This is my one hundred and fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my ninth year of publication. Starting with WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul from the horrendously false charges that are being hurled at his epistles, and these accusations have their origins among the lowest moral sources one can imagine. For lack of space, we’ll now turn it over to William Finck:

Now once again we shall continue to address the second of Clayton Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles, SAUL OF TARSUS AND HIS DOCTRINE OF LAWLESSNESS, which he published in the January, 2004 edition of his Free American Newsmagazine. It had been noted quite early in this series responding to Douglas’ articles, that his writings may be welcomed by readers of The Trumpet or The Jerusalem Post, because Douglas rejects many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity, and not only Paul of Tarsus. This will again become apparent below, along with many other inconsistencies and conflicts in Douglas’ thought and writing. While much of Douglas’ article is merely a recycling of his earlier statements, he does add a few new twists, and a few new twisted arguments, and so his entire article must be presented and addressed

.

<Reference #71> Clayton Douglas states: “The ‘Saved Through the Blood Sacrifice of Jesus’ Pauline School ... It does not appear to be a tiny coincidence that canonical Gospels make any such references to atonement through ‘God-human’ sacrifice. The notion that such pagan concepts had anything whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ is the biggest lie ever told. The impression that the unsuspecting Christian is left with is that ‘all the prophets’ had been awaiting this ‘sacrificial lamb’ to come as ‘God incarnate’ to atone for sin. There is literally not one statement in all Gospel accounts. It is Paul and his companions, rather than John the Baptist, Jesus, James and their Community, who introduced this concept of redemption through unsubstantiated ‘faith,’ simultaneous with acts of lawlessness. This left brain/left brain [sic] tweaking - courtesy of the Pharisees - creates ‘Christian Schizophrenia’.”

William Finck answers <#71>: Here it is apparent that Clayton Douglas is a proselyte, if not an actual jew, recycling the same vain arguments that the jews used against Paul and the rest of the apostles in the first century. Like the Pharisees who claimed to be experts in the law, yet were consistently reproved through scripture by Christ, Clayton Douglas has very likely never even read the Bible he so wantonly criticizes and claims knowledge of!

That Yahweh Himself would walk among us is a matter of prophecy, seen as early as Lev. 26:11-12, and there are dozens and dozens of messianic prophecies throughout the Bible which foretell quite clearly many of the events of His sojourn here, such as Isa. 8:13-17; 9:1 ff. and 35:1-10.

In section <#4> of this response in WTL #93 we saw that Douglas denied that Yahshua Christ was the Messiah. Yet all throughout his first article Douglas referred to Christ as “Immanuel”, Hebrew for “God is with us”. The 70-weeks vision of Daniel, found at Dan. 9:24-27, foretold not only the coming of Messiah the Prince, but Daniel also anchored His coming to verifiable dates in history, predicting that coming and the year it would happen well over five hundred years in advance! And Daniel also told us that “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself”. What could that forebode, besides the fact that Christ was to be murdered on behalf of others? That Christ was to suffer that which He did is foretold in many places, chief among them being Psalm 22, Micah 5:1, Zech. 13:7, and especially Isaiah chapter 53, which makes it perfectly clear that Yahshua Christ died for the iniquity of the children of Israel. Clayton Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, denies all of this.

Douglas insists that “There is literally not one statement in all Gospel accounts”, apparently meaning that there is nothing in the gospels which tell us that Yahshua Christ was the “sacrificial lamb” who would atone for our sin. Yet this is a recurrent theme in the gospels! Clayton Douglas, The Comedian, obviously has not read Matt. 1:21, Luke 1:77, or especially John 1:29 and 1:35-41! In John 6:31-65 we have the great “Bread of Life” discourse given by Christ, where it is clear that His flesh and blood were given for our lives, and our faith in Him is rewarded by eternal life. While there are many other similar statements in the gospels which outline these things, it should be perfectly clear that Clayton Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, is a liar contending with Yahweh, Yahshua Christ, and all of the gospels, not merely with Paul of Tarsus. Clayton Douglas may just as well be another anti-Christ jew. John tells us “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Yahshua is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22) Who is a liar, but Clayton Douglas?

<Reference #72> Clayton Douglas states: “The direct consequences from this Christian Schizophrenia can be seen throughout Europe ... and the United States of America today. Although The Scriptures teach us that God’s Laws are, indeed, engraved forevermore upon our Israelite hearts, we - instead - listen to The Traditions which teach us that lawlessness and disobedience are AOK. Not to worry, you’ll get into Heaven too. This is all the result of Super-Apostle-Paul/Saul of Tarsus.”

William Finck answers <#72>: This babble of Douglas’ makes little sense at all, and surely Douglas is a very confused man. We have seen over and again here that Paul of Tarsus did not promote lawlessness, and instead taught just the opposite, in sections <#18>, <#37>, <#44>, <#46>, <#49> and <#50> of this response to Douglas’ articles, and in section <J> of the previous response to H. Graber (see the end of section <#67> in WTL #104).

