tongue of Arzawa and closely related to Hittite), Palaic, and Hurrian. The inscriptions on the Hittite monuments are written in Hittite hieroglyphs.”

 

It seems, according to The Book Of Jubilees, that at the instructions of Noah, all the lands around them were given out by lot to his grandchildren. The territory, later to become known as the land of Canaan, was given to Shem and his descendants. To pick up this part of the story, I will quote from The Book Of Jubilees, chapter 10, verses 22 through 27:

“22 And Ham and his sons went into the land which he had taken, which fell to him by lot in the land of the north (south); and Kainaan (Canaan) saw the land of the Libanon to the canal of Egypt that it was very good, and he did not go into the land of his inheritance to the west of the sea, and dwelt in the land of Libanon on the coast of the sea. 23 And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mezrem, his brothers, said to him: ‘Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine and did not fall to us by lot, thou shouldst not do thus; for if thou doest thus, then thou and thy children will fall by condemnation in the land, and as cursed ones by sedition, for by sedition ye have settled and by sedition thy children will fall and thou wilt be rooted out to eternity. 24 Do not dwell in the dwelling place of Shem, for to Shem and his children was it given by lot. 25 Cursed art thou and cursed shalt thou be above all the sons of Noah by the curse which we covenanted with an oath between us in the presence of the holy judge and before Noah our father.’ 26 But he (Canaan) did not listen to them and dwelt in the land of Libanon from Emath to the entrance of Egypt, he and his sons until this day. 27 And on this account this land is called Canaan.”

 

I have some serious questions in my mind concerning The Book Of Jubilees, but maybe it is a matter of getting the different events in their proper chronological order. I will not go into some of these questionable items here, but I believe that this passage just quoted seems to fit the overall picture. If this passage is true, it appears that Canaan and his descendants may have more than one curse on them. Like the first curse, this curse, too, would follow them throughout their generations forever. Again, this curse is still resting today upon the heads of the present-day “Jews”, as they, being Canaanite-“Jews”, are once more in Shem’s land trying to claim it.

 

“The Strong’s number for the term Canaanite is #3669: ‘patrial from 3667; a Kenaanite or inhabitant of Kenaan; by implication a pedlar (the Canaanites standing for their neighbors the Ishmaelites, who conducted mercantile caravans): — Canaanite, merchant, trafficker’.” According to The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 1, page 701, this name also means “Belonging to (the land of) Purple.”

This is my twenty-sixth monthly teaching letter, and as I said last month, it is my striving goal to make each succeeding letter to transcend, eclipse and outshine the ones preceding it. It is a very rigorous, difficult and demanding goal to try to meet each month. As you will notice, with lessons #25 and #26, I have chosen to use a new format. In order to go to this new format with a smaller font size, it was necessary for me to do quite a bit of experimenting to find a font that was easy to read under these new circumstances. By using this new format, I can now send two letters in one mailing for 33 cents. I will be sending just as many teaching letters as in the past except I will be sending them bimonthly (that is every second month). By this new procedure, I will be able to cut my expenses almost in half while still bringing the same amount of information. I had more problems preparing lesson #25 than any lesson I have labored with yet. I probably rewrote it at least six times before I was satisfied.

Before I get started with lesson #26, I would like to clear up some issues in my past lessons. With all the research that goes into preparing these lessons, it is inevitable that somewhere along the line one will run into new information which will conflict with what was introduced before. In the Watchman’s Teaching Letter #11, dated 3-99, page 4, I used the reference book Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, pages 988-991 to prove that Hiram the artificer of Tyre was a half-breed. I have evidence now that this Hiram was a full blooded Israelite. I will be discussing this further in this letter.

In the Watchman’s Teaching Letter #20, dated 12-99, page 4, I showed evidence that the “Jews” killed Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (II Chronicles 24:20-21) to fulfill Matthew 23:35. This was not totally in error, for the “Jews” killed two people by the name of Zechariah, this one and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. I will have to write more about this in future lessons. In the Watchman’s Teaching Letter #23, dated 3-00, page 3, I stated that Esau had only three wives. Later I found that Esau had a fourth wife but had only daughters by her, and, thus, she was not counted in the genealogy, (Jasher 30:21-22).

 

THE DEMISE OF ESAU

 

If you will remember, in the last lesson I brought to light that a Tartar tribe had moved into the land of Canaan and appeared to be the tribe that the Canaanite sons of Ham mixed with, and, ultimately, were the people from whom Esau took wives. I documented much about a Mongolian people named Hurrians into whom Esau married. But, what does all of this have to do with Esau? It has everything to do with Esau! For if we do not know all about these basic happenings, we will not understand his complete story. We will be getting into the subject of the Hurrians in future lessons. I can categorically promise you, there are a lot more elements to these stories than the average Bible student realizes. The next phase of this matter is to understand the difference between the Canaanites of Tyre and the Israelites of Tyre. This is a topic which was vigorously pointed out to me only recently. As a matter of fact, if it hadn’t been pointed out to me, I may have never figured it out. This is a topic which even the best teachers in Israel Identity have missed. In all of my thousands of hours of studying Israel Identity, I have not encountered anyone who expounded on this subject to any great degree. I am grateful, with this lesson, to have someone who is helping me who has done some extensive research in this area.

 

THE CANAANITES OF TYRE vs. THE ISRAELITES OF TYRE

 

It is true we all have a lot to learn and we have to be careful to avoid arguments which seem apparently to be correct, but underneath the surface are actually invalid. This seems to be the case with the subject we are about to consider. Almost every reference book will point out that the cursed sons of Canaan moved into the coastal area of what is now Palestine which includes Tyre and Sidon, which they may have done. Scripture seems to suggest the Canaanites occupied much of the land before the Israelites moved in. Tyre may have been a base for island hopping for some of Shem’s descendants such as Asshur, as one of the possible ancient names for Tyre may have been Es-sur. Because this is a long topic, it may take some time to complete. If not in this lesson, then in another.

The subject of Tyre is not totally black or white, but probably lies somewhere in between, and all this depending on the time period concerned, and is somewhat confusing and bewildering to say the least. Hopefully as we continue along, a picture will develop which can clear up the whole question. We will be gathering information from our Bibles, both the KJV and the Septuagint (LXX), along with the works of Josephus. It will be necessary to weave in and out of these different references to comprehend the overall portrayal of this account.

The so-called authoritative professors of history would love to have us believe that somehow the great “Phoenician” mariners who found their way through the treacherous seas to Scandinavia in ancient times were Canaanites. It might be well to scrutinize as arduously as possible anything these “scholars” of renown profess.

One of the first Bible verses we might consider (according to Tracing Our White Ancestors by Haberman, page 69) would be Genesis 49:13:

“Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon.”

The Wycliffe Bible commentary, page 46 comments thusly:

“Zebulun, Jacob’s sixth son by Leah, was to be situated in a place where commercial activity and prosperity would be possible. This may mean that territory along the seacoast was to be allotted to the tribe of Zebulun. Or, it may mean that prosperity would come to the descendants of Zebulun because of their proximity to the Phoenicians, who had unlimited access to the trade routes. Jacob mentions Sidon as being there. It is also possible that Jacob’s prediction was not fully carried out when the final division of the land was made.”

To understand this prophecy, it may be necessary to understand it was to be possibly both a short and long range forecast. I have a map of Canaan showing the allotment of land given to the various tribes. Zebulun is shown to be totally landlocked without a seaport. Later, during the time of David and Solomon, the borders seem to have changed somewhat. Whether or not Zebulun ever became part of Phoenicia and extended to Sidon seems questionable. From Genesis 49:1, it would seem to indicate this prophecy has something to do with a period called “the last days”, but the word “last” in this verse is Strong’s number 319 “’acharîyth” and may also be translated “future.” Reading “future” would make more sense, especially considering Judah’s sceptre in Genesis 49:10. From the Septuagint, Genesis 49:13 may literally read “Zebulun shall dwell on the coast, and he shall be by a haven of ships, and shall extend to Sidon.” According to the book Strange Parallel by Helene Koppejan, Holland is claimed to be of Zebulun. If this is true, as a future prophecy, Holland having Rotterdam, Amsterdam and IJmuiden as seaports, would symbolically represent Phoenicia. No doubt, other countries can claim to be of Zebulun also for they also have the emblem of the ship. (Check page 52 of Symbols Of Our Celto-Saxon Heritage by W. H. Bennett.)

 

ISRAEL TO INHABIT TYRE AND SIDON

 

Joshua verses 11:8; 13:4; 13:6 and 19:28-29 all make it clear that Israel was very active in, and would inhabit the land of Sidon encompassing Tyre, and points north. Probably the Tyre mentioned in Joshua 19:29 is Palaeotyre. Tyre (or Palaeotyre) is not mentioned in Judges 1:31, which lists cities in Asher’s territory where Canaanites remained. It is also clear from Judges 3:3 and 10:6 that Israelites were living among the Canaanites not removed from the land of Sidon. Let’s consider the scriptures mentioned here:

Joshua 11:8: “And Yahweh delivered them (northern Canaanites) into the hand of Israel, who smote them, and chased them into great Zidon, and into Misrephothmaim (lime burning or salt pits) and to the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining.”

Joshua 13:4: “From the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that is beside the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the borders of the Amorites.”

Joshua 13:6: “All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee.”

Joshua 19:28-29: “And Hebron, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon; And then the coast turneth to Ramah, and to the strong city Tyre; and the coast turneth to Hosah; and the outgoings thereof are at the sea from the coast to Achzib.”

Judges 3:3: (Israel lived with) “Namely, five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon from mount Baalhermon unto the entering in of Hamath.”

Judges 10:6: (ditto) “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of Yahweh, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook Yahweh, and served not him.”

 

THERE WERE TWO CITIES OF TYRE

 

The World Book Encyclopedia says in part, volume 18, page 455: “... Part of the city stood on the mainland and part on an island across a narrow channel ...”

Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 1136, says in part: “Alexander in his rage had his army scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and threw it into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city ...”

Josephus, in Antiquities 8:3:1 states that Tyre, (and he must mean the island city), was built 240 years before Solomon had started the Temple in Jerusalem. In “Against Apion” 1:18 he states that Carthage was built almost 144 years after the Temple was begun.

Josephus, Antiquities 8:3:1: “Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, on the second month, which the Macedonians call Artemisius, and the Hebrews Jur; five hundred and ninety-two years after the exodus out of Egypt, but one thousand and twenty years from Abraham’s coming out of Mesopotamia into Canaan; and after the Deluge one thousand four hundred and forty years; and from Adam, the first [white] man who was created, until Solomon built the temple, there had passed in all three thousand one hundred and two years. Now that on which the temple began to be built, was already the eleventh year of the reign of Hiram; but from the building of Tyre to the building of the temple, there had passed two hundred and forty years.”

Josephus, Against Apion 1:18: “So the whole time from the reign of Hirom till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of one hundred and fifty-five years and eight months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months.”

If all of this is true, the island city of Tyre was probably built by Israelites while the mainland city of Tyre may have been built many years before. Just when the mainland city of Tyre was built and by whom is not clear at this time. It should be noted, though, that the city of Sidon had a Canaanite name of one of Canaan’s sons (Sidon), Genesis 10:15. This may not have much bearing upon the racial make-up of the city during the Phoenician period. Yes, we must have a general comprehension of all these things in order to understand Esau.

 

DID THE CANAANITES, THEN, BUILD CARTHAGE?

 

If we build on the premise that the city of Tyre (or the Phoenicians) were Canaanites, essentially we are saying the Canaanites founded Carthage. Sad, but true, this is exactly what many leading historians advance. You can begin to see it is highly unlikely the Canaanites ever had anything to do with the building of Carthage. They are much more apt to be parasites and leeches rather than colonizers and builders. Have they built one single prominent city, other than their ghettoes, anywhere in the world since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

 

THE YEAR TYRE WAS BUILT

 

We can figure the approximate time the city of Tyre was built. Since mainland Tyre had already been a “strong city” (Joshua 19:29), this calculation is most likely for the island city. In Josephus, “Whiston’s Dissertation” (William Whiston being a translator of Josephus), there is a chart which stipulates the Temple is given a date of 1052 B.C. for being built. According to Josephus 8:3:1, the Temple was built 240 years after the founding of Tyre. If we add 240 years to this figure we arrive at a date of 1292. Roughly figuring then, the foundation of Tyre must have been sometime during the period of the Judges. This suggests very strongly that Tyre was built by Israelites rather than Canaanites, for the Israelites were quite well established in Canaan by this time.

In 2 Samuel 24:2-7 David sends Joab to number the children of Israel, and Tyre and Sidon (known as Phoenicia) are among the places he visited.

“2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people. 3 And Joab said unto the king, Now Yahweh thy singular-Elohim add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my master the king may see it: but why doth my master the king delight in this thing? 4 Notwithstanding the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel. 5 And they passed over the Jordan and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer: 6 Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtimhodshi; and they came to Danjaan, and about to Zidon. 7 And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beersheba.”

We can know from all of this, the king wanted to know how many Israelites there were in Sidon and Tyre (or Phoenicians as they were called). Whether or not this census took in both the mainland city of Tyre and the island city as well is not indicated. Speaking of censuses, we are now in the process in the United States of taking a census. I wonder if they will include all the Canaanites living among us?!?! When David ordered this census, he surely only counted Israelites as Tyre and Sidon are mentioned separately from the Hivites and Canaanites. The main point here is to show there were Israelites to be counted both at Sidon and Tyre. Asher had inherited mainland Tyre, called the “stronghold city”, in this passage and in Joshua 19:29. Being that censuses, over the years, were generally used for taxation purposes and to conscript soldiers for war, they have never been very popular with the people.

Not only is it recorded in Judges 18:7-29 concerning the Danite conquest of Laish to found the city of Dan, but Israel’s strong presence in the land of Sidon is evident in many other places in the Bible. In 1 Kings 17:9 Yahweh sends Elijah to Zarephath, which is on the coast of Sidon. This further confirms Israel’s presence in the land of Phoenicia where Tyre and Sidon were located. This verse says: “Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.”

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged By Ralph Earle, page 351, has this to say about this verse:

“Get thee to Zarephath. This was a town between Tyre and Sidon, but nearer to the latter, and is therefore called in the text Zarephath, which belongeth to Sidon; or, as the Vulgate and other versions express it, ‘Sarepta of the Sidonians.’ Serepta is the name by which it goes in the New Testament.”

Are we to believe that this Phoenician widow woman to whom Elijah was sent was a Canaanite?

 

ISRAEL’S PRESENCE IN THE LAND

 

In 1 Kings 15:16-22 we read of king Asa of Judah declaring war with Baasha, king of Israel. There had always been a continual spirit of hostility kept between the southern and northern kingdoms. To fight a war, Asa removed the treasures from the House of Yahweh and hired the king of Syria (Aram) to ally himself with him against Israel. Together they “... smote Ijon, Dan, and /strong style=;Abel-beth-maachah ...”, among other Israelite areas. Dan lay east of Tyre, and equally as far north. This places Ijon several miles north of Dan. Abel-beth-maachah, which Josephus calls Abelmain (Antiquities 8:12:4) is speculated by Whiston and others to be the same as Abila, or Abellane, the Abilene of Luke 3:1. Abilene is nearly 40 miles north of Dan, and nearly 15 miles northwest of Damascus. The footnote to Josephus, Antiquities 8:12:4 reads as follows:

“This Abelmain, or Abellane, is supposed to be the same with Abel, or Abila, whence came Abilene. This may be the city denominated from Abel the righteous, there buried; concerning the shedding of whose blood within the compass of the land of Israel, I understand our Saviour’s words, about the fatal war and overthrow of Judah by Titus and his Roman army, (Matt. 23:35-36; Luke 11:51.)”

From all of this, the tribe of Dan right next door to the area of Phoenicia, may have had much interrelationship with Tyre and Sidon. Judges 5:17 says:

“Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.”

The Jamieson, Fausett & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 188 describes this verse quite well: “Gilead abode beyond Jordan — i.e., both Gad and the eastern half of Manasseh chose to dwell at ease in their Havoth-jair, or villages of tents, while Dan and Asher, both maritime tribes, continued with their s sstrong /spantyle=/spanfont-family: hips and in their ‘breaches’ (havens).” I guess, if you wanted to bring this picture up-to-date, you might see Gad and Manasseh in their motor homes and house trailers, and Dan and Asher at the lake in their motorboats. The main thing to notice here is that Dan and Asher would have to have used Tyre and Sidon as harbors for their ships for these were about the only port facilities along that coast, and they would, as the Greeks named them, have been known as Phoenicians.

If one will read Joshua 19:24-31, one can only be impressed with the strong presence of Israel in the land of Canaan. In these verses it is spelled out as to the area of land which Asher had drawn by lot to be his possession. It included a strip along the Mediterranean Sea from Mt. Carmel north to Tyre and beyond about 10 to 15 miles in width. In this fertile area, Asher became famous in the olive business. There was one major problem with Asher, he never drove the Canaanites out of his area. We can read about this in Judges 1:31-32:

“31 Neither did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob: 32 But the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land: for they did not drive them out.”

For this reason, historians and many so-called Bible authorities are still getting the Phoenician Asherites confused with the Canaanites. One such so-called authority is L. A. Waddell. For further insight concerning the confusion of Asherites being confused with Canaanites, I will quote from The Makers Of Civilization by L. A. Wadell, pages 16-17. (Incidentally, Waddell has a lot of mixed-up information in his writings, so we have to be careful when quoting from his writings. Notice how Waddell incorrectly tries to say the Phoenicians were Canaanites. I will underline it):

“‘Phœnicians’ & Their Civilization, Language, Writing & Religion Of Sumerian Or Aryan Origin: With the ‘Phœnicians’ we reach a paradox. According to the current modern opinion the ‘Phœnicians’ are universally believed to be Semites, that is ‘Children of Shem’, Shem being the traditional ancestor of the Hebrews, though incongruously made by them the uterine brother of Japhet the Aryan, in their impossible scheme of the origin of the different races of mankind from one immediate common father, entailed by their having killed off all other human beings by their [universal] Flood Myth. And this supposed Shemite racial origin of the Phœnician is nevertheless believed, notwithstanding the stultifying fact that the real Semites, the Hebrews, who ought to know best who were Semites and who were not, definitely state in their Old Testament that the Phœnicians, therein called ‘Canaan-Sidon’, were not ‘the Children of Shem’ at all, but were ‘The Children of Ham’, that is of Egypt, the old name for which was Ham or Kham; and which land we shall see in the present work was the chief settlement of the Early Phœnicians on their advent to the Mediterranean from the Persian Gulf.

“Despite this positive testimony of the Semites themselves against the Phœnicians being Semites, modern writers nevertheless arbitrarily call them such, and point to the inscriptions of the later Phœnicians of Phœnicia and Carthage from about the ninth century B.C. onwards as being written in a Semitic dialect, and inscribed in the reversed or retrograde direction, from right to left, with reversed letters, as adopted by Semitic scribes.”

This is a very good example of how the Phoenicians are incorrectly identified as Canaanites. After making a blunder of this proportion, we need to examine every comment which Waddell has to offer. With this particular posture, Waddell shows many of his materials cannot be trusted. We will have to sort out the correct things he has to offer and throw the rest out the window.

 

WAS HIRAM, ARTIFICER OF TYRE, PART CANAANITE?

 

Hiram, the artificer of 1 Kings 7:13-14, is described therein as having a mother of the tribe of Naphtali, and a father who was “A man of Tyre”:

“13 And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. 14 He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.”

Josephus, Antiquities 8:3:4 says of Hiram’s father’s side of his house: “Now Solomon sent for an artificer out of Tyre, whose name was Hiram: he was by birth of the tribe of Naphtali, on the mother’s side, (for she was of that tribe;) but his father was Ur, of the stock of the Israelites.”

You will notice that it doesn’t give Hiram’s father’s tribe, but it definitely does state he was pure Israelite. Many writers will state he was half-Israelite implying he was half something else, usually Canaanite. Different Hirams! The King Hiram of 1 Kings 5:12 and “Huram” in 2 chronicles is simply not the same person as Hiram the artificer (1 Kings 7:13, 7:40, 7:45 & 2 Chronicles 2:7, “Huram” again in 2 Chronicles 4:11, 4:16).