Douglas’ so-called “Christian Schizophrenia” is certainly not caused by Paul of Tarsus, and Douglas is duplicitous in blaming such on Paul. We have seen that Douglas is a follower of Bishop John S. Spong, whom he must have read at length because he quotes from Spong extensively in his attacks on Paul, for which see section <#9> of this response in WTL #94, and section <#23> in WTL #97. And we have also seen that Spong is a very liberal theologian, a promoter of racial integration, homosexuality, and embracer of the anti-Christ jews! Spong ordains homosexual clerics, promotes homosexual marriage, and is a leading humanist, and Clayton Douglas is his follower! Clayton Douglas, The Comedian posing as a Christian, is the real schizophrenic here! The lawlessness in Christianity is not Paul’s fault, it is rather the fault of liberal theologians such as John Spong! And all of these things concerning Spong were made manifest here from Spong’s own official websites and his own writings, in WTL #’s 97 and 98. We’ve seen Spong attack Paul, and Douglas attack Paul. We’ve seen Spong deny Yahweh in Biblical terms, and we’ve seen Douglas deny that Christ is Messiah, and Spong denies the divinity of Christ and the circumstances of His birth and ministry! We’ve seen Douglas embrace Freud, and we’ve seen Spong embrace Freud! John Spong is a liberal miscreant anti-Christ destroyer of Adamic civilization and a homosexual-embracing deviant, and Clayton Douglas is his disciple! John Spong is a liberal proclaimer of lawlessness, and Clayton Douglas covers for him by diverting the blame to Paul of Tarsus. Clayton Douglas is the Man of Scoffing and Spouter of Lies!

<Reference #73> Clayton Douglas states: “In yet another typical Judaist contortion, Paul/Saul proclaims all opposition to him as devilish. He suggests that those who oppose him include ‘counterfeit apostles’ and ‘dishonest workers’ (2 Corinthians 11:13) and even Satan’s servants disguised as ‘servants of uprightness’ (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). He wishes that his opponents would ‘mutilate themselves’ (Galatians 5:12). The advocates of the Old Testament were deemed self interested people who just wished to boast about their success (Galatians 6:13), wished to ‘stir up disagreements’ (Romans 16:17) and who preached differently to Paul ‘out of malice and rivalry’ or ‘out of jealousy, not in sincerity’ (Philippians 1:15-19).”

William Finck answers <#73>: In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul calls those who oppose not merely himself “false apostles, deceitful workers”, but those who oppose the gospel of Christ. Paul’s attitude here is fully supported by Yahshua Christ Himself, in the Revelation given to John, in the message to the assembly at Ephesus which Paul founded: “thou has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.” Paul being the founder of that assembly, the gospel which he brought must be the “first love” of the assembly, and so Paul is true, and Clayton Douglas a liar (cf. Rev. 2:2, 4). It is clear that in early church history many jews attempted to subvert the gospel of Christ by adopting and then perverting it. Clayton Douglas, like John Spong, is their disciple. In his second epistle, Peter warns about these very same people with language at least as strong as Paul’s, yet the hypocritical Douglas dare not criticize Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2)! And Peter’s complaints concerning these false teachers are much the same as Paul’s. Compare 2 Pet. 2:19 to Gal 5:13, for instance. At Galatians 5:12 Paul wished that certain judaizers would rather mutilate themselves, because they were trying to foist the Old Covenant circumcision upon Christians. Douglas defends the “advocates of the Old Testament”, not realizing that to advocate the Old is to deny the New Covenant! Paul certainly knew better than Douglas, as is fully evident at Heb. 8:6-13. The passing of the Old Covenant (i.e. Zech. 11:10) and establishment of the New Covenant (i.e. Jer. 31: 31-33) were clear subjects of Biblical prophecy denied by Clayton Douglas and every ‘good’ jew. Clayton Douglas’ own words again prove that he is little but a jew. All Paul-bashers everywhere should take note of this: you are all followers of and pawns of the jews!

<Reference #74> Clayton Douglas states: “Did you know that Paul was quite preoccupied with taking donations in? Did you know that he felt it necessary to answer a charge that he was embezzling the money? (Sound familiar?) (2 Corinthians 8:20-21 shows the suspicion with which he had to contend. He must claim the authority of the Jerusalem Community for the validity of his teaching to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-10) and he writes that ‘they asked nothing more than that we should remember to help the poor.’ This was some 17 years after his conversion, for as he states, he was in no hurry to confer with any human being as he had been selected in his mother’s womb for this work (Galatians 1:15-17). (Another little narcissistic Pauline twist.) Even so, he was fearful that he and his gift might not be accepted by the Jerusalem leaders, writing: ‘I pray that the aid I am carrying to Jerusalem will be acceptable to God’s holy people’. (Romans 15:31)”

William Finck answers <#74>: That Paul embezzled anything is a false accusation, a lie by Clayton Douglas who has taken advantage of a poor translation. This was discussed at length in section <#54> of this response, in WTL #102. Now Douglas removes 2 Cor. 8:20-21 from its context, verses that have nothing to do with money, but which only discuss the selection of competent ministers. My own translation of 2 Cor. 8:16-21 reads thusly: “¹⁶ Now gratitude is to Yahweh, by whom that same diligence is being given in the heart of Titos on your behalf, ¹⁷ seeing that the encouragement he indeed has received, now being more diligent, voluntarily he has gone out to you. ¹⁸ And we have sent along with him that brother of whom there is approval in the good message throughout all of the assemblies; ¹⁹ and not only, but our fellow traveler has also been hand picked by the assemblies to be endued with this favor, in which he would serve under us to the honor of the Prince Himself; and our eagerness ²⁰ is avoiding this: not a one would find fault with us in this strength which is serving under us. ²¹ Indeed we have noble intentions not only in the presence of the Prince, but also in the presence of men.”

The term “this strength” refers to the unnamed brother (see also 2 Cor. 12:18) selected to assist Paul and Titos, probably one of the men mentioned at Acts 20:4. Many suppose, and it may be correct to do so, that such men were selected to ensure that funds donated by the assemblies were employed properly, and this is certainly to Paul’s credit, so he surely cannot be accused in the matter. Clayton Douglas, The Comedian, would stop at nothing to accuse Paul. It is only natural, with Paul’s bringing his gift from the assemblies to Jerusalem, that he would hope that the gift would be accepted, and Douglas’ accusation to the contrary is both tenuous and unfounded.

Paul believed that he was chosen from the womb of his mother for the conduct of his ministry (Gal. 1:15) because he believed in the ability of Yahweh to predestine all of His children for His Own purpose (Romans 8:28 ff.). This is evident in the Old Testament many times, for instance of Pharaoh in Ex. 9:16, mentioned by Paul at Rom. 9:17; and Jacob and Esau at Gen. 25:23, mentioned by Paul at Rom. 9:12. We see it also at Jdgs. 13:3 ff. concerning Samson, and at Isa. 45:1 ff. where Isaiah mentions the Persian king Cyrus by name and in deed at least 150 years before Cyrus was even born! Now since this is so evident in so many places in the Old Testament, which Douglas professes, why doesn’t Douglas believe it? The Man of Scoffing believes nothing! His only purpose is to discredit Paul, and then Christianity itself, like any ‘good’ jew would do!

<Reference #75> Clayton Douglas states: “Did you know it was Saul/Paul who taught, ‘One person may have faith enough to eat any kind of food; another less strong, will eat only vegetables.’ It was his messages which convinced the world that it was now ‘perfectly OK’ to eat, well, just about anything you felt like eating ... in DIRECT VIOLATION OF GOD’S DIETARY LAWS. God’s Dietary Laws were not handed down to you to make your life difficult. God gave them to you to PROTECT YOU from sickness and disease. Paul didn’t care much about what God wanted. ‘Let them eat Pork’ became Paul’s motto. And, so God’s People became sick ... and confused. More poisoning courtesy of The Serpent.”

William Finck answers <#75>: Again Clayton Douglas is a fabricator of lies, for Paul never spoke about the eating of pork, never mind Douglas’ false claim that he approved of it! The scripture to which Douglas refers here is found in Romans chapter 14, and he apparently paraphrased v. 14:3. Again, notice that he does not state as much. But because Paul said that all foods may be eaten, does that mean that he advocated eating pork? Certainly not! For if pork is not normally considered food, then it cannot be included in the category of “all foods”, even if we today do consider it to be so. Pork was not considered “food” to first century Judaeans, nor to many first century Greeks. Although earthworms and roaches are edible and contain nourishment, I certainly would not eat them even if people of other cultures do, and so I would not consider them to be “food”. Neither do I consider swine to be “food”, even though many people today do, and so I do not eat swine, and furthermore I do not consider Paul’s statement at Romans 14 as any sort of encouragement or commission to eat swine, knowing that Paul is talking about food, which swine is not! As we can fully discern from Romans chapter 14 and from 1 Corinthians chapter 10, early Christians were at odds as to whether they should eat any flesh, or meat, at all. This was for cultural reasons, and not because anything in the Scripture promoted vegetarianism. If we are ignorant of Greco-Roman history and culture, neither can we discern the context in which the gospels and epistles of the New Testament were written! We would all be as ignorant as Clayton Douglas!

Greek temples were not merely places where pagan rituals and the worship of false gods were conducted. They also served as centers for community, lounges and restaurants, centers for organized prostitution, banks and other things. Greek city-dwellers took many of their meals at these temples, drank, and often participated in the other activities in which these temples engaged. Markets were attached to the temples, where animals could be purchased to make sacrifices to the idol, or where meat from sacrificed animals could be purchased. Some of these practices were even conducted at the Temple in Jerusalem (i.e. John 2:15). Such was the dilemma of first century Christians in Greece and Rome, where it was difficult to find meat which had not been sacrificed to an idol: to a false pagan god. Such was the reason for Paul’s discourses at Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:14-31, which in Paul’s perspective (contrary to Clayton Douglas) had nothing to do with swine!

Additionally, we see in Strabo’s Geography that swine was not accepted at all Greek temples, and that of the temples of Aphrodite swine was accepted at only a few (9.5.17). The famous temple of Aphrodite at Corinth was not among those which accepted swine. Strabo himself considered the eating of swine to be unclean (12.8.9), and tells us that at Comana in Pontus swine weren’t even allowed into the city. So in the Greek world, we see division on this issue in the pages of Strabo. Clayton Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, understands none of this, and like most so-called Christians today, takes Paul’s statements in these chapters entirely out-of-context. Paul never advocated or approved the consumption of swine’s flesh.

<Reference #76> Clayton Douglas states: “Paul used pseudo-philosophical arguments that went in circles. He told James that he had no right to judge him - attempting to allude to teachings of James’ brother that were taken out of context.”