 

MORE BAD INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PHOENICIANS

 

For documentation on all of this, I am going to quote the words of the “Jews” themselves from The History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, volume 1, pages 2-3. You will notice very early in this quotation that Graetz makes the claim that the Phoenicians were Canaanites which seems utterly absurd. Much of what Graetz says about the descendants of Canaan are true. Canaan did settle in this area illegally before the Israelites had time to move in and claim their rightful inheritance. We really need to separate the misinformation which Graetz is presenting from the actual truth. Then, too, are we to believe the Canaanites introduced writing and the alphabet to the world? This, again, is absurd. As you read this, take all of these things into consideration. Another thing which should be questioned; are the “Jews” deliberately trying to confuse this important part of Israel’s history?:

“Another group of inhabitants which had settled in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan was that of the Canaanites, whom the Greeks called Phoenicians. These Phoenicians appear to have pursued the same employment in their new country as they had followed on the banks of the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. Their chief pursuits were navigation and commerce. The position which they had selected was eminently favourable to their daring expeditions. The great ocean, forming a strait at the Pillars of Hercules, and separating Europe from Africa, as the Mediterranean Sea, has here its extreme limit. At the foot of the snow-topped Lebanon and its spurs, commodious inlets formed natural harbours that required but little improvement at the hand of man. On this seaboard the Canaanites built the town of Sidon, situated on a prominent crag which overhangs the sea. They afterwards built, on a small rocky island, the port of Tyre (Tor, which subsequently became celebrated); they also built Aradus to the north of Sidon, and Akko (Acre) to the south of Tyre. The neighbouring forest of the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon supplied them with lofty cedars and strong cypresses for ships. The Canaanites, who became the first mercantile nation in the world, owed much of their success to the advantage of finding on their coast various species of the murex (Tolaat shani), from the fluid of which was obtained a most brilliant and widely celebrated purple dye. The beautiful white sand of the river Belus, near Acre, supplied fine glass, an article which was likewise in much request in the Old World. The wealth of the country lay in the sands of the sea-shore. The Canaanites, on account of their extensive trade, required and introduced at an early period a convenient form of writing, and their alphabet, the Phœnician, became the model for the alphabets of ancient and modern nations. In a word, the narrow belt of land between the Mediterranean and Mount Lebanon, with its spurs, became one of the most important points on the face of the globe. Through the peaceful pursuits of commerce the Canaanites were brought into contact with remote nations, who were gradually aroused from a state of inactivity. They became subdivided into the small nationalities of Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, and Perizzites. The Jebusites, who inhabited this district ... on the tract of land which afterwards became the site for the city of Jerusalem.”

If you have followed this discussion very closely, you may be one of the very few who understand the Phoenicians were not Canaanites. This is a subject that needs to be addressed much more than what I have been able to do here. Meanwhile we should resolve any QUESTIONS we might have in our minds and find the right answers. I will try to answer some of the following questions in future lessons:

At what time did the Israelite-Phoenicians occupy Tyre and Sidon? And what other peoples may have occupied the area known as Phoenicia, and when?

 

·         If the Asherite-Phoenicians migrated away from this area, where did they migrate to? The Phoenicians were colonizers. Where all did they set up colonies?

·         How many Israel tribes made up the group known as Phoenicia, and who were they?

·         Evidently, in time, the Canaanites did reoccupy the Phoenician territory of Palestine, (Mark 7:26). When and how did this all happen?

·         Did the Canaanites make their way to the colonies which the Phoenicians had settled? (like there are Canaanites allegedly reported to be in southern Ireland today?)

·         What was the relationship between the Israelites and the Canaanites during the time the Canaanites lived among the Israelites in the area known as Phoenicia? Were they parasites then as they are today?

·         Why would Yahweh tell Elijah that Zarephath belonged “to Zidon” (1 Kings 17:9) when He had given that land to Israel?

·         The name Hiram means “whiteness” or “noble” (#2361 & #2438). Does this sound like a Canaanite name?

·         Why would Yahweh allow a Canaanite to help build HIS Temple?

·         I Kings 5:1-2 mentions Hiram was “a lover of David.” Could a family of Canaanites have such an enduring affection for David, who fought so valiantly for the causes of Israel?

·         In 2 Samuel 5:11 it is recorded that Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers, cedar trees, carpenters, and masons to build David a house. Would David have accepted such a gift from a Canaanite?

·         In 1 Kings 5:7 it appears that Hiram had great respect for Yahweh. Is this the type of behavior one would expect from a Canaanite?

·         I Kings 9:27 mentions a joint naval venture between Solomon and Hiram. The Israelites probably did use Canaanites as oarsmen (Ezekiel 27:8), but were the Canaanites of the same caliber of men as the Israelites? Were the great Tyrian (Phoenician) mariners Canaanites as some tout?

·         It is further recorded in 1 Kings 9:10-14 that Solomon gave 20 run-down vacant cities (2 Chronicles 8:2 which explains they were later rebuilt), formally occupied by the Asherites, to Hiram. Where did all these missing Asherites go? And were Tyre and Sidon jumping-off points for some of Israel’s migrations?

·         Why aren’t Dan and Zebulun mentioned in 1 Chronicles chapters 2 through 8 ? Had they already, for the most part, left the main body of Israelites?

·         Were Canaanites among the Tyrian rowers (“toilers in ships”) the forebears of the Canaanites Teia scoffed at in the Book of Tephi, page 17?

 

In the next lesson, the subject will again be about the Phoenicians in general. There were some very interesting things happening 500 to 700 years before the Golden Age of Tyre which we need to know about, for it revolves around the very personal lives of our Patriarchs. Their living conditions were quite different than we might realize.

This is my twenty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. It is still my striving goal to make each succeeding letter to transcend, eclipse and outshine the ones preceding it. It is a very rigorous, difficult and demanding goal to try to meet each month, but meet it I will. In the last lesson, we got on the subject of the Phoenicians which is probably one of the lesser understood subjects of Israelite history. This is a subject which we all need to get better acquainted with. I am trying to establish the groundwork for a series on Esau-Edom, and we need to take into account some secular history surrounding him to understand what was going on which affected him in his early days. Really, secular history is very much compatible with Bible history if we understand them both correctly. As we study this history, we may find the circumstances and lifestyles of the people living at that time entirely different from what we ever dreamed. Unless we can come to an understanding of the background stage for our investigation, we will miss much of the story. With these teaching letters, I am trying to bring you the best selected articles of reference I can find. This way you can benefit, in a few minutes of reading, from what it took me many hours of research to find.

 

THE DEMISE OF EDOM 

There is still more we should consider about the Phoenicians, and I did find a better-than-normal article in a book entitled Early Progress by Willis Mason West. Sometimes articles found in smaller history books are more concise and, therefore, give a better overall view on a subject. Quoting now from page 55-57:

“THE PHOENICIANS dwelt on a little strip of broken coast shut off from the interior by the Lebanon Mountains. Long before 1000 B.C. they had far outrun Egypt and Babylonia in trade, so that we think of their country as almost the first land of commerce. The Mediterranean was to them all that the Nile was to the Egyptians. Their many harbors invited them seaward, and the “cedar of Lebanon” offered the best of ship timber. At first, half traders, half pirates, their crews crept from island to island, to barter with the natives or to sweep them off for slaves, as chance might best suggest. Then, more daringly, they sought wealth farther and farther on the sea, until they passed even the Pillars of Hercules, into the open Atlantic, and we see them exchanging the precious tin of Britain, the yellow amber of the Baltic, and the slaves and ivory of West Africa, for the spices, gold, scented wood, and precious stones of India. The ship that Neco sent to circumnavigate Africa was manned by Phoenician sailors; and the chief Phoenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, were among the most splendid and wealthy in the world. The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel exclaimed:

O thou that dwellest at the entry of the sea, which art the merchant of the peoples ... thou, O Tyre, hast said, I am perfect in beauty. Thy borders are in the heart of the seas; thy builders have perfected thy beauty. They have made all thy planks of fir trees ... They have taken cedars from Lebanon to be masts for thee; they have made thy benches of ivory inlaid in boxwood from the isles of Kittim [Kition in Cyprus]. Of fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was thy sail, ... blue and purple from the isles of Elishah [North Africa] was thy awning ... All the ships of the sea were in thee to exchange merchandise ... With Silver, iron, tin, and lead they traded for thy wares. [Ezekiel names also, among the articles of exchange, emeralds, coral, ivory, ebony, rubies, wheat, honey, oil, balm, wine, wool, yarn, spices, horses, mules, lambs, and goats.]

 

“And when we think of these adventurous ‘ships’ we must try to remember that they were still only small open boats, driven mainly by oars. Sometimes the boatmen used also a square sail, but only to run before the wind. (It was many hundreds of years before sailors learned to ‘tack.’) The had no compass. Their only guides, when they were out of sight of land, were the sun and stars. Centuries later, the Greeks still called the North Star the ‘Phoenicians’ Star’, because the daring Phoenician mariners had become famous for steering by it.

 

“The Phoenicians were the first colonizers. They fringed the larger islands and the shores of the Mediterranean with trading stations, which became new centers of civilization. Carthage, Utica, Gades, (Cadiz, on the Atlantic), were among their colonies. They worked tin mines in Colchis, in Spain, and finally in Britain, and so made possible the manufacture of bronze on a larger scale than before, to replace stone implements. Probably they first introduced bronze into many parts of Europe.

 

“To get things wherewith to trade, the Phoenicians became manufacturers, — learning from Egyptians and Babylonians to work in metals, glass, and textiles. Hammer, loom, potter’s wheel, engraver’s knife, were always busy in Tyre, and quantities of their products are found in ancient tombs of Greece and Italy — the earliest European homes of civilization. Especially prized, too, among wealthy and ruling classes of all the world was a rich crimson dye, the long-famous ‘Tyrian purple’ (obtained from the bodies of a shellfish that abounded near Phoenicia), with which Phoenician weavers colored their most costly woolen robes. The main service of the Phoenicians was to spread civilization that others had created. They were ‘missionaries of culture.’ Especially did they teach the Greeks, who were to teach the rest of Europe.

 

“One mighty invention does seem due chiefly to the Phoenicians themselves. When the Egyptians first conquered Syria, about 1600 B.C., the Phoenicians were using the cuneiform script ... But their commerce made it necessary to keep complicated accounts and to communicate with agents in distant ports. This called for a simpler way of writing; and about 1100 B.C., we find them with a true alphabet of twenty-two letters (for consonant sounds only) probably based upon Egyptian ‘sound-symbols.’ This, it is well said, was ‘their chief export.’ All the alphabets in use in the world to-day are derived from this one.”

 

Another source which spells out why Phoenicia became an ideal area for a major defensive seaport in ancient times is examined by the Cyclopædia of Universal History, volume 1, pages 238-239, by John Clark Ridpath, LL. D., as follows:

“The western slope of Libanus, dropping down to the Mediterranean, extending along the coast for about one hundred and eighty miles, constituted Phoenicia, one of the smallest, but at the same time most important, countries ... Next to the sea the land had no great fertility, being a mere strip of sand; but here was the possibility of commerce. Here, too, rose the long line of date-palms, which gave the name of Phoenicia — land of the purple date.

 

“In its widest part the country was scarcely twenty miles in breadth, and anon [soon] the mountain spurs came within a mile of the sea. An insignificant belt of sand! But Nature had chosen it as the spot from which should begin the dominion of man over the deeps. Commerce was a necessity of the situation. The forests of Lebanon have been proverbial in all ages. The heavy cedars almost overhung the sea. To cut these giants of the wood and float them down the short swift streams to the coast gave a vent to the energies and profit to the industry of men at a time when Egypt was still fresh in her youth. All this would have passed perhaps but for the safe and frequent harbors which indented the shore, holding at perpetual bay the storms of the boisterous sea. These quiet havens of Phoenicia were the birthplace of the navies of the world. Here man first learned to contend successfully with the perils of the open ocean and to make Neptune, as well as Mars and Jove, his confederate and friend.

 

“The fleets of Phoenicia put boldly to sea. When History was still in the dawn the strange crafts of the hardy maratime [sic] people were seen creeping around the shores of the Mediterranean. In the great days of Assyria and Babylon the overland trade from the valley of the Euphrates and still further east was brought to the Phoenician coast to be carried to the distant colonies and growing nations of the West. By and by these same fleets became important in discovery and in war. The cities of Phoenicia grew rich. They were arbiters of the deep. Government flourished. The court was one of the most splendid in the East. Tyre and Sidon became first known and then famous as far as the knowledge of man extended by communication in the earth; insomuch that the insignificant strip of territory in which they were situated possessed a greater importance in the destinies of the ancient world than did whole kingdoms which were given up to torpor [lethargy] and inaction.”

 

From the book Tracing Our White Ancestors by Frederick Haberman, pages 22-23, we get the following concerning the Phoenicians:

“THE PHOENICIANS. Having identified the Aryan race with the Adamic or white Caucasian race originating in the mountains of Central Asia, let us now turn to the so-called Phoenicians, who were known to be the leading pioneers, merchants, inventors, and mariners of antiquity, who, coming from north of the Persain Gulf, kept pushing eastward [westward] to the shores of the Mediterranean, sailing in their galleys along the coastlands of the Mediterranean, following the setting sun through the Pillars of Hercules, sailed northwestward along the Atlantic seaboard of Europe into Britain, along the coasts of Africa, rounded the Cape of Good Hope, and even crossed the Atlantic to the shores of South and Central America, as we have record of.

 

“Let us bear in mind here that it was the Greeks who gave these ancient mariners and colonizers the name of Phoenicians; and they existed for a period of over 1000 years before the Greeks and continued in name until the Christian era, their language, the Punic, being the commercial language of antiquity, as English is today.

 

“Let us now analyze the word ‘Phoenician’ and ‘Phoenicia.’ Professor George Rawlinson, in his Story of Phoenicia, tells us that Phoenicia derived its name from the forests of date or Phoenix palms which grew there in great luxuriance. So far so good; but whence did the Phoenix palm derive its name? Horapollo says: ‘A palm branch was the symbol of the Phoenix.’ Yes, but what or who was the Phoenix? Sanchoniathon, the Phoenician writer, states that ‘Phoenix was the first Phoenician.’ Phoenix, then, was a man. Now, the word Phoenix is the Greek form of the Egyptian term ‘Pa-Hanok’, the house of Enoch. In Hebrew Enoch also is Hanok. Thus the mystery of that ancient race is solved: they were the sons and descendants of Enoch and of Noah and his three sons, who after the Flood started their westward march. Their descendants have kept it up since, settled first north of the Persian Gulf in the bushlands of Mesopotamia, where they found a dusky race in occupation of the land, the ancient Sumerians, and from thence towards the Mediterranean.

 

“Chambers Encyclopedia in the article ‘Phoenicia’ gives us the following account of the origin of the Phoenicians, page 136, volume 8: ‘Two accounts have come down to us of the origin of the Phoenicians. According to Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny, and others, they dwelt anciently on the shores of the Persian Gulf, whence they crossed by land to Syria, and settled on the coast of the Mediterranean. Herodotus (vii 89) declares this to be their own account of themselves, and Strabo says that there was a similar tradition among the inhabitants of the gulf, who showed, in proof of it, Phoenician temples on some of the islands. Justin, on the contrary, in his epitome of Trogus Pompeius, declares that they were driven out of their country by an earthquake, and passed to the Mediterranean.’”

 

THE EGYPTIAN, SINUHE

 

At this point, we must take into consideration an Egyptian official who lived somewhere during the 12th dynasty (1938-1756 B.C.), for this person plays an important role in understanding the events and conditions during the period of time of our Patriarchs. Which, again, plays an important part in understanding the story of Esau as we will see later on. This man’s name was Sinuhe, and he has proved to be more than a myth. To verify there was such a person, I will quote from The Encyclopedia Britannica © 1994, volume 10, page 840:2b:

“Sinuhe (fl. 20th century BC) Middle Kingdom Egyptian official of the 12th dynasty (1938-1756 BC) who fled Egypt to settle in Syria. His biography yields information about politics and social conditions of the time.

 

“Sinuhe was an official of the harem maintained for Amenemhet 1 by his queen. While on an expedition to Libya he learned of the king’s assassination (1908 BC) and fled, either from fright or because of his complicity. He intended to travel southward but was blown to the north while crossing the Nile, and he passed into Palestine. After much wandering in Palestine and Lebanon, he was invited to settle with the chieftain of southern Syria, who adopted him and married him to his eldest daughter. In that land Sinuhe raised a family and became a veritable patriarch. He defended his father-in-law’s territory and entertained emissaries traveling to and from Egypt.

 

“The pharaoh Sesostris 1 invited Sinuhe to return to Egypt, and Sinuhe eagerly accepted. The king forgave him his real or imagined crimes and welcomed him with rich gifts; thereafter Sinuhe remarried in his homeland, while the pharaoh ordered a fine tomb built for him. Sinuhe’s biography survived as a popular epic; internal evidence suggests that it is based on actual events. The story of Sinuhe was adapted by a modern Finnish writer, Mika Waltari, for a popular novel, The Egyptian (1949)”

 

EGYPT’S IRON CURTAIN

 

For further details of Sinuhe’s story, I will quote excerpts from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, pages 59-60:

“With the campaign of Sesostris III about 1850 B.C., we are right in the middle of the patriarchal period. Meantime Egypt had taken possession of the whole of Canaan: the country now lay under the suzerainty of the Pharaohs. Thanks to the archaeologists, we possess a unique document from this epoch, a gem of ancient literature. The author: a certain Sinuhe of Egypt. Scene: Canaan. Time: between 1971 and 1928 B.C., under Pharaoh Sesostris 1. Sinuhe, a nobleman in attendance at court, became involved in a political intrigue. He feared for his life and emigrated to Canaan:

 

“‘As I headed north I came to the Princes’ Wall, which was built to keep out the Bedouins and crush the Sand ramblers. I hid in a thicket in case the guard on the wall, who was on patrol at the time, would see me. I did not move out of it till the evening. When daylight came ... and I had reached the Bitter Lake I collapsed. I was parched with thirst, my throat was red-hot. I said to myself: This is the taste of death! But as I made another effort and pulled myself onto my feet, I heard the roaring of cattle and some Bedouins came in sight. Their leader, who had been in Egypt, recognized me. He gave me some water and boiled some milk, and I went with him to his tribe. They were very kind to me.’

 

“Sinuhe’s escape had been successful. He had been able to slip unseen past the great barrier wall on the frontier of the kingdom of the Pharaohs which ran exactly along the line which is followed by the Suez Canal today. The ‘Princes’ Wall’ was even then several hundred years old. A priest mentions it as far back as 2650 B.C.: ‘The Princes’ Walls are being built to prevent the Asiatics forcing their way into Egypt. (Bingo - Hurrians!) ‘They want water ... to give to their cattle.’ Later on, the children of Israel were to pass this wall many times: there was no other way into Egypt. Abraham must have been the first of them to see it when he emigrated to the land of the Nile during a famine. (Gen. 12:10)

 

Sinuhe continues his story of how he passed from one area in Retenu (the old name for Canaan or Palestine) to another; how he went to Byblos and continued to Kedme (a desert country east of Damascus) where he spent eighteen months. He was welcomed by the chief of Upper Retenu named Ammi-Enschi. Sinuhe was assured he would be safe and well treated. Ammi-Enschi gave Sinuhe priority over his own family, offering him his eldest daughter for a wife, and land to occupy with his children. There was nothing lacking in the way of honey, oil, fruit trees, corn, barley, along with sheep and cattle. Ammi-Enschi made Sinuhe chief over his tribe in the choicest allotment of his dominion. Sinuhe had at his disposal nothing except the finest of food and drink. As the years passed, Sinuhe’s children grew into hardy men, and each became ruler of his own tribe. Sinuhe’s house became a station of hospitality for all couriers to and from the royal court of Egypt, giving water to the thirsty, befriending the wanderer and protecting the dispossessed. Sinuhe became chief protector against the attacks of the Bedouins upon his neighbors and organized defensive measures to protect their family members from becoming slaves, safeguarding pastures, wells, sheep, cattle, and stores. Sinuhe, being a great swordsman and archer, personally killed many of the enemy Bedouins along with making defensive strategies. Continuing quoting from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, page 61:

“Out of his many experiences among the ‘Asiatics’ (Bingo — Hurrians!) a life-and-death duel, which he describes in detail, seems to have made the deepest impression on Sinuhe. A ‘Strong man of Retenu’ had jeered at him one day in his tent and called him out. He was sure he could kill Sinuhe and appropriate his flocks and herds and properties. But Sinuhe, like all Egyptians, was a practiced bowman from his earliest days and killed the ‘strong man’ who was armed with shield, spear, and dagger, by putting an arrow through his throat. The spoils that came to him as a result of this combat made him even richer and more powerful.”