William Finck answers <#76>: Again Douglas makes no citations. Paul’s meetings with James are recorded in Acts 15 and 21, where Paul never argued with James and showed his elder complete deference in every way. Paul’s letters mention James at 1 Cor. 15:7, and at Gal. 1:19; 2:9 and 2:12. Nowhere was Paul ever recorded as telling “James that he had no right to judge him”! Clayton Douglas, The Comedian, is lying again.

<Reference #77A> Clayton Douglas states: “Here’s - absolutely - one of favorite [sic] Paulinisms, repeated every day by millions of bone-headed people:

“‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.’ Matthew 7:1-6

“How many times have you heard this? I’ll betcha HUNDREDS.”

William Finck answers <#77A>: This is incredible! I’m almost speechless! Here is – absolutely – one of the most idiotic pieces of commentary I’ve ever seen on the Bible. Douglas doesn’t like the words of Yahshua Christ as they were recorded by Matthew at 7:1-6, so he blames them on Paul! The incredible part, however, is that a little further on in his article, as we shall see below, Douglas quotes Matt. 5:17-20 and later both Matt. 6:24 and 7:21-23, using those sections to support his attacks on Paul! So regardless of where it is in the Bible, if Douglas likes it, it’s Christian. And if Douglas doesn’t like it, it’s Paul’s doing! Clayton Douglas is an idiot! Of course, here in Matthew, Yahshua Christ is talking about hypocritical judgment, as Paul also does at Romans 2:1 ff. Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, cannot discern as much. So he continues his diatribe:

<Reference #77B> Clayton Douglas states: “Here’s the real deal. Christianity, and I mean REAL CHRISTIANITY, is the most intolerant religion there is. It ought to make you proud. It isn’t lukewarm. It isn’t a namby pamby politically correct ‘liberal’ religion. It IS a set of laws, specified by God Himself, which supplies us with the correct parameters by which we CAN judge the actions of others. But, suddenly, Paul is retraining us that we MUST NOT JUDGE OTHERS. Lawlessness is just dandy. Don’t say a word. Do not condemn ... or else! But, that’s OK [sic] and quite acceptable, at least according to the legions of Christians who will immediately rise to Paul/Saul’s defense.”

William Finck answers <#77B>: Yet we have seen time and again in this response, in sections <#18> in WTL #96, <#46> in WTL #101, and summarized in sections <#49> and <#50> in WTL #102, as well as discussing related topics, i.e. in section <#37> of WTL #100, that Paul of Tarsus certainly does uphold the laws of Yahweh (i.e. Rom. 3:31)! Paul never promoted lawlessness, as we have seen. Rather, it’s the liberal theologians of today, such as John Spong, who attack Paul while, at the same time, promoting their lawlessness. Ironically, Douglas actually follows the lawless Spong, and then does an about-face by attacking the law-upholding Paul. Is not Douglas’ duplicity fully evident for everyone to see? Clayton Douglas is rather the schizophrenic while he accuses others, and can hardly be labeled a Christian. Here Douglas continues by quoting Matthew to support his contentious argument:

<Reference #77C> Clayton Douglas states: “I repeat to you again, Matthew 5:17:20: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah,) or the Prophets (Nevi’im,); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law; until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven’.”

William Finck answers <#77C>: So Douglas alone determines which parts of Matthew’s gospel were written by Matthew, and which parts of Matthew’s gospel were written by Paul! Only an idiot could imagine being able to do such a thing, and an arrogant one at that! Notice also that Douglas insists on giving us the Hebrew names for the Law and the Prophets, as if to lend credibility to his own use of Yahshua Christ’s words, which were originally recorded not in Hebrew, but in Greek! This does, however, demonstrate fully the jewish influences upon Clayton Douglas’ thinking. Now I can imagine why Douglas made the silly statement in his first article, discussed in section <#5> of this response in WTL #94, that Paul “wrote almost two-thirds of the New Testament.” Douglas thinks that Paul wrote Matthew 7:1-6! But Douglas’ astonishing idiocy extends far beyond even this ...

<Reference #78> Clayton Douglas states: “James the Brother of Jesus spoke out against Paul of Tarsus in this profound and pivotal incident: ‘You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets didn’t your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers. You received the Law as it was ordained by angels, and didn’t keep it! Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the Glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Adam standing at the right hand of God!’ Acts 7:51-56”

William Finck answers <#78>: Here Douglas takes the words of the martyr Stephen before his death, which were recorded by Luke in Acts chapter 7, and he attributes them to James! And these words weren’t meant for Paul in particular, but for the high priests, elders and council of the Judaeans in general, evident once reading the full story from Stephen’s arrest as related at Acts 6:8-15 and 7:1 ff. Can Clayton Douglas read? Or is he a purposeful deceiver? Or just an idiot? One thing is evident, Clayton Douglas will lie and twist anything, stopping at nothing to slander Paul and to corrupt Christianity, just as those whom he truly follows: the jews, the anti-Christs, the sexual deviants, liberal theologians, atheists and other miscreants whom he consistently quotes for support.

<Reference #79A> Clayton Douglas states: “Here’s an account about James (the Elder’s) run-in with Saul/Paul.

“... In the Recognitions of Clement, we also learn of someone named Saul - ‘one of our enemies’ - who, upon entering the Temple with a few other companions while James was reading and interpreting Bible prophecy concerning Jesus, ‘began to cry out,’ and ‘while James was refuting him’ he ‘began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and undo what was arranged with much labor.’ A riot ensues, ‘in the midst of which, this enemy attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the [Temple] steps, and, supposing him to be dead, cared not to inflict further violence upon him.’

“Though James doesn’t die here, both his legs were broken ...

(This is act [sic] of a man you say is now annointed [sic]?, Paul broke both of James’ legs!)”

William Finck answers <#79A>: Clement, who lived and wrote long after the deaths of both Paul of Tarsus and James the elder, knew full well who Paul was, quoted from and followed Paul, and never identified the “Saul” who attacked James as Paul of Tarsus, though he had every opportunity to do so if such a thing were true! Douglas even admits this, admitting that Clement wrote only of “someone named Saul”, yet it is only Douglas who would identify this “Saul” as Saul of Tarsus, as if in the first century there was only one man named Saul in the entire world! Saul was the name of the first Israelite king (v. 1 Samuel), who was of the tribe of Benjamin, and so it was only natural that a first century Benjaminite may have this name. There were other men with this name in first century Judaea.

[Emahiser note: Douglas knows less about Church History than Scripture! When James the Just was martyred, Paul was in Rome. We find this in Eusebius’ Church History by Paul L. Maier on page 81 (2.23), under the heading “The Martyrdom of Jesus’ Brother James”:

“When Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews were disappointed in their hope regarding the plot they had devised against him and turned against James, the Lord’s brother, to whom the bishop’s throne in Jerusalem had been assigned by the apostles ...”

In other words, James was murdered in place of Paul! Thus, either Eusebius lies or Douglas lies. For anyone who is truly interested concerning James’ martyrdom, see Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, “Hegesippus, Fragments from His Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church”. The “Saul” of which Clement cites is not the same “Saul” (Paul) the apostle! This “Saul” of which Clement refers went into the temple and accused James of being a follower of “Simon, a magician”, a false charge which the apostle Paul would never have made, and no such thing is ever recorded in Scripture. Douglas is grasping at straws. Now back to William Finck.]

The record in Acts chapter 21 is clear, that from the time of Paul’s meeting with James where Paul deferred to the wishes of the elder, he was arrested by the Romans after being attacked by the jews, and spending the rest of his time in Roman custody until being sent to Rome, Paul could hardly have seen the temple again during this subsequent period which he spent in custody in Caesarea (Acts 23:23 ff.). Paul remained in custody of the Roman governor for some time into the term of Festus, who sent Paul in bonds to Rome (Acts 27:1). According to Josephus, the historian who was a witness to the events in Judaea at this very time, in 62 A.D., Festus died in office and was succeeded by Albinus (Antiquities 20.9.1). Paul would already have departed for Rome when this happened. It was during the tenure of Albinus that a young and ill-tempered man, the younger Ananus, obtained the office of high priest. Ananus was a Sadducee, and while Albinus was traveling abroad Ananus had the elder James and some of his companions slain, stoned after an assembly of the jews’ council (Antiq. 20.9.1). Josephus also tells us about another Saul, or Saulus, an Edomite related to the family of Herod, who led a band of robbers and caused much mischief a few years later when Florus was governor, and although Josephus does not record the breaking of James’ legs or any other such attack on the apostle before his death, this other Saulus is a much more likely candidate to have perpetrated such a deed than Paul of Tarsus (v. Antiq. 20.9.4; Wars 2.17.4)!

<Reference #79B> Clayton Douglas states: “And we all know what happened to both James Greater and ‘The Less’ (Jesus’ Brother), don’t we? Who condemned both of them? Why those pesky deceiving Pharisees (Sanhedrin) of course!”

William Finck answers <#79B>: We have just seen from the words of Josephus that it was a Sadducee who had the elder James stoned, and not a Pharisee. From Acts chapter 12 we see that it was the Edomite king, Herod Agrippa I, who was responsible for the death of James the lesser, and neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees are blamed for this. That makes Clayton Douglas a liar on two counts, which are easily verified! Is there any lie too great for Clayton Douglas, the Spouter of Lies? Does he not reveal what sort of man he truly is, through all of his lies (John 8:44)? Remember Rom. 2:16: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel.”

 

Arial style=

This is my one hundred and sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my ninth year of publication. Starting with WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul from the horrendously false charges that are being hurled at his epistles, and these accusations have their origins among the lowest moral sources one can imagine. I had wanted to do an antithesis to the Paul-bashers for a long time, and had no idea before starting this series that we (William Finck and myself) would uncover so much festering evil at the core of this wicked and unjust doctrine. I want to thank all those who have helped gather all the information and background data to help put this rebuttal material together, exposing the anti-Paulists for what they really are.

I knew that William Finck was more familiar with Paul’s epistles than I, and enlisted him to put this series together, since he has translated all of Paul’s letters directly from the Greek and knows firsthand what the Greek truly says, which is in many cases entirely different than what most people think. After I had read the first few manuscripts Finck put together, I was not disappointed. We will now pick up his last presentation of this series on the subject:

Once more we shall continue to address the second of Clayton Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles, SAUL OF TARSUS AND HIS DOCTRINE OF LAWLESSNESS, which he published in the January, 2004 edition of his Free American Newsmagazine. Here we shall finish with this series of Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles, and our response to it.