 

MORE ON EGYPT’S IRON CURTAIN, “PRINCES’ WALL”

 

For more on Egypt’s “Princes’ Wall”, I will quote from pages 71-72 of The Bible As History by Werner Keller:

“In times of famine, Egypt was for Canaanite nomads their place of refuge and often their only salvation. When the ground dried up in their own country, the land of the Pharaohs always afforded green pastures ...

 

“On the other hand the proverbial wealth of Egypt was often a temptation to thieving bands of daring nomads who were not interested in finding pasture but were much more concerned with the bursting granaries and sumptuous palaces. Often they could only be got rid of by force of arms. As a protection against these unwelcome invaders and to keep a closer check on the frontier, the erection of the great ‘Princes’ Wall’ was begun in the third millennium B.C. It consisted of a chain of forts, watchtowers, and strong points. It was only under cover of darkness that the Egyptian Sinuhe with his local knowledge was able to slip through unobserved. Six hundred and fifty years later, at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, the frontier was also strongly guarded. Moses knew only too well that escape from the country in defiance of Pharaoh’s orders was impossible. The sentries would at once have sounded the alarm and summoned the guards. Any attempt to break through would have been nipped in the bud by sharpshooters and commandos in armored chariots and would have ended in bloodshed. That was the reason why the prophet, knowing the country, chose another, quite unusual route. Moses led the children of Israel southward, as far as the Red Sea, where there was no longer any wall.”

 

Now back to page 56 of The Bible As History by Werner Keller:

If we look at a globe of the world, Palestine is only a tiny spot on the earth’s surface, a narrow streak. It is possible to drive comfortably in a single day round the borders of the old kingdom of Israel: 150 miles from North to South, 25 miles across at its narrowest point, 9,500 square miles in all, its size was about that of the island of Sicily. Only for a few decades in its turbulent history was it any bigger. Under its renowned kings David and Solomon its territory reached to the arm of the Red Sea at Ezion-geber in the south, and far beyond Damascus into Syria on the north. The present state of Israel with its 8000 square miles is smaller by a fifth than the old kingdom.

 

“... Traversed by hills and mountain chains whose summits rose to over 3000 feet, surrounded in the south and east by scrub and desert, in the north by the mountains of Lebanon and Hermon, in the west by a flat coast with no natural harbors, it lay like a ... island between the great kingdoms on the Nile and the Euphrates, on the frontier between two continents. East of the Nile delta, Africa stops. After a desolate stretch of 100 miles of desert Asia begins, and at its threshold lies Palestine.

 

“When in the course of its eventful history it was constantly being dragged into the affairs of the wider world, it had its position to thank for it. Canaan is the link between Egypt and Asia. The most important trade route of the ancient world passes through this country. Merchants and caravans, migratory tribes and peoples, followed this road, which the armies of the great conquerors were later to make use of. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, one after another, made the land and its people the plaything of their economic, strategic, and political concerns.

 

“It was in the interests of trade that the giant on the Nile in the third millennium B.C. was the first great power to stretch out its tentacles toward Canaan.

 

“‘We brought 40 ships, laden with cedar trunks, We built ships of cedarwood-one ‘Pride of Two Lands’, a ship of 150 feet — and of meru wood, two ships 150 feet long. We made the doors of the king’s palace of cedarwood.’ That is the substance of the world’s oldest business record from a timber importer about 2700 B.C. The details of this cargo of timber in the reign of Pharaoh Snefru are scratched on a tablet of hard black diorite which is carefully preserved in the museum at Palermo. Dense woods covered the slopes of Lebanon then. The excellent wood from its cedars and meru, a kind of conifer, was just what the Pharaohs needed for their building schemes.

 

Five hundred years before Abraham’s day there was a flourishing import and export trade on the Canaanite coast. Egypt exchanged gold and spices from Nubia, copper and turquoise from the mines at Sinai, linen and ivory, for silver from the Taurus, leather goods from Byblos, painted vases from Crete. In the great Phoenician dyeworks well-to-do Egyptians had their robes dyed purple. For their society women they bought a wonderful lapis lazuli blue — eyelids dyed blue were all the rage — and stibium, a cosmetic which was highly thought of by the ladies for touching up their eyelashes.

 

In the seaports of Ugarit (now Ras Shamra) and Tyre there were Egyptian consuls; the coastal fortress of Byblos became an Egyptian colony; monuments were erected to the Pharaohs, and Phoenician princes adopted Egyptian names”

 

BIBLICAL AND SECULAR HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY

 

There are very serious problems with biblical and secular historical chronological dating. Most biblical chronological dating is based upon James Ussher’s work. Most Egyptian historical chronological dating is based on a work by Manetho, and we get it secondhand. In my opinion, I prefer to use Adam Rutherford’s work in his four books entitled Pyramidology. I cite three reasons: (1) Rutherford establishes Adam at 5407 B.C. which coincides with the book of “Adam And Eve”, chapter 3, verses 6 and 16 in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden. (2) Rutherford establishes 2623 B.C. for the beginning of the work on the Great Pyramid which is very near, (3) “Peleg” when “the earth” was “divided”, Genesis (10:25). It was the Great Pyramid which divided the earth. The Great Pyramid was located in the very center of the earth, thus dividing equally the land mass of the world, east and west, and also, north and south.

 

400 YEAR EGYPTIAN BLACKOUT OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL

 

Oddly enough, there are no Egyptian written records of the Israelites ever being in Egypt, free or in bondage (with the exception of possibly one item). There is almost a total 400 year blackout of this history on Egypt’s part. For this information, I will quote The Bible as History in Pictures by Werner Keller, page 58:

“If it seems surprising that this success story is given not even the barest mention in the otherwise meticulously accurate Egyptian records — at least so far as we possess them — we may put it down to the special circumstances of the period in which Joseph in all probability lived.”

 

Again, in The Bible As History by Werner Keller, page 86:

“On the debit side, there was not the slightest trace of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt apart from the Bible itself. Historians and professors of theology alike spoke of the ‘Legend of Joseph.’ Egypt was just the kind of country from which one might hope for, and even expect, contemporary documentation about the events recorded in the Bible.”

 

The one lone record I could find, other than the Bible, giving evidence to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt was in Archæology And The Bible by George A. Barton, page 37:

“Merneptah in the fifth year of his reign set up a hymn of victory on a pillar in a temple erected by his father, Ramses II. This hymn discovered by Petrie in 1896 is famous as the only writing outside the Bible that mentions Israel by name. A part of it is translated in Part II, p. 331, where its bearing on Exodus is discussed: (see Fig. 15).”

In the back of his book, Barton displays Plate 6, Fig. 15, which is a pictorial representation of The “Israel” Inscription Of Merneptah, the only known Egyptian evidence of Israel’s sojourn among them.

 

According to The Bible as History in Pictures, by Werner Keller, page 130, these are the words of the “Israel-stela”:

“‘In Egypt there is great rejoicing, Her cities shout for joy ... All men speak of Merneptah’s conquest ... The princes are prostrate and cry: Peace! The vanquished are laid low ... Libya is devastated, the Hittites are pacified. Canaan is conquered and all her wickedness. Askelon is captive, Gezer is fallen, Yenoam is no more. Israel is ravaged and has no offspring. Palestine is widowed ...’

 

“This monument of Pharaoh Merneptah has often been called the ‘Israel-stela’ since it is so far the only contemporary Egyptian document containing the name of the Israelite people. The relief above the inscription is divided into almost identical scenes. One one side, in the centre, the god Amon stands under the winged sun-disk. He is giving Merneptah the sickle-sword with his right hand and holding the sceptre of the gods in his left. The pharaoh wears the decorative war-helmet, and above him hovers the sun-disk with pendant heraldic vipers. With one hand he grasps the sword offered to him by the god Amon, with the other he holds the crock. Behind Merneptah, on the right of the picture, stands the falcon-headed god Horus, while on the left is Mut, wife of Amon and goddess of Thebes. Horus and Mut both have one hand raised in greeting, in the other hand they hold a notched stick ...”

 

There is more information concerning the ‘Israel Stele” in the book Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology by E. M Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, pages 254-255:

“... The text itself comprised of twenty-eight lines in which the pharaoh boasts of his triumph over the Lydians and other foreigners. This monument attracted wide attention because Israel is mentioned in the last section, this being one of the rare references to Israel in ancient nonbiblical documents. Me[r]neptah’s victory over the enemies to the north are described in normative poetic expression for such commemorative hymns, His reference to Israel is as follows: ‘Israel is laid waste. his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt.’ The reference to Hurru is related to the Hurrians, or the biblical Horites.

 

“For Bible students the inscription is extremely important. First, it is as official recognition of a people called Israel in extra-biblical documents and in the earliest mention of Israel known to us in such literature. The words ‘his seed is not’ are a conventional phrase applicable to any defeated or plundered people. It should not, therefore, be applied to the slaying of male children of the Israelites by the Egyptians, as some writers have suggested. Similar expressions are found at least five times referring to other people.

 

“In contrast with the other enemies, preceded by the determinative for ‘nation’, the word Israel is designated as a ‘people.’ The fact that such a determinative was used preceding the name Israel might indicate that from an Egyptian viewpoint they were considered a people not yet permanently resident in the political (national) sense of the term ...

 

At this time, it would be appropriate for every White Israelite to thank Yahweh for the fact there is at least one monument out of ancient Egypt (though not respectful) which recognizes our heritage!

 

You will also notice this monument mentions the Hurrians which I spoke of extensively in lesson #25. In the next lesson, I will be addressing the significance of the Egyptian-Hurrian connection and how it fits into the whole scheme of things. There is a lot more to this Egyptian history than we have ever been told. If we don’t understand the full story of Egypt, we cannot understand the entire story of Jacob-Israel, let alone Esau!

This is my twenty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. With my last teaching letter, I covered more material concerning the Phoenicians. I introduced the subject of the old “Princes’ Wall” in Egypt and the Egyptian story of Sinuhe. I continued with the 400 year blackout of the History of Israel in Egypt, and that there is only one known Egyptian written record of Israel ever being in there.

I really need to go back and make some comments concerning lesson #27. Willis Mason West, in his book Early Progress, pages 55-57 makes the statement: “Long before 1000 B.C., they (the Phoenicians) had far outrun Egypt and Babylon in trade.” This comment may be misleading. When we consider it was the descendants of Shem who originally occupied the Indus Valley, moved on to Egypt and setup a thriving civilization there. From Egypt, these Shemites moved on to the area known as Phoenicia. West’s statement may be correct in a sense, but more clarification is needed. West also comments about the Phoenicians: “Sometimes the boatmen used also a square sail, but only to run before the wind. (It was many hundreds of years before sailors learned to ‘tack.’)” I checked out the art of sailing in my World Book Encyclopedia, and I found that every maneuver in sailing could be managed with a single sail. There is no way anyone could row a boat for hundreds of miles by rowing only with oars. I can see where oars were necessary at particular times, but not for the long sailing runs. Some of the ships in those days were 150 feet long. Not only did the sailors in ancient times use the wind, but they also used the water currents to assist in their progress on the way to their destinations. I am pointing this out because I want you to know I am not 100% in agreement with all of my quoting from various reference materials. At the same time, I try to use the best references I can find. Also the assertion in West’s article implying that the Phoenicians “spread civilization that others had created” comes from not understanding who they were. As West speaks of the Phoenicians using “cuneiform script” in 1600 B.C. and advancing to a true alphabet by 1100 B.C., he is saying a great deal, but 1100 B.C. is a bit late. Did Moses and the Judges (before 1100 B.C.) write in cuneiform? I don’t think so! Hecataeus interviewed his Canaanite “Phoenicians” about 610 B.C. Herodotus was there about 455 B.C. All of these accounts, including John Clark Ridpath’s article on the Phoenicians, are all late. Surely there were at least some Israelites in Tyre still in Herodotus’ time, but would they have understood who they were, over 200 years after the deportations? Aside from these people, the Assyrians had imported about 18 different races (depending on how you count them) into “Phoenicia” and neighboring Samaria, some of them surely being from regions near the Persian Gulf.

In the last lesson, I also mentioned the discrepancies in the chronologies of the Bible and history. Adam Rutherford, in his four volume work, Pyramidology, volume 3, page 702 makes the following remark concerning chronology (it is a side note attached to a chart of dates from Adam until the Exodus):

“NOTE ON PATRIARCHAL PERIODS. A careful examination of the most ancient manuscripts and versions of Genesis reveals the unreliability of the Massoretic system of chronology, in regard to the earliest times. Archaeological research has also proved that the Massoretic figures (as appearing in the A.V.) are completely untenable prior to the time of Abraham. In this Table, the chronology of the period from Adam to Abraham is based on the Septuagint system, which for the epoch subsequent to the Flood, is confirmed by the Samaritan Hebrew text and in agreement with archaeology.”

 

THE DEMISE OF EDOM

 

You are probably wondering what my last few letters have to do with Edom. I am trying to establish the background history during Esau’s lifetime to ascertain what things were like during his age. I am sure we’ll find things were entirely different than we ever imagined when we finally get to his story.

 

A PLACE CALLED “MARI”

 

One of the places we should take into consideration is a place called “Mari.” I will quote from The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, 1964ã edition, in the “Archaeological Supplement”, page 345, item 4393 (readings of later editions vary slightly):

“Mari was an important ancient city on the Middle Euphrates which is now known as Tell Hariri. The location is strategic in that it is the halfway city between Carchemish and Babylon.

“Professor Andre Parrot began excavation on the 300-acre mound in 1933, and during his many campaigns uncovered a wealth of material which depicts life as it was lived in Patriarchal times. He uncovered the royal palace of Zimri-lim, King of Mari, which covered seven acres, and contained more than 250 rooms and courts, in addition to the great audience room, administrative offices, and quarters for visiting officials from other lands. Two of the rooms were school rooms where youngsters were taught reading, writing and arithmetic in order to train them for life, and especially to become future ‘scribes.’ In the center of the palace was the king’s private chapel, which had three open courts, the innermost of which was 75 feet long, with walls 30 feet high. In this chapel was the statue of Ishtar, the goddess of fertility. Water flowed through the statue and out of a vase which she held in her hand. This was the same goddess whom the Hebrews called ‘Ashtaroth’, ‘the goddess of the Sidonians’ (1 Kings 11:33).

“In the royal archives of the King’s palace the excavators discovered more than 20,000 tablets. Some 5000 of these were letters to the king from district officers of the state of Mari. Others were diplomatic letters from princes and rulers throughout Mesopotamia and Syria. There were letters from Hammurabi, King of Babylon, to whom Mari fell during the 32nd year of Zimri-lim’s reign. In the district officials’ letters frequent reference was made to the cities of Harran, Nahor, Serug, Peleg, and the ‘mound of Terah’ — places mentioned in the Old Testament. The personal names of Reu, Terah, Nahor, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Benjamin, and David are so common in these letters that Dr. Albright has said:

“Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob no longer seem isolated figures, much less reflections of later Israelite history; they now appear as true children of their age, bearing the same names, moving about over the same territory, visiting the same towns (especially Harran and Nahor), practicing the same customs as their contemporaries’.” (emphasis mine)

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FIND

 

Unger’s Bible Dictionary expresses the importance of this find on page 695: “The Mari Letters have helped to date Hammurabi (c. 1728-1626 B.C.), thus settling a very difficult point in Biblical chronology. In fact, the Mari documents have been a major discovery and have completely revised current knowledge of history, linguistics and historical background at a period around 1700 B.C.”

 

MARI’S GENERAL HISTORY

 

From The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 4, page 74, we read the following:

“History. The earliest known example of a king claiming to have conquered Mari is Eannatum of Lagash (c. 2500 B.C.). Around 2350 B.C. Sargon the Great of Akkad made the same claim. During the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2113-2006 B.C.) Mari was ruled by governors (sakkanakku) of the kings of Ur. But c. 2017 Ishbi-Erra, who hailed from Mari and was an official of the Ibbi-Sin, king of Ur (c. 2029-2006), seized control of the city of Isin, when it was cut off from Ur by rampaging Amorites. When Ur fell in 2006 B.C. Ishbi-Erra of Isin and Naplanum of Larsa became the leading powers in Babylon. Yakhdun-Lim, king of Khana (c. 1830-1800), conquered the city of Mari and incorporated it in his realm. But not long thereafter he was defeated by King Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria (c. 1814-1782). In c. 1800 B.C. Yakhdun-Lim lost his life in a palace revolution perhaps instigated by Shamshi-Adad, and his son Zimri-Lim fled to Syria. Four years later Shamshi-Adad installed his son Yasmakh-Adad as vice-king of Mari (c. 1796-1780). When Shamshi-Adad died (1782), Zimri-Lim secured the assistance of Ibal-pi-El II of Eshnunna (c. 1790-1761) and the king of Aleppo to drive Yasmakh-Adad from the throne of Mari. After an independent rule of nineteen years (c. 1779-1761), Zimri-Lim was reduced to the status of a vassal king or governor of the city, when Hammurabi of Babylon conquered Mari in 1761 B.C. As a vassal of Hammurabi Zimri-Lim continued to rule Mari until the Kassites destroyed the city in 1742 B.C.”

As you have probably noticed, many of these names are probably new and strange to you. With the next reference the mention of the Kassites will be used helping to put some of the pieces of the puzzle together. I will now quote from Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, pages 109-110:

“The Canaanites. — Between 1800 and 1750 B.C. a migration occurred which greatly disrupted all western Asia. There moved into Babylonia from the east a people called Kassites. They conquered Babylonia and established a dynasty which reigned for 576 years. Coincident with this movement into Babylonia there was a migration across the whole of Asia to the westward, which caused an invasion of Egypt and the establishment of the Hyksos dynasties there. As pointed out previously, it is possible that this movement, in so far as the leadership of the invasion of Egypt was concerned, was Hittite. In any event, however, many Semites were involved in it, as the Semitic names in the Egyptian Delta at this time prove. It is customary to assume that it was in connection with this migration that the Canaanites came into Palestine. This cannot, in the present state of our knowledge, be clearly proved, but such evidence as we have points in this direction. There began at this time a new period of culture at Gezer, which is quite distinguishable from that which had preceded. This indicates the coming of new influences. Moreover, there was apparently an augmentation of the population of Palestine at this time. New cities were formed at Tell el-Hesy and Tell es-Safi, and elsewhere. We thus feel sure that there was an increase of population and, when next our written sources reveal to us the location of the nations, the Canaanites were dwelling in Phoenicia. The Egyptian scribes of a later time called the entire western part of Syria and Palestine ‘The Canaan.’ Probably, therefore, the Canaanites settled along the sea coast. We, therefore, infer that they came into this region at this time. With the coming of an increased population, the Amorites appear to have been in part subjugated and absorbed, and in part forced into narrower limits. A powerful group of them maintained their integrity in the region afterward occupied by the tribe of Asher and in the valley between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains, where they afterward formed a kingdom. Another group of them survived to the east of the Jordan, where they maintained a kingdom until overthrown by the Hebrews.”

This all seems to fit the Bible account quite well. Not only did all these peoples migrate into Palestine, but Egypt made inroads there also. For this story, I will quote again Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, pages 108-109:

“Egyptians also came to Palestine during this period. The tale of Sinuhe relates the adventures of a man who fled to Palestine in the year 1970 B.C., and who reached the land of Kedem, or the East, which apparently lay to the east of the Jordan. It is referred to several times in the Old Testament. (See Gen. 29:1; Judges 6:3, 33; 7:12; 8:10; Job 1:3, etc.) Sinuhe there entered the service of an Amorite chieftain, Ammienshi, married his eldest daughter, became ruler of a portion of his land, and lived there for many years. He finally returned to Egypt and wrote an account of his adventures. The region was also called by Sinuhe and other Egyptians Upper Retenu, a name which they also applied to all the higher parts of Syria and Palestine, Retenu is philologically equivalent to Lotan (Gen. 36:20, 22, 29; 1 Chron. 1:38, 39) and Lot (Gen. 11:27; 12:4, etc.). When Sinuhe arrived in Kedem he found other Egyptians already there. Ammienshi was well acquainted with Egyptians. There was apparently considerable trade with Egypt at this time. Men from Palestine often went there for this purpose. Such traders are pictured on an Egyptian tomb of this period. Trade with Egypt is also shown to have existed by the discovery of Egyptian scarabs of the time of the Middle Kingdom in the excavations of Gezer, Jericho, Taanach, and Megiddo.”

 

MORE ON THE “PRINCES’ WALL”

 

Since my last lesson, (#27 for July, 2000), I have more conformation about the “Princes’ Wall” in Egypt. If you don’t understand about this wall, you will have to refer to that lesson. It seems that it amounted to a series of fortresses situated in about the same area as the Suez Canal is located today. You can find this additional information in the National Geographic magazine for December 1982 entitled “Lost Outpost of the Egyptian Empire”, by Trude Dothan, pages 739-763, 768-769. Although this article gives supporting evidence to the report given by Werner Keller in his book The Bible As History, both accounts do not coincide in all details. It would be well for you to compare the two stories for there are some differences in the two accounts. Because of this, the following will be a critical review of Trude Dothan’s article in the issue of National Geographic just referred to here. In my own mind, I have no doubt that both articles are referring to the same thing. Part of the introduction to this National Geographic article reads:

“Artifacts from the late Bronze Age outpost attest to the part it played on the highroad to Egypt. In that era, called ‘the first international age’, new contacts blossomed between the Nile and the world beyond. The Egyptian presence on the coast in Moses’ time may explain the route of the Exodus through the Sinai desert.”

I will continue now with short excerpts from the main article:

“Eventually we were to uncover not only a cemetery full of archaeological treasures, but also a hidden city, a fortress, and a reservoir — all more than 3,000 years old. And we were to find a clue to a biblical mystery concerning the Exodus: Why, in their flight from Egypt, did Moses take the children of Israel inland to the wilderness instead of pursuing a far easier path along the coast?”

A map of Egypt on page 742 has the following comments:

“Known to Egyptians as the Ways of Horus, the coastal artery from the Nile Delta to Canaan was called ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’ in the Bible. Six fortresses along the route have been identified” …

“The Exodus. Israelites’ 13th century B.C. flight from Egypt may have been through southern Sinai to avoid Egyptian coastal strongholds.”

Continuing with excerpts starting with page 760:

“The fortress, constructed partially above the ruins of the palace, was of even more massive construction. Its walls, more than two meters thick, apparently supported two stories. Corner bastions indicated that this fortress, too, was built in the royal Egyptian style, and in a manner strikingly like fortresses shown on the relief recorded by Pharaoh Seti I on the walls of the Amon Temple at Karnak, far up the Nile.

“This relief, from about 1300 B.C., depicts the ancient route from Egypt to Canaan, a well-traveled road known to the Egyptians as the Ways of Horus. There is more than simply a resemblance between our fortress and the details of the map — the relief provides an almost exact blueprint of the kind of structure we were uncovering …

“My chief assistant and stratigrapher, archaeologist and Egyptologist Baruch Brandl, had never been satisfied with the geologists’ explanation that the huge depression was a natural feature caused by erosion. Baruch felt that its outlines were too regular — there had to be something more to it than that. Finally we recognized the most important clue. Most of the fortresses depicted on Seti’s Karnak relief are connected with large water reservoirs of varying shapes.

“The crater at Deir-el-Balah, we now realize, was actually a reservoir, about 20 by 20 meters, with very steep sides. Thus our ground plan of the fortress and its adjacent pool fit exactly the depiction of Seti’s relief … As the central feature of a roadside fortress, it served many uses besides providing drinking water. A large volume of water would have been needed to prepare potter’s clay …

“Two of the fortresses shown along the Ways of Horus are designed at towns ‘which His Majesty built newly.’ Considering the close connections between Egypt and Canaan during the XIX Dynasty, it is possible that our fortress, with the thick walls and corner towers, was built during the reign of Seti I, who ruled New Kingdom Egypt and its empire in Canaan from about 1318 to 1304 B.C.

“On the basis of the pottery found in the fortress, we believe that it flourished during the reign of Seti’s son, Ramses II (about 1304-1237 B.C.), to whose reign we date the anthropoid burials as well … The Ways of Horus holds much interest for scholars.”

The article goes on to quote Exodus 13:17 and explains why it was expedient for Moses to take the way of Sinai rather than the “Ways of Horus.” Now quoting again from page 763:

“But our excavations at Deir el-Balah revealed the wisdom of this choice for by escaping into the desert, the Israelites avoided the powerful fortresses of the very pharaoh from whom they had fled … The period in which they lived was one of intensive international trade and of great ethnic changes and political upheaval. It was the time of the last flowering of the Egyptian New Kingdom before its decline to the point where the Bible scorned it as a ‘bruised reed’ (II Kings 18:21).”

 

AN IMPORTANT FIND AT NUZI

 

As we are looking for evidence which surrounds the story of Esau-Edom, we need to take into account an important archaeological find at Nuzi. For this information, I will quote from The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, 1964ã edition, “Archaeological Supplement”, page 351, item 4401. Before making this quote, I would like to point out there is evidently a very mistaken conclusion at one point on the part of the writer:

“Nuzi. (Yorghan Tepe), a mound 150 air miles north of Baghdad, was excavated in 1925-31 by a joint expedition of the American School of Oriental Research in Baghdad, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Dr. Edward Chiera was the director. The soundings reached virgin soil, yet the level of occupation uncovered was the 15th to 14th centuries B.C. when the city was populated by the Hurrians, who were the long-lost Horites of the Old Testament.

“From the palace and from private villas or wealthy homes they recovered about 20,000 [pieces of broken] clay tablets which were written by Hurrian(?) scribes in the Babylonian cuneiform language, but with the occasional employment of native Hurrian or Horite words. The tablets consisted largely of commercial accounts, contracts, reports, and judicial decisions which revealed the way of life for some leading families for four or five generations. The parallels between the customs and social conditions of these peoples and the patriarchal narratives in Genesis were not only remarkable, but have proved to be one of the external factors supporting the historicity of this section of the Bible.

“The patriarchs came from this general section of the country, and had lived at Haran (which was predominantly Hurrian or Horite). They had maintained contact here for generations afterward, and in the absence of laws and customs of their own (for there was, as yet, no Old Testament written), they followed those to which they had been accustomed. Notice some of the parallels: (1) Exchange of Property: All transactions involving the transfer of property were recorded, witnessed, sealed, and proclaimed at the city gate (Gen. 23:10-18). (2) Marriage Contracts included a statement that a handmaid could be presented to the new bride, as was the case with Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:24, 29), and contained a provision obliging a childless wife to provide her husband with a handmaid who would bear children, as Sara gave Hagar to Abraham (Gen. 16:3), and Rachel gave Bilah to Jacob (Gen. 30:3-6). (3) Adoption was practiced at Nuzi when a childless couple would adopt a son who would care for them while they lived, bury them when they died, and be heir to their estate. It was specified that if they ever had a son of their own, then the adopted son took second place. This seems to explain Abraham’s adoption of Eliezer as his heir before the birth of Isaac, and the subsequent change when the Lord (Yahweh) promised that a son of his own would be born to become his heir (Gen. 15:2-4). (4) Birthright.. In Nuzi there was found a contract where one brother gave his brother ‘three sheep in exchange for his inheritance share’ in a plantation. All of which sounds like Jacob’s gift to Esau of ‘bread and a mess of lentils’ (Gen. 25:30-34). Also, in Nuzi the ‘blessing’ of a dying father in bequeathing property to a son was honored in court where there was a witness to corroborate the words of the father (Gen. 27:30-33; 49:8-28). (5) Inheritance. In Nuzi there was a law that implied that property and leadership of the family could pass to a daughter’s husband, providing the father had handed over his household gods to his son-in-law. Thus it was, when Laban overtook Jacob and anxiously searched his camp for the household idols, he could not find them for ‘Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them’ (Gen. 31:30-35).”

As I said before, as I started this quotation above, I believe the writer is mistaken when implying that Abraham and his family adopted the customs of the Hurrians. If anything, it was the other way around. I believe it is also a mistake to conclude that no part of the Old Testament had yet been written at Abraham’s time, for Jude 14 mentions the words of Enoch written in the Book of Enoch, (Enoch chapter 2). This also gives us an idea of the people (Hurrians) that lived in the area among the descendants of Shem.

 

MORE INFO CONCERNING PATRIARCHS FOUND AT NUZI

 

For this information, I will quote excerpts from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 4, pages 470-471:

“The importance of written documents. There was a time when it was widely held that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses because it was thought that at that time writing had not been invented. While there is now abundant evidence to the contrary from various sources, it is of particular interest to note that at Nuzi at this early time written documents were extremely important and a great many of them were produced.

“Adoption. Dozens of adoption tablets have been found at Nuzi. Israelite law, so detailed on many subjects, contains no regulations for adoption, and the history of the Hebrews in Palestine after the Conquest, as recorded in the Old Testament contains no evidence of such a practice. But, at Nuzi, it was customary, if a man had no children, to adopt someone to carry on his name and inherit his property. This seems to be reflected in the statement of Abraham, before Isaac was born, that unless the Lord (Yahweh) should give him a child, Eliezer of Damascus would be his heir (Gen. 15:2).

“Teraphim, or household gods. The incident of the Teraphim (Genesis 31:17-35) was extremely puzzling before the discovery of the Nuzi documents. When Jacob determined to leave his uncle Laban, Rachel stole Laban’s teraphim or household gods. Returning to his home, Laban was greatly excited, not simply because his daughters and his son-in-law had left without notice, nor because of the great amount of property that they had taken with them, which Jacob had amassed during his sojourn in Haran but primarily because of the loss of the household gods.

“Jacob with his great number of flocks and herds, must have had a sizable number of shepherds, and it would have required a considerable force to overcome the resistance that he could offer. Laban pursued Jacob three days, taking with him a sufficient number of supporters to cause Jacob to be terrified at his approach. Thus the pursuit of Jacob was a very expensive proposition for Laban. In the Middle Ages students wondered why Laban would have gone to so much expense and trouble on account of these household gods. It was suggested that the teraphim might have been made of gold. Even if this were the case their intrinsic value would hardly have been enough to pay for Laban’s expedition, since they were very small. This was evident from the fact that Rachel was able to hide them in the saddle-basket on which she was sitting in her tent. Though her father searched the tent most thoroughly, he never suspected their presence.

“The mystery became still greater when it was noticed that Jacob was utterly shocked at the idea that he might have stolen the teraphim. When Laban was unable to find them, Jacob bitterly rebuked him for his suspicion (Gen. 31:36-42).

“Previous to the discovery of the Nuzi documents, the whole situation was obscure, and it would have been equally so at the time of the Israelite kingdom when, according to the critics, the story would have been composed. The tablets from Nuzi show that according to Hurrian(?) custom at that early time, if a man desire to appoint a son-in-law as his principal heir he would turn over to him his household gods. After the man’s death, appearance in court with the household gods would be accepted as proof of such a disposition. Rachel was trying to secure all of Laban’s property for her husband, and Jacob was rightfully indignant at being accused of attempting such an underhanded trick. The whole incident becomes understandable in the light of these facts, and it becomes clear why Laban, still suspicious, desired that a boundary stone be put up at Mizpah and that Jacob should swear that he would not pass over this boundary in order to do him harm (Gen. 31:44-53, esp. v. 52). The Nuzi tablets make it clear that a great part of Laban’s reason for this was his desire that at his death, the remainder of his property should go to his own sons and not be taken away from them by Jacob. It is good to note that later Jacob demanded that any strange gods in the hands of his people be buried (Gen. 35:2-4), and that at no time did Jacob try to make false use of these teraphim.

“Sisterhood. To the modern reader it seems strange that Abraham should have said that Sarah was his sister instead of stating what to Pharaoh was the more important fact; that she was his wife (Gen. 12:11-20). It is still stranger that he should have repeated this act in the land of Abimelech (Gen. 20:1-18), and perhaps even more so that Isaac should later have followed his example (Gen. 26:6-16). It has been suggested that light may be thrown on these perplexing incidents by the discovery at Nuzi, as evidenced by many legal contracts, that a position called ‘sisterhood’ was there considered to be of even more importance than that of a wife, and that a wife was sometimes elevated by a special act to this superior position. In view of the evidence that this was the custom in the area in which Abraham had spent many years [rather, the custom of the Hebrews themselves], it is not impossible that Abraham and Isaac may have felt that they were giving their wives a more important and secure position by calling them sisters. Since such a custom was evidently unknown to Pharaoh or to Abimelech an unfortunate situation resulted. Yet, although Pharaoh and Abimelech accused the patriarchs of misrepresentation, there is no evidence in the Scripture of Abraham and Isaac having felt guilty or of God (Yahweh) having condemned them for their words. God (Yahweh) punished Pharaoh and Abimelech for what they had done, but, as far as we know, He did not rebuke Abraham. Therefore it is not impossible that it was a case of misunderstanding rather than of misrepresentation. The incident is quite understandable from this viewpoint in the light of the Nuzi documents ...”

This is my twenty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. With my last teaching letter, we covered more materials concerning the archaeological finds at Mari and Nuzi. These finds have added much in understanding the accounts of the Patriarchs of Genesis. Fifty to seventy-five years ago, many were trying to claim the Bible stories were simply myths handed down from generation to generation; that there were never actual persons such as Abraham, Haran, Nahor, Serug, Peleg, Terah. Since the discoveries of Mari and Nuzi, you don’t hear much about these “higher critics” anymore. There probably are a few uninformed, preposterous, harebrained impostors still making such arguments, but Mari and Nuzi have shut the mouths of the majority of the so-called “experts.” There was another important archaeological find, discovered in 1974-1976, called Ebla, which we will be investigating shortly; if not in this letter, in the next one. This find also silenced the catcalls of the impudent skeptics. With these discoveries in archaeology, there is no more room for doubt that the Bible is true. We also discussed more information concerning the Canaanites. We brought more archaeological testimony that the “Princes’ Wall” did exist during the time of the Egyptian Sinuhe. With what we presented in lesson #28, not only can you know, beyond all doubt, that the Patriarchs existed, but you can understand heretofore ambiguous and problematical passages in Scripture. 

THE DEMISE OF EDOM 

As you may remember, from the last few lessons, I am trying to set the stage for the subject of Esau-Edom. We simply cannot understand the entire story of Esau, unless we understand his previous and surrounding contemporary history. In order to play with a full deck of cards, it will be necessary to put all the players in their places. Sorry to say, there are many making comments about this subject with a very limited knowledge of what was going on. They think, because they read a couple of verses in the Bible, they are some kind of an authority.

 

WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS GOING ON?

 

Once in a while, when reading various sources of information along a certain subject, someone sometimes has the ability to portray, and sum up, a situation in very few words. Such a summation is made by the book, 6,000 Years Of The Bible by G. S. Wegener, page 34, © 1963:

“But although Hammurabi’s empire represented an enormous concentration of power, it did not survive for long. First the Hittites invaded Babylon from the region of the Black Sea, in the far north, and shortly afterwards the Kassites and Hurrians swept across Iran. The Hyksos, operating from Egypt, occupied parts of the country adjoining their own, and after their expulsion from the Nile the pursuing Egyptians themselves invaded Mesopotamian territory. And all the time the Aramaeans, tribes of Semitic bedouins who came raiding across the border, were a constant threat. (More on the Hyksos later.)

“It was the natural course of Mesopotamian history: a perpetual up and down of fortune, an unending confusion and tangle of peoples and tribes. Conquerors came and went; civilizations were born and died; cities and empires were built and crashed again. It was not until 1100 B.C. that another single and all-embracing state arose again in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates. This was the empire of the Assyrians.”

It might be well to go back and read this quotation again. If you can comprehend these last two paragraphs, you have mastered a portion of history that otherwise might take a considerable amount of reading and study to understand. We have to understand we cannot nail down any one group of people to one location for all time. It must be remembered that people are portable. In such an environment, as described above were Abraham and his kin living; especially among the many tribes of people, like the Hurrians and Kassites, who were sweeping into the country. If you have read my last two lessons, you have an idea what type of people these Hurrians and Kassites were. Furthermore, when the Assyrians came into power, this same book says on the same page: “Their rulers felt no scruples in their choice of political expedients. They uprooted whole races and transplanted them in alien lands.”

 

TIME FRAMES

 

A person on my mailing list for this Watchman’s Teaching Letter is in the process of writing a Bible commentary. He gave me permission to quote from his unfinished manuscript. On page 20 he comments:

“Because of the changes made to the lengths of the Patriarchs’ lifetimes, a great latitude must be given with regards to chronology in this section. The Masoretes made changes to the Holy Scriptures sometime after the Crucifixion but before about 300 A.D. Ephrem the Syrian testified to this and accused the Jews of subtracting at least 600 years from the text in order to deny that Yahshua was the Messiah who had come at the appointed time. This appointed time of course was based upon a cabalistic numerology.

“There are, however, great amounts of archeological evidence that can and will be used to bring some light to this somewhat hazy period. It is hoped that through the use of such materials a greater understanding can be achieved concerning the lives of our Patriarchs.”

If the above is true, then Noah’s flood would extend back to about 2948 B.C. instead of 2348 B.C., as stated in most Bibles according to Ussher. Some Bibles omit the chronology from Noah on back to Adam. Actually, the date given by Adam Rutherford’s Pyramidology of 3265 B.C. fits the history of Greece and Egypt much better. Also, the Septuagint and Samaritan texts agree essentially with Rutherford’s figures. (See lesson #25) This chronology is important because it is the particular time period we are dealing with. You see, it is important to understand the approximate timing of events leading up to Esau. You may wonder what the history of Egypt has to do with Esau-Edom. Before we are through, you will begin to understand; it has everything to do with Esau-Edom.

 

HURRIANS & HITTITES BOTH HAD MONGOLIAN FEATURES

 

This, in itself, should tell a story, for they must have been interrelated to each other in some way. This would explain much about the story of Esau, for Scripture seems to indicate a Horite (Hurrian) and a Hittite connection with his wives. For more on the depiction of the Hittites (which agrees with what I documented in lesson #25), I will quote from Researches Into The Ethnic Origins Of Israel by C. F. Parker, B.A., page 37:

“It must be confessed that they (the Hittites) were not a handsome people. They were short and thick of limb, and the front part of their faces was pushed forward in a curious and somewhat repulsive way. The forehead retreated, the cheekbones were high, the nostrils were large, the upper lip protrusive. They had, in fact, according to the craniologists, the characteristics of a Mongolian race. Like the Mongols, moreover, their skins were yellow and their eyes black. They arranged the hair in the form of a ‘pigtail’ which characterises them on their own and the Egyptian monuments quite as much as their snow-shoes with upturned toes. In Syria they doubtless mixed with the Semitic race, and the further south they advanced the more likely they were to become absorbed into the native population. The Hittites of Southern Judah have Semitic names and probably spoke a Semitic language. Kedesh continued to bear to the last its Semitic title, and among the Hittite names which occur further north there are several which display a Semitic stamp.” (If one could observe one of Esau’s wives today, she probably would look somewhat like an Albanian Turk.)

 

WHERE DID ALL THESE PEOPLE COME FROM?

 

For information on where all these various ethnic groups of people were coming from, I will quote short excerpts from a book entitled The First Great Civilizations by Jacquetta Hawkes. I will be using the information from this book as a critical review, and will be checking information from other sources to verify whether or not the following is correct:

Page 61: “We are concerned with the peoples of a vast river system over some two thousand years of their history. Changes in political power between one area and another, frequent foreign infiltrations, the seizure of sovereignty by invaders, even the rise and fall of dynasties, deeply affected social and cultural life. This was even truer for Mesopotamia than for the more secure and isolated Egypt ... it would be impossible to understand the experience and outlook of the population without some knowledge of the often violent political events in which their states were involved and which were a matter of life and death to countless families.”

Page 65: “The two written sources (‘Sumerian King List’ & ‘Vulture Stele’ of Eanatum) taken together have made it possible to reconstruct a considerable part of the dynastic histories of some half-dozen cities of the Plain, including Ur, Umma, Lagash, Uruk and Kish. The King List also assigns one dynasty to Mari, and here again excavation has confirmed that this Semitic city away to the north on the Middle Euphrates was indeed an outpost of Sumerian cultural influence in Early Dynastic times.”

Page 66: “Another element in a repeating pattern beginning in Early Dynastic times was, as we have seen, fighting the Elamites, a people who owed much of their culture to Sumer, emulated her and yet were often to be her enemies. Yet another, and one far more important for the future, was the first major penetration of Sumer by Semites, the outcome of one of the most persistent features in all history: the drift of tribes from the western deserts into the settled land of Mesopotamia.” (about 2700 B.C.)

Pages 71-72: (about 2260 B.C.) “It is said that greatness often misses a generation. Sargon’s grandson, Naram-Sin, the fourth in the dynasty, must have inherited much of his grandfather’s drive and ambition. He came to the throne in about 2260 B.C. and was to rule for thirty-seven years .... It may also refer to his northern frontiers, for he went up into Zagros to subdue a mountain people, the Lulubum (neighbours of the Gutians). ...