<Reference #80> Clayton Douglas states: “Speaking of pesky and deceiving, let us return once more to Paul’s statement which opens up this investigative article:

“‘But granting that myself did not burden you I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit.’ (Saul of Tarsus 2 Corinthians 12:16 )

“Does Christianity accept ‘taking in by deceit’ as a means of ‘ministering,’ and propagandizing? Does Genesis 3:1 not refer to the Serpent as ‘more crafty more subtle than any beast of the field?’ Paul himself boasts proudly about sharing this trait with the Serpent. Like the Serpent, Paul - too - is ‘subtle’ and ‘crafty’ - not trying to deceive you with something appearing as a lie. To convince you he mixes a small portion of truth with a predominance of pagan lies. The Torah, the ‘Law,’ which Paul mocked and considered a ‘yoke’ and ‘bondage,’ says: ‘Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.’ Leviticus 19:11”

William Finck answers <#80>: We have seen in section <#54> of this response, in WTL #102, that 2 Cor. 12:16 was not only poorly translated, but that Douglas takes it out-of-context, and Douglas also is aware that the translation has been challenged and refused to address that in his article. Here Douglas repackages the same argument he used there, which was proven to be false. Paul certainly was not “subtle” and “crafty”, and just the opposite has been proven. Clayton Douglas alone is “subtle” and “crafty” here! And all of his accusations are unfounded! Notice also, that like a ‘good’ jew, he continually insists on referring to the Pentateuch as the “Torah”. In the next section of his article he refers to the “Tanakh”, the jewish name for the writings of the prophets, Psalms, and other books of the Old Testament. Christian writers scarcely use the word “Tanakh”, and many Christians probably don’t even know what it means. Such evidence of jewish influence is found throughout all of Douglas’ articles.

<Reference #81A> Clayton Douglas states: “But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said one to another, ‘No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Justice has not allowed to live.’ However Paul shook off the creature into the fire, and wasn’t harmed. But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly, but when they watched for a long time and saw nothing bad happen to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.’ Acts 28:3-6

“Here we are told that the natives, though receiving Paul well at first realize that it was an aberration of nature for a snake to attack someone who is in fact laying sticks on a fire. Snakes themselves are repelled by fire and it would be quite abnormal for a viper to attack a man without any provocation who is so near to the fire that he is in fact laying sticks in it. When the natives saw this they realized that Paul’s ship wreck was not merely coincidence, he had in fact been subject to the wrath of God, the same as Prophet Jonah was said to have been in the Tanakh for his reluctance. Just the same as in that case the stormy sea was a sign of God’s anger.

“Here Paul’s Antichrist cult does not allow us any such interpretation. Nonetheless this was the first and natural understanding of the natives of Malta. Paul’s devotee Luke tells us in the book of Acts that when Paul did not die from the bite of this abnormal viper, they said - that is, they uttered, not merely thought to themselves - that he was ‘a god.’ Nowhere in this passage does the devotee Luke tell us that the apostate Paul said one word to the contrary. Doesn’t that seem a little strange for an allegedly ‘god-fearing’ man to not deny a claim that he is a god?

“Moreover, in the city of Lystra, Paul causes a riot by supposedly healing a man. During the riot the people shout in their native dialect that Paul and Barnabas are gods come to earth. Again, there is no denial of these claims recorded in Acts.

“The fact that Paul did not dispute their claims that he was a ‘god’ is not at all an insignificant matter. When Apollonius of Tyana was supposedly tried before the Emperor Domitian at the end of the first century, one of the charges against him was that he had supposedly allowed himself to be worshipped as a god - more or less the same charges falsely applied to Jesus Christ - despite the fact that he never claimed godhood, nor did anyone else attribute it to him.”

William Finck answers <#81A>: Firstly, just because Luke didn’t record any denial of Paul’s in Acts 28, when the people of Malta had imagined him to be a god, doesn’t mean that such a denial wasn’t made, or that Paul accepted their supposition. Yet Douglas is plainly lying about the incident at Lystra, where the people imagined Paul and Barnabas to be gods (Acts 14:11-12). That upset Paul and Barnabas so that they tore their own clothing (14:14), the ancient way of exhibiting one’s humility, and ran among the people denying it, admitting to be mere men (14:15). Clayton Douglas shows himself to be the Spouter of Lies.

We needn’t go to Apollonius of Tyana and his trial to see the gravity of the accusations here, where one should fail to deny his elevation by the people to status as a god. There is a clear example right in the Bible, recorded by Luke at Acts chapter 12, where it is said that Herod Agrippa I was struck dead for not denying the claims of the people that he was a god. The historian Josephus, at Antiq. 19.8.2 (19.343), attributes this Herod’s death to that very same cause. So both Luke and Paul were surely aware of the punishments for such impiety, lack of humility, and acceptance of the foolishness of the common people.

The people of Malta, called Melita in ancient times, were no uncivilized savages. The Greeks considered them barbarians only because they spoke a different language. Diodorus Siculus, in his Library of History at 5.12.2-3, says of Malta that it “... lies about eight hundred stades from Syracuse, and it possesses many harbors which offer exceptional advantages, and its inhabitants are blest in their possessions; for it has artisans skilled in every manner of craft ... and the dwellings on the island are worthy of note, being ambitiously constructed and finished in stucco with unusual workmanship. This island is a colony planted by the Phoenicians, who, as they extended their trade to the western ocean, found in it a place of safe retreat, since it was well supplied with harbors and lay out in the open sea; and this is the reason why the inhabitants of this island, since they received assistance in many respects through the sea-merchants, shot up quickly in their manner of living and increased in renown” (Loeb Library edition). It may be conjectured that the Maltese, being Phoenicians, and Paul being a Hebrew speaker, could surely speak to each other in a tongue which the Greek Luke could not understand, and so Paul’s denial was not recorded. But surely just because it wasn’t recorded doesn’t mean it wasn’t made. Yet that is not all, for Douglas continues:

<Reference #81B> Clayton Douglas states: “Even when any type of special status was alluded to regarding him, Jesus abrogated it by saying ‘Why do you call me god, one alone is god,’ (Mark 10:18) and humbly proclaiming that even ‘Greater works than these shall you do’ (John 14:12)”

William Finck answers <#81B>: And here Douglas attempts one of the sleight-of-hand magic tricks he picked up in all of the jewish magic books he’s read! For in Mark 10:18 Yahshua Christ is recorded as saying: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Douglas, believing that the word processor is quicker than the eye, removed an ‘o’ from good in an attempt to magnify his false accusation against Paul. Surely Douglas is The Comedian! The two words are much harder to confuse in their original Greek, “god” being 2,`l and “good” being •("2`l. Elsewhere Yahshua Christ stated “Is it not written in your law, I SAID, YE ARE GODS?”, a reference to the 82nd Psalm at John 10:34. The jews thought that by calling oneself a son of God, one considered oneself as equal to God, and they considered that blasphemy in spite of the scripture at Deut. 14:1 and Psa. 82. Surely Clayton Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, shows an ignorance of this (taking the same position as the jews did to Christ’s Words). Yet Paul, a man of humility, never claimed to be a god of any sort!

Finally, we have already seen Douglas himself acknowledge that Paul was nearly blind (section <#19> of this response in WTL #96). Paul, wanting to lend a hand in the situation on Malta following the shipwreck, lifted a bundle of sticks and placed them onto the fire. A viper, surely from that same bundle of sticks and which Paul did not see, then sprung out from that bundle and attached itself to Paul, thereby avoiding the fire. There is nothing “abnormal” about this, except that Douglas would prefer his own twisted version of the story, as we have seen Clayton twist nearly everything he discusses.

<Reference #82> Clayton Douglas states: “So who is right? Is Jesus correct when he says ‘I have not come to abolish the Law’ or is Paul right when he says that Jesus ‘destroyed the barrier ... by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations?’ (Hebrews 10:19-20) Was Jesus Christ right when he said that Heaven and Earth would sooner pass away than ‘one letter of the Law,’ or should we instead follow Paul who said the anti-thesis of Christ’s words: ‘But now the Law has come to an end with Christ and everyone who has faith may be justified.’ Romans 10:14”

William Finck answers <#82>: The first part of Douglas’ statement here comes not from Hebrews 10, but from Ephesians 2:14. In Ephesians 2, Paul is discussing the reconciliation of the “lost” Israelites (which the Ephesians surely were a part of) to Yahweh by His sacrifice on the cross. Because Israel, the nation, was “married” to Yahweh, and Israel played the harlot, the nation was put off, divorced, by Yahweh. The Levitical law governing marital relations prevented the reconciliation of the husband, Yahweh, to Israel. This law was the “barrier”, or “middle wall” in the A.V., which Paul mentioned. Thus, Yahweh died on the cross for Israel, fulfilling the law and freeing Israel from the Old Covenant. All of this was a clear matter of prophecy discussed at length in this response in section <#50> of WTL #102, and what Paul explains to the Ephesians is in perfect keeping with this prophecy, which Christ came to fulfill.

Douglas continues by misquoting Romans 10:4, and mislabeling it 10:14. Romans 10:4 says in the A.V.: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” This word “end” is the Greek word τέλος (5056), where I have “fulfillment” here in my own translation. Liddell & Scott in their Greek-English lexicon define the word “the fulfillment or completion of anything ... i.e. its consummation, issue, result, end ...”. Yahshua Christ tells us that He came to fulfill the law, and Paul correctly tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the law. Clayton Douglas, the Man of Scoffing, sees problems and conflicts where there certainly aren’t any!

<Reference #83> Clayton Douglas states: “Again, I ask you, did Jesus Christ not say himself that a slave cannot serve two masters?

“‘You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than the other. You cannot serve both God and money.’ Matthew 6:24

“So which ‘master’ do Christians now serve? Which ‘master’ do you serve?”

William Finck answers <#83>: And for this very reason Paul of Tarsus told the Romans: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? ... I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness” (Romans 6:16, 19). The word “iniquity”, twice in this passage, is the Greek word ἀνομία, Strong’s #458, literally “lawlessness”. It is apparent from this passage, contrary to Douglas, that Paul of Tarsus was certainly not promoting lawlessness! Clayton Douglas, The Comedian, has judged Paul on the basis of but a few verses taken out-of-context and mixed with the lies of a long list of jews, sexual deviants, and other assorted miscreants, whom he follows straight to perdition!