“ ... The King of Akkad (Shar-kali-sharri’s modest title) claimed a victory over them, but a letter of the time addressed apparently to a provincial governor, gives a very revealing picture of the true condition of the land ‘You shall plough the fields and look after the cattle. It is no good saying ‘yes, but there are Gutians about and so I cannot plough my field.’ Set up patrols of watchmen every half mile and then plough your field. If armed bands advance there will be local mobilization and you must then have the cattle driven into the city.’ ... According to literary tradition, the luckless Shar-kali-sharri, last of Sargon’s line, was murdered in a palace intrigue. Among the four contenders for his throne, one was a Gutian king ... The Gutians were now ruling over a considerable part of Mesopotamia, including the northern Plain. They adopted the cuneiform script and Akkadian language for their official inscriptions, but these ‘mountain dragons’ appear to have remained essentially barbarous. They are known to have destroyed much, including the city of Assur, and to have created nothing. No temple or palace, no style of art, no valuable innovation of any kind has been attributed to them.”

Page 73: “Yet it was not to be given to Lagash either to free the north from the Gutians or to preside over the last flare of Sumerian greatness before the centre of power shifted irrevocably to the north. Within a decade of Gudea’s death his city seems to have been losing ground, and a place in history as the liberator of the land from the mountain dragons went instead to Utuhengal of Uruk. After having seized Ur, this king marched against the Gutians and gave them battle in the extreme north of Sumer, near the limits of their own territory. His victory must have been complete, for the Gutians were thrown out of Mesopotamia and never again played any significant part in her history.”

Page 74: (about 2200 B. C.) “The campaigns (by Ur-Nammu) were not altogether aggressive. The lands of the east of the Tigris were suffering a dangerous influx of foreigners. These were the Hurrians from the northern mountains. They had been entering peacefully for a century and more (there was even an enclave of them in Nippur as early as 2200 B.C.) but now they came in larger numbers. It was probably due to the strong military policy of Ur that they did not penetrate the Plain and repeat the success of the Gutians.

“For eighty years the empire of Ur maintained its inward stability, and its downfall when it came was largely due to attack from without. The Hurrians had been held in check, but now the pendulum of invasion was to swing back to the west — from mountain enemies to desert enemies.”

 

THE AMORITES

 

Page 74: (about 2027 B.C.) “The Amorites (Sumerian Martu and Akkadian Amurru) had been drifting into Mesopotamia since the days of Sargon. These nomad Semites can in fact be seen as successors to the Akkadians, but they appear to have been less ready to settle and become good citizens ... Marauding bands of Amorites were beginning to reduce the empire to chaos.”

Page 81: (about 1595 B.C.) “Yet the fall of the dynasty (Hammurabi) and the subsequent confusion may have opened the way for the seizure of lasting power by the Kassites. For another intrusion of Indo-European history into that of Mesopotamia we have to return to the Hurrians, last seen being held in check by the Third Dynasty of Ur. These people, whose original home was probably in the Armenian mountains, spoke a language that was neither Semitic nor Indo-European. The eastern tribes that harried Shamshi-Adad and his son were probably predominantly Hurrian, and Hurrian texts of about this time are known from Mari. After the reign of Ishme-Dagon, Assyrian history sinks into obscure doldrums, and it seems that was due to a great influx of Hurrians — who were actually in a majority in some cities and were numerous in Assur itself. A large force of them also swept across northern Mesopotamia, reaching the Syrian coast and influencing the petty state of Palestine.

“Perhaps from the first it was pressure from Indo-European peoples that caused incursions by the Hurrians, and they may soon have acquired chariot-driving Indo-European leaders. Certainly when, rather before 1500 B.C., Mitanni emerged into history as a centralized Hurrian state, it was dominated by such an Indo-European ruling aristocracy. Names of Mitannian kings can be derived from Sanskrit, while the alien divinities they introduced into the old Sumeriancum-Semitic pantheon had names well known from the Vedic literature of India.”

 

THE EGYPTIAN CONNECTION

 

Pages 81-82: (about 1400-1500 B.C.) “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.

“ ... Yet the Hurrians did not disappear from history. Away to the north in their Armenian homeland they entrenched themselves and built up the kingdom of Urartu. Here something of their culture, and an Urartian language very close to the Hurrian of Mitanni was preserved.”

 

 

“MOUNTAIN DRAGONS”

 

If all the above is true, we have a very interesting situation, for from this, we deduce that the “Gutians” were considered “Mountain Dragons.” It also appears that the Hittites, Hurrians and Kassites were all Mongolian “Mountain Dragon People.” I believe that I can prove, with the help of the Bible, that the Hittites were also “Mountain Dragons.” Sometimes it is necessary to use the backdoor approach to bring these things to light. For this I will use Revelation 12:9 where the dragon is mentioned:

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

We are told in verse 4 of this same chapter:

“... the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”

We don’t have to guess who this dragon which stood before the woman (Israel, represented in the person of Mary) was. It was none other than Herod the half-Edomite, who in turn was a descendant of these “dragon people” spoken of above. In Revelation 12:3 he is called the “red dragon.” The “red” color is the color of Esau. Esau was born red and he has carried that color right down to today’s communism. Not only did the dragon people marry with Esau, but they also married with the Egyptian Pharaohs. I am persuaded that the Egyptian Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites was serpent seed. I am persuaded that these Mountain Dragons were descendants of Cain. We can be rather of sure about this fact because Revelation 12:9 places the dragon, the serpent, the Devil, and Satan all in the same category as one type of being or people. If all this is true, it accounts for the very cruel treatment that Pharaoh dealt out, and the slaughter of the Israelite children in Egypt just in the same manner as Herod’s. The Dragon People are still doing it to our children today. All of this goes right back to Genesis 3:15 where hatred was pronounced between the children of Satan and the children of Eve. This is a war to the death. This “enmity” will continue until one party or the other is completely destroyed. Every time you see a white woman wheeling a half-breed child down the street or through a store in a stroller, you can know the Dragon People are winning!

 

MORE BIBLE EVIDENCE

 

At this point I wish to present to you a mistranslated passage found in Hebrews 11:24-26 in the KJV. It reads as follows:

“24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”

The translators being so used to translating the Greek word #5547 (anointed) as “Christ”, overlooked the fact that the children of Israel were also called “anointed.” (1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 132:17). The word should not have been “Christ” in verse 26, but “mine anointed” or “Israel.” Let’s reread verse 26 as it should have been translated:

“26 Esteeming the reproach of the anointed greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”

Now, being that we are aware that Moses was saying he would rather suffer with his people Israel than to be a son of Pharaoh’s daughter and enjoy all the riches of Egypt, it makes all the difference in the world in this correctly translated verse.

I know I have brought you the long way around on this one. What is important to understand, in this instance, is that the Israelites were Yahweh’s “anointed” and the Egyptians weren’t. If the persecuting pharaoh was of Satanic-dragon seed, this was especially pertinent.

 

CHECKING JACQUETTA HAWKES’ DOCUMENTATION

 

For the next part of this story, I am going to quote 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 96-103:

“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 [like 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 ...

“ ... Previously, all who lived outside of the Nile Valley were contemptuously described as ‘Asiatics’, ‘Sand ramblers’, ‘cattle breeders’ — people not worthy of the attention of a Pharaoh. Now, however, the Egyptians became more affable. They began communications with other countries. Hitherto that had been unthinkable; among the diplomatic correspondence in the archives of the palace of Mari, there was not one single item from the Nile ...

“The advance of the Egyptians brought them eventually to Syria, indeed, to the banks of the Euphrates. There, to their astonishment, they came up against people of whose existence they had no idea. The priests searched in vain through the ancient papyrus rolls in the temple archives and studied without result the records of the campaigns of earlier Pharaohs. Nowhere could they find even a hint about these unknown Mitanni ...

“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.

“When Subbiluliuma, King of the Hittites, marched southeast with a powerful army about 1370 B.C., the days of the kingdom of Mitanni (Hurrian) were already numbered despite all their clever dynastic politics. Subbiluliuma crushed the kingdom of the warlike charioteers, compelled it to pay tribute, and then pressed on further to the mountains of the Lebanon in the north of Canaan. Overnight, as it were, Egypt had a new, equally powerful neighbor in Syria thirsting for victory ...

“Using the inviting bed and throne of the Pharaohs as bait — and what attractive bait! — she tried to take the wind out of the sails of her powerful new neighbors by discouraging their warlike intentions. Hittite warriors had just made an attack on Amqa, the fertile country between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon.

“Mursilis dictated: ‘When the Egyptians heard of the attack on Amqa, they were alarmed. To make matters worse, their lord [Tutankhamun] had just died. But the widowed Queen of Egypt sent an ambassador to my father and wrote him the following letter: ‘My husband is dead and I have no son, I am told that you have many sons. If you send me one of your sons, he could become my husband. I do not wish to take one of my servants and make a husband of him’ ... ‘Since my father was so fine a king, he complied with the lady’s request and sent her the son she asked for.’

“Fate prevented the successful conclusion of this unusual offer of marriage. Both the royal throne and the bed of Anches-en-Amun remained empty, since the candidate was murdered on his way to Egypt.

“Seventy-five years later another offer of marriage on this same Halys-Nile axis had a happy ending, although the prelude to it, which was the din of battle and the clash of weapons, pointed to a different conclusion. Ramesses II, who was called the ‘Great’, set out with his army for Palestine and Syria. He intended to deal with the hated Hittites once and for all ...

“... In 1280 B.C. the Hittites and the Egyptians concluded the first nonaggression and mutual defense pact in world history. The good understanding was cemented at top level by the marriage of Ramesses II to a Hittite princess ... Then came a [Ramesses II] messenger to inform His Majesty. He said: ‘Behold, even the great Prince of Hatti! [Hittites] His eldest daughter is on her way, and she brings untold tribute of all kinds ... They have reached His Majesty’s frontiers. Let the army and the dignitaries come to receive her!’ ...

“A large delegation was dispatched to the north of Palestine to bring back the bride. Yesterday’s enemies became brothers: ‘So the daughter of the great Prince of Hatti came to Egypt. While the infantry, charioteers, and dignitaries of His Majesty accompanied them, they mingled with the infantry and charioteers from Hatti. The whole populace from the country of the Hittites was mixed up with the Egyptians. They ate and drank together; they were like blood-brothers ...

“The children of Israel must have been eye witnesses of the ceremonial arrival of the bridal procession in the city of Pi-Ramses-Meri-Amun, which means ‘The House of Ramses the Beloved of the god Amun.”

There you have it, the Egyptian Pharaohs (just like Esau-Edom) absorbed both Mongolian-Hurrian and Mongolian-Hittite blood along with much of the population of Egypt. Now, for some excerpts from an article in the National Geographic magazine of April, 1991, entitled “Ramses the Great”:

Page 9, The physical description of Ramses I: “He was about five feet eight inches in height — one of the taller pharaohs. He had a strong jaw; a beaked nose, a long thin face. That was not typical of earlier pharaohs. He probably looked more like the people of the eastern Mediterranean. Which is not surprising, because he came from the Nile Delta, which had been invaded in the past by peoples from the east.”

Ramses undoubtedly had Hurrian blood in his veins. Because the Hittite infusion did not happen until Ramses II, he probably didn’t have any Hittite blood, unless the Hittites had mixed with the Hurrians earlier on.

Page 30, A Hittite type metalworking complex found at Pi-Ramses: “‘This is not an Egyptian design’, says Pusch. ‘It looks just like those the Hittites carried in the Battle of Kadesh. We found bronze chisels and hammers next to it. I can draw only one conclusion. Hittite craftsmen were producing Hittite weapons in the capital of Egypt. They were probably working side by side with Egyptians ...’”

Page 10, Ramses II family: “His principal wife, the lovely Nefertari, quickly produced a son. His second favorite wife, the clever Istnofret, soon delivered another. Within ten years each wife had borne at least five sons and several daughters. His other wives may have accounted for another five to ten sons and as many daughters.”

What is so strange about the story of Ramses II is Nefertari died quite young. Following her, two of his sons, who were to succeed him died before his death. Then, at least another ten of his sons died. All of this brings up the question: Was there some kind of battle going on between Nefertari and Istnofret to see which one’s posterity would be next on the throne? If there was, it wasn’t the first, nor would it be the last such struggle. More to come on Egypt in future lessons.

This is my thirtieth monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. I was browsing through the channels on television recently, when I came across a so-called “Christian Channel” in this area. They had a man on this station advising his listeners how to get their finances in order. It was a call-in type of program. Never did he advise them not to go into debt in the first place. Anyway, one of his desperate Christian listeners asked advice on how she could work her tithe into her budget. It was interesting what this Christian financial adviser was counseling this woman to do. He simply instructed the woman, she could pay her tithe to anyone she chose. This type of advice was totally unbiblical. The first mention of tithe in the Bible is Abraham paying his tithe of war spoils to the Priest of Salem who was no other than Shem. So, from the beginning, the tithe was to be paid to the senior priest of the family race-line. It remained this way until Reuben was disqualified for the job, at which time the sceptre bypassed Simeon and Levi and fell on Judah. The birthright was taken from Reuben and given to Joseph (the first born of Jacob by Rachel). The promise of the priesthood was taken from Reuben and later given to Levi. When the Tribe of Levi became the priest-tribe, the tithe was directed to be paid to them. This continued to be true until the time of John the Baptist. When the Messiah called his disciples, He called everyone from the Tribe of Benjamin except Judas, who was of the Satanic seedline. Later, Yahshua personally replaced Judas with Paul who was a Benjamite. Therefore, all twelve of Yahshua’s apostles were Benjamites. The Benjamites were sent with the Gospel to the Israelite people proclaiming our Redemption. It would be ridiculous to suppose the apostles should not have been supported by the tithe, but where do we find qualified Benjamites today for this purpose? The key word here is the word “Gospel.” The term “Gospel” has become synonymous with “truth.” Obviously, it would be quite impossible today to find Levites and Benjamites to receive our tithes. Therefore, today, the tithe should be paid to proclaimers of the Kingdom. There are three cardinal attributes to the Gospel of the Kingdom which are imperative today: (1) The Identity of Israel, (2) The message of the conspiracy, and (3) The identification of the “Jews” as the genetic Satanic enemy of Genesis 3:15. Anything short of this is not the “truth.” Therefore, the cardinal advice this so-called financial counselor should have told this woman, was to pay her tithe to the one proclaiming to her the entire truth. Obviously, the financial adviser, in this case, meant some Judeo-Christian church. If the true proclaimers of the Kingdom had only a fraction of the money sent to the Judeo-Christian, so-called preachers on television, this message could take the world by storm. I hope this explanation of biblical tithing has cleared up any questions you may have had on the subject. Not only is one responsible for paying the tithe to the proper source, but any tithe paid to non-truthful sources is like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I am sure, when the day of judgment comes, many who thought they were paying their tithe, will be given zero credit as they paid it to the wrong fountainhead. In the end, we are the ones responsible for determining the truth, as we are instructed to “study to show thyself approved unto Yahweh, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” This passage of Scripture shifts the responsibility right back to our doorstep.

There is only one way to establish the truth in the Identity message. We have to consider that everything we have ever been told in the past may not be correct. As a matter of fact, most of the things we have been taught in the past are 180 degrees from being right. They are just the opposite from what we were told they were. Therefore, it is immensely important to erase everything from the blackboard of our minds and start all over again from the beginning. This, many are unwilling to do.

In the last few lessons, I have been trying to set the stage for the story of Esau. When I started this series, I had no idea that there would be so many background materials to cover. With this lesson, I am going to diverge somewhat from this theme. Because Ted R. Weiland recently wrote a booklet, “Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?”, mentioning my name 14 times along with several other good Two Seedline teachers, I thought it was about time to give him my retort. I have also sent him a copy of the following:

 

SMITH & GOODSPEED ON JOHN 8:44

 

“The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is a liar and the father of them.”

 

You can see, then, this verse is not speaking in a spiritual sense as most one seedliners would have you to believe. If so, how would one murder someone spiritually? It would be absurd to interpret this verse in a spiritual manner. When it is speaking of murder in this verse, it is speaking of Cain murdering Abel. It is not speaking of Cain murdering Abel spiritually, but physically. I am not the only one who understands this verse in such a way. The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith, published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 1203, understands John 8:44 to be speaking of the murder of Abel by Cain, for it makes reference to Genesis 4:8. This is an entire book of cross-references. As far as I know, this book is in no way promoting the Two Seedline doctrine, nor does it have an ax to grind on this subject. Let’s take a look at Genesis 4:8 to which this book makes reference from John 8:44:

 

“And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

 

For evidence to help prove that John 8:44 is speaking of the “Jews” as being descendants of Cain, and that Smith & Goodspeed has translated this passage correctly, we will check on the word “OF” , like in “Ye are of your father the devil.” The Strong’s number in the Greek is 1537. The New Testament Word Study Dictionary by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages to interpret the word “OF” as used in the Greek, pages 529-534. Obviously, I cannot quote this entire document here, but cite only that which is relevant to John 8:44:

 

1537. “... Preposition governing the genitive, primarily meaning out of, from, of, as spoken of such objects which were before another ... Of the origin or source of anything, i.e., the primary, direct, immediate source ... Of persons, of the place, stock, family, condition, meaning out of which one is derived or to which he belongs ... Of the source, i.e., the person or thing, out of or from which anything proceeds, is derived, or to which it pertains ...”

 

MORE ON THE WORD “OF” IN JOHN 8:44

 

We really need to examine the word “OF” in John 8:44, for it is very critical in understanding that the “Jews” are the descendants of Cain. The word “OF” is the Greek word #1537 in the Strong’s Concordance. Most one seedliners will claim John 8:44 should be taken spiritually only, that it is not speaking of a literal genetic offspring of Satan through Cain. Jeffrey A. Weakley (a one seedliner) in his 1994 booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, page 24, in his attempt to discredit the Two Seedline teaching says this of John 8:44 (this is an “Argument” and “Answer” debate conducted solely by him in his booklet): “This does not show that Cain was of that wicked one physically, but rather he was of that wicked one spiritually. Let’s look at part of 1 John 3:8: ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil ...’ When one studies out 1 John 3:8-12 the meaning becomes crystal clear. It must be talking about who we are serving spiritually. If it is talking about physical descendants, then all of us are physical descendants of Satan because we all have sinned. ‘For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ...’ (Rom 3:23) ... So if we have all sinned and if he that committeth sin is of the devil, we must conclude that all of us are of the devil ... So what is it saying? Are you of the devil by physical descent or are you of the devil because you serve him (or have served him in the past)?” ... “ARGUMENT [of the two seedliners]: John 8:44 says, ‘Ye are of your father the devil ... This shows that the devil is their physical father’” ... “ANSWER [by Jeffrey A. Weakley]: ‘Wrong. This once again shows that the devil is their spiritual father (the one that they serve)’.”

We must then determine whether John 8:44 is speaking of a spiritual devil or a physical devil. The word “OF” is critical in John 8:44 for determining this. The word in the Greek is #1537. In John 8:44 the Greek form is: ¦6 which is sometimes ¦>. You can check this out in most any of the Greek interlinears. The New Testament Greek Study Aids by Walter Jerry Clark says on page 230 about the Greek word ¦6: “out of ... with the genitive: by means of, out of.” The Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A. Young, page 95 says the following about the Greek word ¦6: “¦6 often conveys special extensions ‘out of’ or ‘from.’ For example, the prophet said that God would call His Son out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15)” From the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, page 31 of his “Greek-English New Testament Lexicon”, we have this on ¦6: “¦6 or before a vowel, ¦>, a preposition governing genitive, from, out of.” The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 189 expresses ¦6 this way: “ ... out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection ...” In other words, the “Pharisees” in John 8:44 had a close genetic connection out of or from “the devil.”

There are 32 other places in the New Testament where this Greek word (1537) ¦6 is used in the same sense. Let’s see if these other passages are speaking of physical or spiritual beings: In Matthew 1:3 it speaks of “Phares” and “Zara” being “OF” “Thamar.” Does that sound “spiritual”? Again in Matthew 1:5 it says “Booz” begat Obed “OF” Ruth. Again, does that sound “spiritual”? In Matthew 1:18 it speaks of the “child” being “OF” the Holy Ghost. Again, does that sound “spiritual”? In Matthew 1:20 it again speaks of the “child” being “OF” the Holy Ghost. Again, does that sound “spiritual”? In Mark 5:8 the Redeemer commanded an unclean spirit to “come out ‘OF’ the man.” Does the “man”, from which the spirit was cast, sound “spiritual”? In Luke 2:36 it speaks of one “Phanuel” “OF” the tribe of Aser. Does this sound like a real person or a spirit? In Acts 13:21 it speaks of “a man ‘OF’ the tribe of Benjamin.” Again, are we talking “spiritually” here? In Romans 1:3 it speaks of Yahshua being “made ‘OF’ the seed of David according to the flesh.” How do the one seedliners claim this one to be “spiritual” when it states outright, “flesh”? After all, it’s the same word “OF” as used in John 8:44?!?! In Romans 16:10 it speaks of “them which are ‘OF’ Aristobulus’ [household].” Can we ask again if this is someone who is a real person or something strangely “spiritual”? In Romans 16:11 it speaks of “them that be ‘OF’ the [household] of Narcissus.” Does the word “OF” here apply to some real person or do we have to relegate it to something “spiritual”? In 1 Corinthians 11:12, it says “the woman [is] ‘OF’ the man.” I can just imagine some ardent one seedliner explaining to his wife she is not a real person! In Philippians 4:22 it speaks of “they that are ‘OF’ Caesar’s household.” I guess that we Two Seedliners are now supposed to believe that Caesar was something spiritual! In Hebrews 7:5 it speaks of “the sons ‘OF’ Levi ...” and “out ‘OF’ the loins of Abraham.” I guess the one seedliners would now have us Two Seedliners to believe that Levi and Abraham were some kind of a “spiritual” mirage! In 1 John 3:8 we are told: “He that committeth sin is ‘OF’ the devil.” The devil (Satan) was the original lawbreaker, and that is what sin is all about! In 1 John 3:12 it further describes “Cain [who] was ‘OF’ that wicked one.” The one seedliners really do some rhetorical gymnastics with this passage. Jeffrey A. Weakley said this passage was also “spiritual”. In Revelation 3:9 it states: “I will make them ‘OF’ the synagogue of Satan.” A synagogue is a worship house of Satan. The “Jews” truly do worship Satan their father and they admit with their own words that they are descended from Cain. I have in my possession a quotation from a publication Liberal Judaism published January, 1949 by a Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver who states in part, speaking of the then new State of Israel: “... the concept of the wandering Jew ... For the curse of Cain, the curse of being an outcast and a ‘wanderer’ over the face of the earth has been removed ...” It is only the one seedliners who do not understand that Cain was to be a “vagabond”, a “wanderer” and having the “curse of Cain” upon him. Name one other group today that fits this category. In Revelation 5:5 it speaks of “the Lion of the tribe ‘OF’ Judah.” Are we also supposed to believe that this is something “spiritual”, and deny that Yahshua came in the flesh? In Revelation 7:5-8 we have: “‘OF’ the tribe of Judah ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Reuben ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Gad ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Aser ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Nepthalim ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Manasses ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Simeon ... ‘OF’ the tribe Levi ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Issachar ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Zabulon ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Joseph ... ‘OF’ the tribe of Benjamin.” If we are to be consistent, (a word which the one seedliners like to use), if the same Greek word that is used in all these references is physical in nature, so, too, is the word “OF” in John 8:44!!!!! Very convenient to throw up the word “spiritual” whenever you want to forge a barrier and not accept the truth which Yahshua spoke: “Ye are OF your father the devil.” Yahshua was simply saying to the “Jews” that they were chips off the old block.

Also, I suggest that most people who use the word “spiritual” in this way don’t even know what the word means. The dictionary might lead to the idea of a disembodied soul or a ghost, something mysterious or mystic. The Bible meaning for “spiritual” is: life as opposed to death. How does such a description of the word “spiritual” fit John 8:44? It’s obvious, it doesn’t!

 

ONE SEEDLINDERS TEACHING A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE!

 

I now wish to give you a very good example of the “enmity” of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 from the book “Germany Must Perish” by the American “Jew”, Theodore N. Kaufman:

Page 11, “For quite patently, to fight once more in democratic defense against Germany with any goal in view save that country’s extinction constitutes, even though it lose the war, a German victory. To fight, to win, and not this time to end Germanism forever by exterminating completely those people who spread its doctrine is to herald the outbreak of another German war within a generation.”

Page 15, “And so it is with the people of Germany. They may respond for a while to civilizing forces; they may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms and exterior behaviorisms of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which eventually drives them, as it does the tiger, to kill. And no amount of conditioning, or reasoning, or civilizing — past, present or future — will ever be able to change this basic nature.”

Page 83, “There is in fine, no other solution except one: That Germany must perish forever from this earth! And fortunately, as we shall now come to see, that is no longer impossible of accomplishment.”

Page 86, “Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale extinction must be ruled out. ... There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough.”

IN SHORT: This is why the “Jew” today is encouraging every White woman to jump in bed with a Black, Mexican or Mongolian! When one is talking about the “Germans”, one is talking about the same tribe as Yahshua the Redeemer. The Germans are the true Tribe of Judah along with the Irish and Scottish, and the “Jews” are the false tribe of Judah. Maybe now we can know what “Planned Parenthood” is all about. (Say you want to continue to go to a “Jewish” doctor?) If you can’t see the natural “enmity” between the “Jews” and Germany, you have to be blind! This “Jewish” hatred is not isolated to Germany alone, but anyone of German blood wherever Germans, Irish and Scots might live. Yes, I am saying that the one seedliners are, like the “Jews”, “blind guides.” The two “seeds” of Genesis 3:15 are at war, and it is to the death of one or the other.

 

MORE ENMITY OF GENESIS 3:15

 

At a “Jewish” conference, January 12, 1952, in Budapest a “Jew”, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich, spoke before the Emergency Council of European Rabbis. The following is part of that speech which can be found in William Guy Carr’s book, Pawns In The Game on pages 105-106:

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

The “Jews” went on to brag: “... We are about to reach our goal. World War II furthered our plans greatly. We succeeded in having many millions of Christians kill each other and returning other millions in such conditions that they can do us no harm. There remains little to be done to complete our control of the stupid goyim.”

 

“A RACIAL PLAN FOR THE 20TH CENTURY”

 

The following declaration of intent was given in 1912 by a British top-level Communist theoretician, Israel Cohen, as recorded in the booklet Who’s Who In The World Zionist Conspiracy by James Combs, page 40:

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

 

THE EBLA FIND

 

As I promised you last month, I will bring you information on an archaeological find at a place known as Ebla. I will now quote from The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, the “Archaeological Supplement” in part, pages 1791-1793. As this archaeology supplement is being continually updated by Thompson, your edition may read differently than what I am quoting here:

“... The most impressive of these mounds is known as Tell Mardikh, which lies some 30 miles south of modern Aleppo, rises 50 feet above the plain, and covers an area of 140 acres ... In the spring of 1964 Dr. Paolo Matthiae, professor of Near East archaeology at the University of Rome, obtained a permit to excavate Tell Mardikh with his wife, Gabriela, and an efficient archaeological team of assistants.

“During the first few years they carried out soundings in various parts of the mound. Uncovered were city gates similar to those of Solomon at Gezer and Megiddo, and two small chapel-type temples like the famous temples of Shechem, Megiddo and Hazor — all dating between 2000 and 1600 years before Christ, the period called Middle Bronze I and II.

“In 1968 the archaeologists discovered a royal statue which bore a dedicatory inscription to one Ibbit-Lim, ‘Lord of the City of Ebla, to the goddess Ishtar.’ It soon became clear that they were excavating the remarkable metropolis of the kingdom of Ebla, an immense Semitic empire whose center was set on the plains of modern Syria. From occasional references to it in ancient inscriptions — from Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Mari, and Egypt — archaeologists had long suspected the presence of such a civilization in North Syria. Many places and events of history would now fall into proper place.

“In 1973 work was begun in Early Bronze Age Ebla, which dated between 2400 and 2225 B.C. Excavators found a tablet indicating the city at this period was divided into two sections — an acropolis (high city) and a lower city. The acropolis contained four building complexes: the palace of the city, the palace of the king, the palace of the servants, and the stables. The lower city was divided into four quarters, each of which had a gate: the gate of the City, the gate of Dagan, the gate of Rasap, and the gate of Sipis.

“In 1975, while excavating in the palace of the city, the chief administrative center, they came upon the ruins of a large three-story royal palace building which had flourished four generations before the birth of Abraham. It contained a spacious audience court (100 to 170 feet, with a portico of carved wooden and stone columns adorned with gold and lapis lazuli), a tower room, and smaller rooms at the entrance of the courtyard. In the tower room were 42 cuneiform business tablets and a small school exercise tablet.

“During the following year they worked in the two rooms at the entrance of the courtyard. In the first room were about 1,000 business and administrative tablets, which were found ‘rather spread out and disordered.’ The second room was a large library — the authentic royal archives — containing 15,000 tablets that had been regularly arranged on wooden shelves. When the palace was destroyed by fire, however, the flames devoured the wooden shelves, and the tablets settled on top of one another ...

“In a nearby room were another 1,000 tablets. along with writing implements. This they took to be the scribe’s room. In yet another room were 800 tablets, along with beautifully carved wooden figures, seal impressions, and plaques of wood, gold, and lapis lazuli. One sheet of gold was found ... Professor Pettinato found that the major portion of the tablets were written in Sumerian wedge-shaped cuneiform script — the world’s oldest written language. The tablets themselves, however, dated from the middle of the third millennium B.C. One large tablet was a dictionary giving the Sumerian equivalents of some 3,000 Eblaite words. With the help of this lexicon, Pettinato was able to dicipher [sic] many other Eblaite tablets. About 20 percent of the tablets were written in a northwestern Semitic language which Pettinato called Paleo-Canaanite, or Old Canaanite, although the script used was also cuneiform Sumerian. This he says, was the language spoken in Ebla and is closer in vocabulary and grammar to biblical Hebrew than any other Canaanite dialect, including Ugaritic.

 

“Contents and Significance of the Tablets

 

“The tablets so far unearthed number nearly 20,000, the majority of them large. Those which have been translated — only a fraction of the total — tell of the economy, administration, education, religion, trade, and conquest of a great commercial empire of which all memory had been lost in the historical traditions of the Near East.

“... what they have found already throws a flood of light on so many aspects of research in the field of ancient history and biblical archaeology that in many quarters the Ebla Tablets are now considered more significant for elucidating ancient history and the early backgrounds of the Bible than any other archaeological discovery ever unearthed.

“With its empire, the city of Ebla, whose population is given in one tablet as 260,000, constituted one of the greatest powers in the Ancient Near East during the third millennium B.C. Its commercial and political influence extended far beyond its own borders — from Sinai in the southwest to Mesopotamia in the east. As a major trade center, it controlled east-west commercial routes for grain and livestock from the west, cedar timber from Lebanon, and metals and textiles from Anatolia — the home of the Hittites — along with trade in silver and gold and the several other commodities from Cyprus and other Mediterranean countries.

“Ebla was a flourishing Semitic civilization. Her ‘arts prospered and her craftsmen were renowned for the quality of their metal work, textiles, ceramics and woodworkings. They made cloth of scarlet and gold, weapons of bronze, and furniture of wood. Their educational system was far advanced. They kept records in their own language on tablets of clay which they stored in archives deep in the cellars of the royal palace.’ All this existed more than a thousand years before the brilliant civilization of David and Solomon.

“Ebla had a king and a queen. Like Israel, it anointed its kings and had prophets. The king was in charge of state affairs, and his queen was held in equally high regard. The crown prince helped with domestic and administrative affairs, while the second son aided his father in foreign affairs. The tablets are quite explicit about the structure of the state and about the royal dynasty. Six kings are listed, among which is Ebrum. The resemblance of his name to Eber, the father of the Semites, according to Genesis 10:21, is astonishing, since it is virtually the same name as the biblical Eber, a direct descendant of Noah and the great-great-great-great-grandfather of Abraham.

“Other names found in these texts and later used by biblical characters are: Abraham, Esau, Saul, Michael, David, Israel and Ish-ma-il (Ishmael).

“The gods worshipped at Ebla numbered around 500, and included El and Ya. El is a shortened form of Elohim, used later by the Hebrews and in the Ugaritic tablets. Ya is a shortened form of what some think might be Yahweh, or Jehovah, and was used for their supreme god and gods in general. Other principal gods were Dagan, Rasap (Resef), Sipis (Samis), Astar, Adad, Kamis, Milik ...

“In recording the trade and treaty dealings of Ebla, the tablets give the names of hundreds of individual place-names, among which are Urusalim (Jerusalem), Geza, Lachish, Joppa, Ashtaroth, Dor, and Megiddo, as well as cities east of the Jordan. One tablet (No. 1860) mentions the cities of the plain — in the same order as in Genesis 14:2 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela, or Zoar) — as being cities with which Ebla carried on extensive trade. This was the first time these place-names had been found outside the Bible. Dr. David Noel Freedmen had pointed out that this record precedes the great catastrophe involving Lot which many modern scholars have regarded as entirely fictional.

“The texts contain Canaanite stories of the Creation and the Flood and a Canaanite code of law. The creation tablet — a beautifully inscribed ten-line poem — is closer to the Genesis account than anything else discovered. In essence a part of it reads: There was a time when there was no heaven, and Lugal (‘the great one’) formed it out of nothing; there was no earth, and Lugal made it; there was no light, and he made it.

“The Flood story is given in five columns on a small tablet ... Ebla is only partially excavated, yet a part of the royal palace, two temples, a fortress, three city gates and tablets which now number nearly 20,000 have been exposed ... At one time Ebla even ruled over and collected tribute from Mari. Reverses came, however, and ancient Ebla was destroyed. Apparently the destruction was incomplete, for Ebla enjoyed something of a second life during the early part of the second millennium B.C. ... Around 1800 B.C. Ebla became a vassal state of the great kingdom of Aleppo, spoken of in the Mari letters as Yamhad. Around 1600 B.C. Naram-Sin, king of Akkad, defeated Ebla in battle and destroyed the city. From this disaster the city of Ebla never recovered, and it remained buried under its own debris until modern excavators began to resurrect it ...”

We find, from all of this, the peoples of this time period were far more advanced than we ever imagined. In the next lesson, I will be taking up more of the subject of Egypt. Egypt very definitely affected the life of Esau as he married Bashemath, a granddaughter of Abraham and the Egyptian Hagar. The story of Egypt may be a lengthy, but an interesting one.

This is my thirty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. In the last two letters (#29 & #30), we covered the Hurrians and Hittites. We found they were a Mongolian people. We also discovered that the Egyptian pharaohs took women of these peoples into their harems, and later pharaohs were from these bloodlines. We found that not only did the pharaohs mix blood, but also there was much mixing by the Egyptian people themselves. In lesson #30, I diverged from this theme to the topics of Biblical tithing and new research on Two Seedline doctrine. Also, we covered, to some degree, the archaeological find at Ebla.

Because I didn’t want to start the subject of Egypt in the middle of a lesson, I saved the material for the two lessons to be mailed out in December of 2000. Because the subject of Egypt is so long and strung-out time-wise, I am not sure how many lessons will be required to cover it in connection with Esau-Edom. While we are on this subject, there are simply many items we cannot omit. I believe, after we have researched this subject, you will see Egypt in an entirely new light. I believe you will be so enraptured with it, you will want to continue researching it for yourself, for Egyptian history is like no other chronicles in the world.

For the part of Egyptian history we are interested in, and how Egyptian history fits in with Biblical history, I will present some evidence of what Egyptian and Biblical history is not. It is my responsibility, as a watchman on the wall, whenever someone is exhibiting falsehood along any Biblical subject, to expose the false teaching for what it is. Once you have attained the truth of a matter, it will be your responsibility to judge any writer on the topic for what he (or she) is. I doubt very much, if I were to show this writer undeniable, irrefutable positive evidence of his error, that he would change his position, but continue his teachings in spite of the reliable testimony to the contrary. But you must be the judge in the end. We certainly don’t need any more confusion as we already have too much! 

! !  WHAT EGYPTIAN AND BIBLICAL HISTORY IS NOT  ! ! 

The book to which I refer is: Hebrew Sages of Ancient Egypt (A Revised Discipline In Antiquity), by F. David Fry Jr. The reason I believe this man would not change his position is because he has written several books and made several cassette tape lectures on the subject; and therefore, he would be reluctant to change his posture even in the face of overwhelming credible evidence. It’s just too much humble pie to ask a man to eat. F. David Fry’s position is: Egyptian history is 1000 years younger than historians claim. In chapter 2, pages 5-6, Fry says the following:

“THE BIRTH OF EGYPT and Her Exaggerated Antiquity ... For almost two hundred years, historians have calculated that Egypt’s history retreats in time far enough to predate the supposed Hebrew myth of Noah’s flood [2350 B.C.]. Indeed, historians extend this retreat even beyond the biblical creation date [4004 B.C., Ussher]. To rectify this difference, some theologians reason that populations existed before Adam and Eve, while others are forced to disclaim the biblical world-wide flood.

“Over the last hundred years, Egypt’s history has been steadily revised downward, from 5000 B.C. [1st Dynasty] to today’s 3000 B.C. Even so, the anomaly still exists unless something gives. The question we must answer here is, ‘Whose history should give, Egypt’s or the Hebrew’s?’”

On pages 13-14, Fry associates the 1st Dynasty tomb of Unefes (fourth king of Dynasty 1): “Hebrew history suggests that the designer of this tomb was the celebrated and world famous Sage, Abraham ... I (Fry) shall go one step further: I (Fry) propose that Abraham is the only person in all of history who could be common to the tomb, its design, and the era in which it was built.” Fry continues on page 19: “... it is obvious that the traditional time model needs drastic revision. It needs to either push the era of Abraham further back in history or pull Egypt’s history drastically forward.” Fry further states on page 20: “... we must connect Abraham’s era with the 1st Dynasty ... it explicitly places Abraham on the Egyptian scene a thousand years earlier than where he has commonly been placed ... The life and times of that great Hebrew Sage Abraham, occurred during Dynasty 1 ... and not a thousand years later as traditional history teaches.” Fry continues, page 28: “As already established, Abraham did not live during Egypt’s Middle Kingdom (Dynasty 12).”

Fry places Joseph as the same person as Imhotep, page 35: “Since Joseph was Vizier of Egypt and Imhotep was also Vizier, is it possible they might just be the same person?” On page 38, Fry continues to suggest that Joseph and Imhotep were the same person: “... Is it possible to establish a medical parallel between this famous healing god Imhotep and Joseph the Hebrew Sage?” Fry continues, page 39: “If this is found to be true then we must conclude that Joseph/Imhotep was the inventor, or at least initiator of Pathology ... coupling him (Joseph) to both Imhotep and the Old Kingdom.” Continuing on page 41, Fry quotes [Peter Tompkins Secrets of the Great Pyramid, p. 168]: “However, it remains distinctly possible that Path (Imhotep) could have been Joseph himself.” On pages 42-43, Fry says: “The truth is that chronologists should properly reassign Egypt’s 3rd Dynasty to the days of Joseph ... for we are fast arriving at the startling, but verifiable conclusion that Joseph, Imhotep and Pathotep were one and the same man ... All three men lived during Dynasties 3 and 4 ... Once again, the probability increases that Joseph, Imhotep and Pathotep were the same individual.” On page 51, Fry says: “Yes, Joseph was Imhotep.”

Fry continues on page 91: “MOSES FOUND in Egyptian records. With dynasty 5 ruling far up the Nile to the south, and Dynasty 6 ruling adjacent to Goshen, we should consider Dynasty 6 as the prime candidate for the place where [sic when] Moses was born.” On page 92, Fry makes the following remark: “That shift will make Egypt one thousand years younger at the time of Moses.” On page 94, Fry again mentions Moses with the 6th Dynasty: “... as we will see, the Exodus story is a perfect fit to the end of the 6th Dynasty (the end of the Old Kingdom era).” Further, Fry remarks on page 95: “Historians can find no place in Dynasty 18, 19 or even 20 when baby Moses could have been an adopted heir to Egypt’s throne ... Yes, Moses was raised in Egypt during the Sixth dynasty, not the 18th Dynasty.”

IN SHORT, Fry places Abraham with Dynasty #1, Joseph with Dynasty #3, and Moses with Dynasty #6. He could probably get by with this scenario if it were not for the fact of some very important archaeological discoveries in recent times.

 

THE 18TH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY, or THE NEW KINGDOM

 

Because we are going to be dealing with the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, we should get familiar with their names (spelling of these names will vary slightly from one reference book to another). These Egyptian pharaohs are in the sequence as follows: → Amosis → Amenhotep I → Tuthmosis I → Tuthmosis II → Hatshepsut → Tuthmosis III → Amenhotep II → Tuthmosis IV → Amenhotep III → Amenhotep IV, (same as Akhenaten) → Tutankhamun → Ay → Horemheb.

 

ARCHEOLOGY PROVES FRY’S THESIS TOTALLY IN ERROR

 

Finds at Jericho prove beyond all doubt that Fry cannot be correct. If you know your Bible story of Jericho, it will be remembered that after the Israelites destroyed it, Joshua placed a curse on it that it would never again be occupied. With this in mind, let’s read The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, “Archaeological Supplement”, page 1802, ©1990 (As Thompson is continually updating this supplement, your copy may read differently than the one I am quoting). I will be only quoting a portion of this article:

“On the outskirts of the old city mound Garstang discovered a cemetery where he opened scores of graves that yielded quantities of pottery vessels, considerable jewelry, and about 170 scarab beetles. In these tombs he found pottery from the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze periods, but only a few sherds of Mycenian ware ... The Egyptian scarabs can be dated with certainty since they mention various pharaohs by name and represent each of them from Thutmose III ... One scarab bears the name of Queen Hat-shep-sup and Thutmose III, another that of Amenhotep II, who was depicted as an archer, corresponding well with his tomb records in Egypt. The series of dated scarabs end with the two royal seals of Amenhotep III ... Nothing else in the tombs suggests later dates.”

For more evidence that this documentation is correct, I will now quote from Wonders Of The Past, (in two volumes) edited by Sir J. A. Hammerton, Jericho and the Biblical Story, a portion from page 1220 (Notice the slight difference in spelling of the pharaoh’s names):

“Happily again, the evidence from the tombs as regards this period is complete and satisfactory ... is represented by hundreds of intact specimens; their stratification is undisturbed, and their continuity is attested by the discovery at the appropriate levels of further royal Egyptian scarabs, notably one of Thothmes III, the successor of Queen Hatshepsut, in Tomb 5, and two of Amenhotep III in Tomb 4 ... and with his reign the deposits in the tombs and city alike come to an abrupt end.”

BINGO! If you are aware of Egyptian history, then you understand the above named pharaohs were of the 18th Dynasty, a time-period which Fry wholly disallowed. If you want to believe Fry, in spite of this evidence, it’s your choice, but don’t say you were never told. This evidence puts F. David Fry Jr. totally out of the ballpark on his thesis. You will remember, Joshua was only one generation after Moses, and only 40 years after the Exodus. If this doesn’t suggest an Egyptian-Hebrew time comparison, I don’t know what it would take to do so. But this is not the only evidence of this time similitude. For further documentation that we are on the right track, I will now quote from the National Geographic magazine, December 1987, a story of the “Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors Of The Bronze Age.” This shipwreck, according to National Geographic, “... represents seven civilizations that flourished in the eastern Mediterranean area in Late Bronze Age times. Thousands of other items provide an astonishing portrait of an era symbolized by the reign of Egypt’s Tutankhamun and the fall of Troy.” Tutankhamun is only the second pharaoh past Amenhotep III, whose scarab was found at Jericho. This shipwreck is closely contemporary with Moses, Joshua and the Exodus. While this shipwreck contained many items of interest, I would like to quote from pages 731-732:

“Tufan saved the best for last. One morning he surfaced with the small plastic box he stored his treasures in and lifted a solid gold scarab [pictured on same page]. As we do with all our finds, we photographed the scarab, and I later took the slides back to Texas.

“It had been more than 30 years since I studied hieroglyphics, but with the help of an Egyptian dictionary I translated the end of the inscription on the base of the golden beetle: ‘Nefertiti.’

“Nefertiti! Is there a more beautiful face from antiquity than that of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s great Queen? Her timeless features have been captured for eternity in the exquisite bust from Tell el-Amarna ...

“Temple inscriptions record the fact that Nefertiti was an important figure in her husband’s reign, but just how important has been a question in modern times. Some scholars believe she was immensely powerful, possibly the co-ruler of Egypt.

“... Not only was this the first gold scarab ever found of ‘the Exquisite Beauty of the Aten [sun disk] Nefertiti’, as her full name is translated; it also was the first artifact found in Asia Minor or the Aegean that names either the famous Akhenaten or his beautiful wife. (Akhenaten’s son was Tutankhamun.)

“... Was the scarab carried by an envoy of Nefertiti? We can only guess. The scarab is well worn. Cemal’s map of the wreck site shows that it was found near the scrap gold, suggesting that it may have belonged to the same hoard. If it did, the ship sank after Nefertiti’s death, for one cannot imagine her scarab’s being discarded during her reign ...”

Among other items found at the site of the shipwreck were Cypriot pottery and a wooden folding tablet called a “diptych” spoken of by Homer, “... he sent him to Lycia and gave him baneful signs in a folding wooden tablet”, Iliad, Book VI, line 169, which helps date the contents discovered. With this evidence, there is no way F. David Fry, Jr. can be correct with his supposition. Now we can know what Egyptian history is not, and that we are indeed dealing with the 18th Egyptian Dynasty for the Exodus. As we continue along, you will start to see how well all of this fits the overall portrayal of Egyptian history along with events pertaining to the Hebrews of the Bible.

In quoting from The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, Wonders Of The Past and the National Geographic, I intentionally left out the dates. I did this because I believe that Garstang may be 120 to 160 years off on his dates. In The Bible And Archaeology by J. A. Thompson it states on page 59: “This state of affairs suggests that the Exodus did not take place till after 1300 B.C.” On page 60, this same book says: “Garstang made a case for the fall of Jericho in 1400 B.C. and an exodus in about 1440 B.C.” This discrepancy doesn’t, however, rule out the 18th Dynasty for these events.

A STARTING POINT

 

A good place to start our story of Egypt would be a city called “On.” We are told by most reference books that On represented the heathen worship of the sun god. I hope to set the record straight concerning this city. Originally, On was called “Beth Shemesh” (House of Shem). It was not until the time of Ankhenaten that a temple was built to Aten the sun god. I find the documentation for this in the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 48:

“Akhenaten had to have a circle of loyal adherents who converted to his new religion. Friendly foreign princes were not particularly concerned with the change and accepted it as long as their relationships with the royal house were maintained. The king steadfastly forged ahead, trying to impose his new philosophies on Egyptian life. He succeeded in building temples to Aten in Thebes, Gem-Aton in Nubia, Heliopolis, Memphis, Hermopolis, Hermothis, and in some smaller cities.”

In the Halley’s Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley, page 107, it states: “Joseph Made Ruler of Egypt. Joseph married a daughter of the priest of On; and, though he had a heathen wife, and ruled a heathen kingdom, and resided in a center of vile Idolatry, he maintained his childhood faith in the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

I am going to have to beg to differ with Halley on Joseph’s wife, for it appears she was of the House of Shem, just as Tamar was (the mother of Pharez and Zarah). And, I don’t believe that Joseph’s father-in-law was practicing “vile Idolatry”, for he was a priest of “Beth Shemesh.” It is also evident that there were, at least, some Shemites in Egypt during Joseph’s time, and Joseph didn’t marry a heathen as implied!

 

AKHENATEN’S NEW RELIGION: WHERE DID HE GET IT?

 

For the answer to this question, I am going to refer to a book entitled: Barnes General History by Joel Dorman Steele and Esther Baker Steele © 1883 & 1889, page 17 (and it is simply amazing what these two writers were able to establish considering the archaeology that had been done up to their time): “Khu-en-Aten (Akhenaten), the heretic king, rejected the Theban gods for the one-god (Aten) sun-worship of his foreign mother. He founded a new capital (now Tel-el-Amarna ruins), but neither capital nor religion long survived him.” It says here that Akhenaten got his religion from his mother. Much can be determined from the Egyptian statuary of Akhenaten and his mother, Queen Tiye. Akhenaten was so overpowering in Mongolian features, we don’t even have to guess what bloodline he and his mother were from. Akhenaten’s mother was considered a non-royal commoner, wife of Amenhotep III. Therefore, the only conclusion which can be made, is that Akhenaten’s mother was one of the women which were sent to Egypt by the Hurrians in the peace treaty Egypt made with them. The Bible As History by Werner Keller, page 98 (pages vary in different editions) states: “In three successive generations of rulers Indo-Aryan(?) (meaning Hurrians) and Egyptian blood was mixed for the first time.” This being true, Akhenaten and his relation were of the serpent seedline. There are many pictures of Akhenaten in Egyptian books, so you won’t have any trouble identifying him as such. A picture is worth a thousand words. We can trust these portrayals and sculptures, for they were developed in greater detail during the Akhenaten era than at any other time in Egyptian history./p.” What you see is what you get! You can be very sure, if Akhenaten looked Mongolian, he was indeed Mongolian.

Further information concerning the mixing of the Egyptian pharaohs with the Hurrians is found in the book The Pyramids And Sphinx by Desmond Stewart, page 51 (To understand, you may need my previous lessons dealing with the Hurrians):

“Tuthmosis IV’s immediate descendants, products of his marriage to the daughter of the King of Mitanni (Hurrian), a powerful new state in northern Syria, were no less arresting. His son by his foreign queen was Amenhotep III, builder of colossal statues in which he and his nonroyal wife, Tiye, are posed as equals (unlike most earlier groups, in which a queen might be a quarter the size of her spouse). One unforgettable late portrait — a bitter comedown from such colossi as still stand on the west bank of the Nile, facing Luxor — shows Amenhotep III looking like a weary and corpulent (overweight) chairman of some giant corporation.

“The son of Amenhotep III and Tiye was the greatest eccentric in Egyptian history, the heretic who, by changing his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaten, incorporated into his new title the Aten that his grandfather had honored ... This outstanding family, with its characteristically oval-shaped faces, large noses, and insubstantial builds, presided over a renaissance of Egyptian power, a transformation of Egyptian culture, and ironically, the first intimations (hint) of final decline.” A further description of Akhenaten’s physical features is given on page 65 as follows: “...his elongated head, heavy lips, large ears, distended stomach, and wide hips — which were undoubtedly the end-product of generations of royal inbreeding.” I would rather suggest “out breeding” with other races!

If what we are reading here is true — with the blood mixing of the Egyptian pharaohs with the Hurrians — the pharaoh enslaving the Hebrews may well have been of the Cain-Satanic-Seedline. For more information in regards to this product of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye (the Hurrian), I will again quote from the book The Pyramids And Sphinx by Desmond Stewart, page 64:

“The heir of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye assumed the throne ... under his father’s name, but then abruptly renamed himself Akhenaten. On the new king’s orders the name of the god Amen Re was deleted from most monuments. At the same time the pharaoh moved his residence from Thebes to a new, hastily built capital some three hundred miles to the north. The site, a half-moon-shaped plain on the east bank of the Nile, had been visited by Akhenaten’s grandfather Tuthmosis IV. The new capital, with its sunlit, open temple to the Aten, was an attempt at Utopia and was given the name Akhetaten, or Horizion-of-the-Aten. (The site’s modern name, Tell el-Amarna, comes from the names of two nearby Arab villages ... The city was not without an economic base, since all the river-borne transport headed north and east passed by it and could be milked to the disadvantage of rival Thebes.”

 

 

NEW RELIGION, NEW CITY

 

To understand this part of Akhenaten’s story, I will quote from the book Wonders Of The Past, (in two volumes) edited by Sir J. A. Hammerton, “Tell-el-Amarna: City of Akhnaton and Tutankhamen” pages 1123-1124:

“... A closer examination of the immediate foreground detects a series of long, low mounds, many of which have been, so to speak, disembowelled and disclose ruins of mud brick walls. To the right there rise two sickly palm trees and a solitary flat-roofed house — the home of the excavators. A modern village or two, with their domed tombs, lie half concealed in the palm plantations.

“The site, somewhat unpromising at first glance, has proved one of the most thrilling in the Near East; it is the only city of ancient Egypt yet uncovered. Its life was short, barely a score of years, yet from its remains has been obtained a vivid picture of the life of the Pharaoh’s court, of his nobles and of the poorer classes ... whereas the government archives of Tell-el-Amarna throw a flood of light on international relations at one of the most momentous periods in ancient times. But even greater interest attaches to the place from the cause of its foundation. Its existence is due to a great religious revolution, the only one that ever convulsed Egypt, that home of rigid conservatism, during several thousands of years.

“Under Amenhotep III ... the priesthood of Ammon (Amen) at Thebes had grown dangerously powerful. On his death his widow, Queen Tiyi (Tiye), a remarkable woman of non-royal birth, encouraged her twelve-year-old son, now Amenhotep IV, (later to become known as Akhenaten), to give precedence to the sun god Ra who after being paramount in earlier times had now been ousted by Ammon. The boy king accordingly erected a temple at Thebes to Ra, under the form of Aton (or Aten), ‘the Sun’s Disk’, by which he intended to symbolize the deity behind the sun who gives heat and life to the world. He thus at one sweep superseded the worship of Ammon, and with it that of the whole Egyptian pantheon, substituting an ideal monotheism. Finding it impossible to make any headway in the stronghold of Ammon himself he decided, no doubt with his mother’s support, on the bold plan of changing his capital.”

 

[ NEW GOD, NEW NAME ]

 

“So he sailed downstream some 250 miles and founded a new city on a virgin site ‘belonging to no god or goddess, no prince or princess, and of which no man could claim ownership.’ At the same time, as an outward sign of his complete break with the old polytheism, he changed his name from Amenhotep, ‘Ammon is at rest’, to Akhnaton’, ‘the Aton is satisfied’ ... Here he erected the temple to the Aton, 250 feet square, within an oblong enclosure half a mile in length. Close by were the palace buildings, covering a space of 1,500 by 500 feet.”

 

MOSES NAMED AFTER 18th DYNASTY PHARAOHS

 

This may come as a surprise to many of you, but Moses was named from a pharaoh family of the 18th Dynasty. For a reference of this sort of thing, I will refer to a book Civilization Before Greece & Rome by H. W. E. Saggs, page 105:

“At some periods, when scribes signed documents, they added the names and professions of their fathers after their own names, and from this we learn something about the class to which they belonged. At the end of the third millennium they were mainly sons (or, rarely, daughters) of well-to-do people, such as city governors, temple administrators, army officers, tax officials or priests. We also find references to poor orphan boys being adopted by generous patrons, who, at the height of their kindness, put them to learn the scribal art.”

The following are a list of pharaohs with this name: Amosis, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III and Tuthmosis IV. It is now just a matter of finding out which “mosis” is the pharaoh family which adopted Moses and gave him their name. Exodus 2:10 definitely states that the Pharaoh’s daughter named him:

 

“And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.”

 

Evidently, the meaning “I drew him out of the water” for Moses’ name is attributed only by modern commentators and became a secondary meaning for his name. I made a search, and couldn’t find any Hebrew word combination that would suggest such a meaning. It is obvious, the daughter of the Pharaoh didn’t go to him and say, “look at this Hebrew child I just saved from the river.” If that would have been the meaning of his name, at the time, the pharaoh would have taken Moses to the river and personally drowned him, for the pharaoh had made two different decrees. The first decree was an order to the midwives to kill any male Hebrew children (Exodus 1:16). The second decree by the pharaoh was to cast the male Hebrew children into the river (Exodus 1:22). Actually, the pharaoh’s order was being obeyed in the case of Moses, but the pharaoh didn’t stipulate not to place the Hebrew child in a waterproof basket.

So far, we have established beyond all reasonable doubt, with the aid of archaeological evidence, that Moses and the Exodus must have taken place in the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. It has also been established that the city of On was originally a Shemitic city, and that Joseph didn’t marry out of his kinship. We have also learned of a pharaoh by the name of Akhenaten and the new city he built to his god, Aten. Also, that Akhenaten was of a mixed Egyptian-Hurrian bloodline.

 

19th EGYPTIAN DYNASTY EXCLUDED FOR THE EXODUS

 

Most Biblical scholars place the Exodus at the time of Merenptah, son of Ramses II in the 19th Egyptian Dynasty. If you have a Halley’s Bible Handbook, you might check page 116 for his explanation of this period. This has been the popular and traditional placement for the Exodus, yet there are no indications of Egypt experiencing any momentous changes at that particular time, as the Exodus story might require. The 19th Dynasty went along unbroken: → Ramesses I → Seti I → Ramesses II → Merenptah → Amenmesse → Seti II → Siptah → Tausret. This sequence of pharaohs is taken from The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt by Bill Manley.

The best evidence I have found in my research, to conclude the Israelites were not slaves under the pharaohs of the 19th Dynasty, is found on a limestone fragment pictured in National Geographic magazine of April 1991, page 5, in an article entitled “Ramses the Great (spellings vary).” This relief depicts Ramses holding three prisoners by their hair with his right hand while holding a hatchet in his other hand. National Geographic comments thusly:

“Clutching Nubian, Libyan, and Syrian prisoners by their hair, Ram[e]ses wields an ax to dispatch them. Egyptian reliefs, like this limestone fragment from the ancient capital of Memphis, proclaim only victories, never defeats. Such painted propaganda had undeviating purpose: to ensure loyalty and inspire fear.”

Totally missing from this relief is an Israelite. One might argue the Syrian would represent an Israelite. We know the wars in which Ramses was engaged, and these three represented prisoners of war, not Israelites. It is fairly obvious that Ramses II had an entirely different labor force by his time, rather than the children of Israel. The Syrians here were probably Hurrians.

Bible scholars have also connected Ramses II with the building of Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). I don’t believe that this is a valid argument, as there was a land of Rameses mentioned in Joseph’s time. Halley’s Bible Handbook says of Rameses II on page 116: “It is, however, known that Rameses II was a great plagiarist, taking to himself credit for some of the monuments of his predecessors, having his own name carved on their monuments.”

The same National Geographic magazine of April 1991, page 17, in an article entitled “Ramses the Great” says of Ramses II: “He also took credit for many structures built by his predecessors, chiseling out their names and substituting his. ‘He commissioned so much art’, says Rita Freed of Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts, ‘that it became mass production. He seemed more interested in quantity, not quality. There probably weren’t enough good artists. Whereas his predecessors chiseled a lot of raised relief, he chose sunken relief. It’s easier to do — and harder for your successors to chisel away’.”

In the next lesson, I will be documenting and placing Joseph, Moses and the Exodus all within the 18th Egyptian Dynasty.

This is my thirty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. In the last teaching letter (#31), we began a study of Egypt. First we learned what Egyptian history is not. I demonstrated, with archaeological evidence, how one person’s attempt to shave 1000 years off Egyptian history simply cannot be correct. With the archaeological evidence I presented, we can now be more positive than ever about the general time period for the Exodus. If you don’t have lesson #31, you will need it to bring you up-to-date. As a matter of fact, you will need several of my later letters to really get a handle on this important subject. With this lesson, we are going to try to reconcile Egyptian history with Biblical history. This is not the first attempt to make such a reconciliation, as many a scholar has given it a stab in the past. If you will check out various references, you will find all kinds of suggestions for contemporary time comparisons. Thorough Bible research and study is more than just reading a few verses once in a while. 

THE TRIP BACK TO THEBES 

In the last letter, we learned how an Egyptian Pharaoh by the alias name of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) changed his religion and moved his throne, lock stock and barrel, from Thebes to an area known today as Tell el-Amarna. With a new name, he built a new city for his new religion. But, all did not go well in the new city. For some reason this new city (named Akhet-aton, “the Brilliance of the Sun’s Disk”) was suddenly abandoned en masse. When this city was abruptly deserted, they left behind unfinished tombs in which no one was ever buried; half finished statues which were never completed; supplies and food that were never used or eaten. Wonders Of The Past edited by Sir J. A. Hammerton, volume 2, page 1127 says this: “In cold weather a charcoal fire would be lit in a pottery brazier sunk in the floor; the actual ashes were found in many of these braziers — evidence of the sudden evacuation of the city.” From the book, The Murder Of Tutankhamen by Bob Brier, Ph.D., pages 98-100, I quote the following excerpts: “... Ordinary citizens abandoned Amarna, moving en masse to Thebes, creating an overnight ghost town ... In 1912 the German expedition to Amarna, led by Ludwig Borchardt, made a dramatic discovery while clearing debris from the house and studio of a master sculptor called Tuthmosis. When they entered a locked storeroom in the sculptor’s house, the excavators found exquisite busts and heads of statues that Tuthmosis had not completed when the exodus from the city began. Among these pieces was the famous bust of Nefertiti. That such a work of art should be left behind can only mean that people did not want to remember the era they had helped create ... In ancient Egypt, too, there was a general denial of ever having been part of Akhenaten’s movement. Even names were changed [before returning to Thebes] to make assimilation possible ... The bust of Nefertiti was left behind because no one wanted it.” It would appear, from all of this, there was evidently such a devastating blow directed toward Amarna that it was imperative for the residents to evacuate the area immediately and suddenly. People simply do not usually change their religion overnight, such as stated here.

Another good, short article on Tel el-Amarna is from Halley’s Bible Handbook, page 53 and reads thusly:

“The Tell-el-Amarna Tablets. In 1888 there were found in the ruins of Amarna, halfway between Memphis and Thebes, about four hundred Clay Tablets which had been a part of the royal archives of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, who reigned about 1400 B.C. These Tablets are now mostly in the Museums of London and Cairo. They are from 2 to 3 inches wide, and 3 to 9 inches long, inscribed on both sides. They contain official correspondence from various kings of Palestine and Syria, written in Babylonian cuneiform script, to these two Pharaohs of Egypt. Like the Stone Tablet of Hammurabi, they constitute one of the most important archaeological discoveries of recent years.”

Because Garstang read some of the evidence at Jericho incorrectly, his dates are about 120 to 160 years too early. May I suggest a date in the 1300’s B.C. for the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV?

 

MORE ON THE NAME OF MOSES

 

You will remember, in the last lesson, I suggested that Moses got his name from the “moses” family of pharaohs of Egypt. In the process of preparing for this lesson, I was pleasantly surprised to find documentation on this very topic. I can’t imagine what kind of “evidence” professor Garstang found in Jericho to confirm this, for I came to the same conclusion. In the book The Story Of Civilization: part 1, “Our Oriental Heritage” by Will Durant, page 302, in a footnote we read:

“Moses is an Egyptian rather than a Jewish (Hebrew) name; perhaps it is a shorter form of Ahmose. Professor Garstang, of the Marston Expedition of the University of Liverpool, claims to have discovered, in the royal tombs of Jericho, evidence that Moses was rescued (precisely in 1527(?) B.C.) by the then Princess, later the Queen Hatshepsut; that he was brought up by her as a court favorite, and fled from Egypt upon the accession of her enemy, Thutmose III.

I found more concerning this same thing in Halley’s Bible Handbook, page 112:

“Thotmes (Tuthmosis) III. (1500(?) B.C.) Queen Hatshepsut, his half sister, was regent the first 20 years of his reign; and, though he despised her, she completely dominated him. After her death he ruled alone for 30 years. He was the greatest conqueror in Egyptian history. Subdued Ethiopia, and ruled to the Euphrates, first Great Empire in history. Raided Palestine and Syria 17 times. Built a Navy. Accumulated great wealth. Engaged in vast building enterprises. Recorded his achievements in detail on walls and monuments. His tomb is at Thebes. His mummy is at Cairo. Thought to have been the Oppressor of Israel. If so, then Famous Queen Hatshepsut may have been the Pharaoh’s Daughter who rescued and brought up Moses.

In Bob Brier’s book The Murder of Tutankhamen the following questions are asked on the introduction page:

“X rays of Tutankhamen’s skull suggest a violent death. Was it accident or murder? ... Why was the king’s tomb so small and insignificant? Was it intended for someone else? ... Several members of Tutankhamen’s family died around the same time — was it coincidence? ... Why did Tutankhamen’s widow send desperate messages to the Hittite king, requesting marriage to one of his sons? And who murdered the Hittite prince on his journey to Egypt? ... Who ordered the removal of Tutankhamen’s name from all monuments and temples, and thus from Egyptian history? ... This fascinating, painstakingly researched book is the first to explore in depth the questionable circumstances of Tutankhamen’s demise — and to present a shocking scenario of betrayal, ambition, and murder. From one of our most renowned Egyptologists, this is an exciting journey into ancient history — and a 3,000-year-old mystery that still compels us today.”

As you might see, there were many strange circumstances surrounding Tutankhamen’s death. I strongly suggest that Tutankhamen was executed by the death angel in the last plague upon Egypt. Because of the difference of my premise and Bob Brier’s premise, I will be quoting several excerpts from his book to show a dissimilar viewpoint, as my conclusions are quite different from some of his. Therefore, this will be a critical review. I do not criticize his findings or his expertise, but I believe this incident revolves around Bible history rather than a political-religious Egyptian intrigue.

 

LADY PHARAOH DRESSES AS A MALE,

 AND RAISES A MALE CHILD DRESSED AS A FEMALE

 

For information concerning this, I will quote from The Pyramids And Sphinx by Desmond Stewart, ©1971, pages 52-55:

“Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut) was married to Tuthmosis II, an unimpressive ruler. A court official has left us a terse account of his death: ‘Having ascended into heaven, he became united with the gods and his son, having arisen in his place as king of the Two Lands, ruled upon the throne of his begetter, while his sister, the god’s wife Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut), governed the country and the Two Lands were under her control; people worked for her, and Egypt bowed the head.’

“Although Egypt was less male-assertive than some later societies (and inheritance through the mother was a normal pattern), we must sense a note of resentment at a female ruler. Part of this resentment may have been due to primordial associations of the king’s reproductive organs with the fertility of herds and crops. Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut) was aware of such feelings, hence her desire to be portrayed as a male — as a kneeling granite statue or a male sphinx. Yet something feminine affects the beast’s expression.

“This great woman was more interested in architecture and commerce than foreign conquest. At Deir el-Bahri she created a mortuary temple that compares with the pyramids for spectacular scope and rivals them for its imaginative use of landscape ...

“Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut) had first conceived the bold idea of driving her burrow eastward, straight under the mountain; in this way her sarcophagus and that of her divine father, Tuthmosis, could lie under the cliff itself. She planned to transform the sheer face of the escarpment into a vast temple, imitating on a far grander scale the mortuary temple built by an Eleventh Dynasty predecessor. But the tunnel collapsed and this part of her scheme had to be abandoned. Hashepsowe’s (Hat-shep-sut’s) ultimate design — an ascending sequence of colonnaded courtyards culminating in a rock-hewn inner shrine — served the same functions as the mortuary temples attached to the pyramids ...

“Egyptian inscriptions rarely recorded unharmonious facts; they give no indication of how the queen’s reign may have been terminated by supporters of Tuthmosis III, Hashepsowe’s (Hat-shep-sut’s) nephew and coregent, now grown to manhood. Whether Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut) died of natural causes, was retired, or was murdered is still unknown. But some time after the king assumed solitary power he had every artistic reference to Hashepsowe (Hat-shep-sut) that he could uncover destroyed.”

Also on page 55 of this same book is a picture of a granite statue for which there is considerable interest concerning Hatshepsut and it is described thusly:

“Hashepsowe’s (Hat-shep-sut’s) chief minister, Senmut, is portrayed in this block statue with his royal pupil. the queen’s daughter, on his knees. The two heads emerging from the confines of the massive granite block convey an aura of tender affection between tutor and pupil.”

I believe that, rather than the queen’s daughter, this was Moses, her adopted son dressed up as a girl in order to protect him during his childhood years (but check Exodus 2:10-14). That was probably her story when she saved him from the river. I also believe she was grooming Moses to be the pharaoh following her as her heir. Hatshepsut was at the end of a pure royal line. She may even have been of the House of Shem which would tell us a lot about the reason for saving Moses in the first place. Tuthmosis III (her adversary) was born of a minor wife and thus not of royal blood. When we can understand the circumstances here, we can start to grasp the situation.

To state the relationship with the other pharaohs at the time, Hatshepsut was the daughter of Tuthmosis I. She married her brother (possibly half brother) Tuthmosis II. She then took the throne as king in the stead of Tuthmosis III for which there was much animosity between her and him. If Hatshepsut was the Egyptian princess who rescued Moses from the river, then the persecution of the Israelites must have started under Tuthmosis I or possibly even Hatshepsut’s husband, Tuthmosis II. To give another view to help clear up this situation, I will now quote from The Murder Of Tutankhamen by Bob Brier, page 35:

“The only surviving child of Tuthmosis [I] and his queen was Princess Hatshepsut. There is no word for ‘queen’ in ancient Egyptian. The phrase we translate as ‘queen’ is actually ‘king’s great wife.’ Had Hatshepsut been a son, the royal crown would have passed directly to him, but she was a girl and this created a problem. It is not always clear how the successor to the throne was chosen. It wasn’t as simple as in England — where the laws of primogeniture decreed that the throne was passed down through the king’s eldest son, with specified contingencies for all possibilities. In Egypt, the pharaoh had several wives and could also marry his sisters, so the lines of succession for his children could be rather complex. Overall, the rule known as the ‘Heiress Theory’ covered most cases: whoever married the eldest, most royal daughter became pharaoh.

“When Tuthmosis [I] died, his son Tuthmosis II by a minor wife was married to his half sister Hatshepsut, the eldest daughter of the pharaoh and his great wife. Marriage to Hatshepsut established Tuthmosis II’s right to the throne. The couple had a successful, uneventful twenty-year reign. When Tuthmosis II died he left two children, a daughter [really probably the adopted son Moses in disguise] by Hatshepsut, and a young son, Tuthmosis III, by a minor wife. Then, suddenly, one of the most incredible events in Egypt’s long history occurred: Hatshepsut changed her royal title from ‘Queen’ to ‘King’ and had herself portrayed in full male royal regalia, complete with beard. This was unheard of in conservative ancient Egypt. By wearing the false beard and the royal kilt of the pharaoh, Hatshepsut was attempting to stay within the traditional boundaries of Egyptian kingship — she was the king who happened to be a woman ...”

It would appear, Hatshepsut was attempting to keep royal blood on the throne. Knowing that Tuthmosis III was not of royal blood, evidently Hatshepsut took the throne herself until such time as Moses would be old enough to do so. Probably once Tuthmosis III did succeed in taking the throne, the persecution of the Israelites resumed after a lull during Hatshepsut’s reign. If all of this is true, Princess Hatshepsut had more motivation for rescuing Moses than just wanting an Israelite adopted son. She seemed to have all the qualities of a woman knowing exactly what she was doing. If Hatshepsut had no compunction dressing as a man, she would have had no reservations in dressing Moses like a girl for a short while.

 

TIMING

 

At this juncture, there is a hodgepodge of dates from different sources to consider. The problem is fitting Moses’ life into this time period. Basically, Moses’ life is broken down into three forty year periods: (1) From his birth until he fled Egypt after killing an Egyptian. (2) His forty years in Midian and his return to Egypt to face down the pharaoh to let the Israelites have their freedom, and, (3) His 40 years wandering with the Israelites in the wilderness until his death. This can be verified by Acts 7:23, but doesn’t agree with Jasher 71:1; 72:23 & 76:3, The first 80 years is what concerns us, as we must fit it into the period from Hatshepsut until the Amarna period. I checked first with a time-chart in the book The Pyramid And Sphinx by Desmond Stewart, page 54, and the dates are about 60-70 years too long to fit Moses’ 80 years in Egypt. I continued to search other books such as Mummies Myth And Magic by Christine El Mahdy; Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt by Bill Manley; The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino; The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible in five volumes along with many other books. Finally, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible in four volumes I found in volume E-J pages 48-49, figures which fit Moses’ 80 years in Egypt. This reference places the Hatshepsut period 1486-1468 B.C., and the Amarna period 1375-1300 B.C. If we take a starting point of 1468 B.C., and subtract 40 years, we will come to 1428 B.C. By subtracting another 40 years, one will come to 1388 B.C. which is getting close to our objective. No doubt, there are still some further overlappings of time-periods which could be subtracted from these figures. We have to remember, too, these dates are probably generally off by a hundred years or so.

To show you we are on the right track, I will quote from the book The Bible And Archaeology by J. A. Thompson, pages 55-56:

“When Did The Exodus Take Place? It has been widely held that the Exodus took place about 1440 B.C. One reason for this has been found in I Kings 6:1, where we have the statement: ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel ... that he began to build the house of the Lord.’

“We have good reason to believe that Solomon began to reign about the middle of the tenth century B.C., that is, about 950 B.C. It would follow from this that the Exodus took place about 1430 B.C., in the time of the Eighteenth Dynasty which ruled Egypt from 1570 to 1310 B.C.”

If all of this is true, this places us within one hundred years of the Amarna period. There is another position which should be taken into account concerning this time-period. I will now quote from this same book, page 62:

“What, then, are we to say of the date implied by the statement in 1 Kings 6:1? A comparison with the Greek Septuagint shows that there was a difference of opinion in the minds of the translators in the time when this text was prepared, say in the period between 300 and 100 B.C. The Septuagint gives a period of four hundred and forty years as the time lapse between the Exodus and Solomon.”

Another important aspect of the Exodus period is mentioned on page 56 of this same book:

“In the first place, if we are to take the Bible narrative seriously (and there is every reason that we should), we are bound to notice that the picture in the Bible is easiest to interpret if we regard the residence of the Pharaoh as being in the region of the delta at the time of the Exodus ...”

This is an important observation, as Akhenaten’s move to his new city placed him much father north in Egypt than before. While not actually in the Delta area, the Amarna site is much closer than Thebes. No doubt, many of the Israelite slaves were moved the short distance from the so-called Goshen area to the Amarna site to serve as a labor force. (More on the location of Goshen later.) Unearthed at Tell-el-Amarna are the living quarters of a workman’s suburb.span style=text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;span style=/spansans-serif Pictured is an area for a cottage living room, large water jar along with a food bowl and hearth, sunken brick receptacles for grain and even bathroom facilities. In viewing these ruins, one can even imagine the Passover lamb being prepared over the open charcoal hearth in the kitchen area.

 

JOSEPH AND THE HYKSOS

 

We will be placing Joseph with the Hyksos period, but not in the way most so-called authorities cast him. In order to learn something of the Hyksos period, I will quote from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, pages 86-88:

“Something incredible and frightful befell the Nile country about 1730 B.C. Suddenly as a bolt from the blue, warriors in chariots drove into the country like arrows shot from a bow, endless columns of them in clouds of dust. Day and night horses’ hooves thundered past the frontier posts, rang through city streets, temple squares and the majestic courts of Pharaoh’s palaces. Even before the Egyptians realized it, it had happened; their country was taken by surprise, overrun and vanquished. The giant of the Nile, who never before in his history had seen foreign conquerors, lay bound and prostrate.

“The rule of the victors began with a bloodbath. The Hyksos, Semitic tribes from Canaan and Syria, knew no pity. With the fateful year 1730 B.C. the thirteen-hundred-year rule of the dynasties came to an abrupt end. The Middle Kingdom of the Pharaohs was shattered under the onslaught of these Asian peoples, the ‘rulers of foreign lands.’ That is the meaning of the name Hyksos. The memory of their political disaster remained alive among the Nile people, as a striking description by the Egyptian historian Manetho testified: ‘We had a king called Tutimaeus. In his reign, it happened. I do not know why God was displeased with us. Unexpectedly from the regions of the East, came men of unknown race. Confident of victory they marched against our land. By force they took it, easily, without a single battle. Having overpowered our rulers, they burned our cities without compassion, and destroyed the temples of the gods. All the natives were treated with great cruelty, for they slew some and carried off the wives and children of others into slavery. Finally they appointed one of themselves as king. His name was Salitis and he lived in Memphis and made Upper and Lower Egypt pay tribute to him, and set up garrisons in places which would be most useful to him ... and when he found a city in the province of Sais which suited his purpose (it lay east of the Bubastite branch of the Nile and was called Avaris) he rebuilt it and made it very strong by erecting walls and installing a force of 240,000 men to hold it. Salitis went there every summer partly to collect his corn and pay his men their wages, and partly to train his armed troops and terrify foreigners.”

At their height, the Hyksos occupied the land of the Hurrians, Carchemish, Syria, Palestine and much of the northern part of Egypt. By inhabiting the Delta area of Egypt, they were in control of all commerce on the Nile. This cut Egypt off almost entirely from commercial trade and the rest of the then known world. The Hyksos could sit in their fortress at Avaris and call all the shots up and down the Nile. These Hyksos were a very strange people, desiring to set up a government like that of the Egyptians. It makes one wonder why they didn’t set up a government like they had wherever they came from, wherever that was. They seem to be a kind of chameleon type of people, adapting themselves to their surroundings. We have a chameleon type of people today living in the United States, pretending to be of the white race, and passing themselves off as such; changing their names to fit the territory. Some students believe the Hyksos came from the Caucasus or even Central Asia. At least, as far as the Egyptians were concerned, the Hyksos were an Asiatic people. The Hyksos seem to have been active merchants. They introduced into Egypt a new system of weights and balances. Does this seem to ring a bell of any kind? It kind of makes one wonder who the Hyksos people were. We can be quite sure they were not Egyptian or Israelite, though.

After 108 years of domination by the Hyksos, the last pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty, Kamose, and the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, Amosis, rose up against these intruders, and over a period of about 20 years drove them northward out of the Delta area.

JOSEPH IMPOSES A 20% INCOME TAX

 

If you are unfamiliar with the income tax which Joseph imposed on certain people, it is found in Genesis 47:26. Not only did Joseph impose a 20% income tax, but he used the advantage of the seven years of famine to buy up all the land for the Pharaoh. I will quote from verses 20 to 26:

 

“20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them; so the land became Pharaoh’s. 21 And as for the people, he removed them to the cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. 22 Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. 23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh, lo here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. 24 And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. 25 And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. 26 And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which  became not Pharaoh’s.”

 

We know, according to Biblical Law, that it is unlawful for Adam-Israelites to charge other Adam-Israelites an income tax. It is also unlawful to take the lands from the Adam-Israelites in the manner just described. It is, therefore, obvious that this income tax and confiscation of land was not directed toward or to be paid by the Israelites living in the land of Goshen, wherever Goshen was located. If we can connect this income tax historically, would it not identify the Joseph period in Egypt? I am sure, when Frank J. Cosentino wrote his book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun, he had no idea he was making such an identification, but on page 37 he makes the following statement:

“Amosis I, now a great hero of Egypt, was in a position to eliminate the feudal system, and he did. He confiscated the lands and properties of the lords he defeated and stripped them of their peerage. Those who supported him during the long Hyksos war also turned their estates over to the pharaoh in return for retention of their old titles and offices. All of Egypt once again was the personal property of the pharaoh.”

From this short statement, we can comprehend, not only does this match up with Scripture, but also establishes, with little doubt, that the reign of Amosis I is contemporary with Joseph of the Bible. If what we surmise is true, when Joseph’s brothers sold him to the Ishmaelites (possibly a mistranslation for Midianites), they must have bypassed the Hyksos in the Delta area and entered into Egypt by the backdoor, from Sawu on the Red Sea, across the desert to the Nile (Test. of Zebulun 1:30).

This brings up some questions: Did Abraham and Sarah, when they went to Egypt to escape a famine, come into contact with the Hyksos? Were Isaac and Rebekah warned not to go to Egypt because the Hyksos were in power there at the time?

No doubt, it was the actions of Joseph that started the weakening of the Hyksos. We have no evidence that Joseph ever warned them of the coming famine, and they were totally unprepared for it. They, too, probably had to go to Amosis and Joseph for something to eat. What better time to start taking advantage of the Hyksos in charging them an income tax and trading them food for land? We can be quite sure that Joseph didn’t charge the Israelites an income tax or confiscate their land for Genesis 47:27 says:

 

“And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.”

 

You will notice it doesn’t say anything about charging the Israelites an income tax or taking away their land. Some read this account of Joseph in Genesis 47 and condemn him, but it is a matter of figuring out who he was doing this to. As just quoted from Cosentino, “He (Amosis) confiscated the lands and properties of the lords he defeated and stripped them of their peerage.” It was the Hyksos that Amosis defeated.

Again, I wish to stress there are problems with the dates. Due to Garstang’s misreading of the evidence at Jericho, there is a 120 to 160 year differentiation of time between Egyptian and Israelite history. I am sure, when all is said and done, there will be a simple explanation for all of this and all the pieces of the puzzle will fit nicely into place.

The problem is expressed in the book The Bible And Archaeology by J. A. Thompson, pages 61-62:

“More recent work carried out by the British archaeologist Dr. Kathleen Kenyon has shown that the wall of Jericho fell at various times in its history. The town was burned several times, and the features mentioned by Garstang could have been discovered for a number of the cities of Jericho. Moreover, pottery found in the graves showed that there was occupation in this area rather later than 1400 B.C. There were, in fact, traces of a still later city to be found on top of the ruins that Garstang had found. He had observed this but had interpreted these as belonging to the city of Hiel referred to in 1 kings 16:34. the net result of Miss Kenyon’s work is that we cannot accept the excavation of Garstang as proving beyond all doubt that the Exodus took place as early as 1440 B.C.”