<Reference #84> Clayton Douglas states: “‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven: Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).’ Matthew 7:21-23”

William Finck answers <#84>: We have seen over and over again in this response that Paul certainly did not promote lawlessness. Neither did Paul promote universalism. Neither did Paul support the high priests of his time, who he knew to be the enemy posing as servants of Yahweh, just as the jews do today. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul talks about the jews at Jerusalem in this manner: “You should not be deceived by anyone, in any way, because if apostasy had not come first, and the man of lawlessness been revealed: the son of destruction, he who is opposing and exalting himself above everything said to be a god or an object of worship, and so he is seated in the temple of Yahweh, representing himself that he is a god.” (2 Thes. 2:3-4, my own translation). Thereby Paul tells us that the actual man of lawlessness, the Edomite Canaanite jew, was revealed by Christ, evident throughout the gospels, and especially in John chapter 8. Later on, in chapter 3 verse 2, Paul prays that he and his companions are spared from these jews: “and that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men, since the faith is not for all.” (2 Thes. 3:2, my own translation), since those jews had attempted time and again to kill him. Clayton Douglas, attacking Paul, has followed the jews in so many ways, as we have seen over and over relentlessly throughout this response, and so also makes himself an aid and an abettor in all of the crimes of the jews by obscuring the true history of early Christianity and giving the jews a smokescreen of lies to hide behind! We saw in section <#13> of this response, at the end of Douglas’ remarks there, that he even attempts to absolve Judas Iscariot, the real traitor and betrayer of Yahshua Christ! Could this be, that Douglas is a follower of ‘bishop’ John Spong, and Spong once wrote an article entitled “Judas Iscariot - A Creation of Prejudice?” for The Human Quest May-June, 1994? Is Douglas merely following Spong, the lover of jews, in this? Is Douglas, following the Humanist of the Year for 1999 – John Spong, purposely attempting to undermine Israel Identity Christianity – the only true Christianity – by leading it off into Paul-bashing?

Notice here that Douglas quotes Matthew 7:21-23 as the words of Yahshua Christ, which they indeed are. But earlier Douglas quoted and criticized parts of that same chapter, Matthew 7:1-6, and claimed that those words of Yahshua were a “Paulinism”! (See section <#77> of this response in WTL #105.) Douglas’ hypocrisy is quite incredible, and glaringly evident!

<Reference #85> Clayton Douglas states: “A road that requires nothing of you but to ‘have faith’ is the broadest road imaginable. But, isn’t that the broad road that today’s Judeo-Christians feel they deserve?”

William Finck answers <#85>: In sections <#37> and <#44> of this response, in WTL #s 100 and 101, we have seen that Paul’s idea of faith encompassed both good works and obedience to Yahweh. Paul certainly cannot be blamed for the state of “Judeo-Christians” today, as Paul well knew that there should be nothing “Judeo-” in Christianity! And why does Douglas use a term which he considers “almost an oxymoron” (see WTL #93, page 1 column 1)? In the title to his first article, Douglas offered “Judeo-Christianity” as the alternative for “Pauline Christianity.” For my part, I’d take Paul over the jews any day! All these little quirks and more, while they are relatively minor, do manifest the inconsistencies in Douglas’ thinking. And there are others which I’ve let pass by here. For instance, above in section <#81> Douglas calls Luke “Paul’s devotee”, an apparent criticism considering what Douglas thinks of Paul. Yet early in his articles Douglas quotes from Luke’s gospel (section <#8>, WTL #94, for example), and has often referred to or cited events recorded by Luke in Acts, without any prior criticism of Luke. Clayton Douglas truly is The Comedian, and surely no scholar.

<Reference #86> Clayton Douglas states: “In conclusion, Saul/ Paul of Tarsus taught deviation. Today, he’d be called an ‘Agent Provocateur’. Paul may have even been the individual that the Damascus Document identifies as ‘the Liar’ and ‘the Apostate.’ And as to why he went to the effort to found a new religion, many suggest that it was a brilliantly conceived means to defuse the political significance of Jesus and his Davidic bloodline. As an agent of the pro-Roman Sadducee establishment, Paul the Pharisee found a perfect way to deflect anti-Roman agitation into yet another Roman mystery cult. He apparently succeeded very well. The Romans may have had more reasons to throw ‘Christians’ to the lions than merely worrying that the moralistic folk might cancel their orgies and parties, especially if early Christianity were a successful anti-Roman political movement.

“If early Christianity was really a revolutionary political movement fully within the sphere of Jesus’ teachings at the time ... whence the Christianity of today? END”

William Finck answers <#86>: Here, finally, we reach the conclusion of Douglas’ two Paul-bashing articles, and most of the lies and misconceptions here have been addressed throughout this lengthy response, so I will not repeat them again. I must state briefly though, that I do not find any references to “the Liar” or “the Apostate” in the edition of the Damascus Document which I have, although appellations similar to “the Liar” appear in other Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically some of the Peshers to the prophets discussed at length in section <#43> in WTL #101. Yet we have seen throughout his articles that Douglas gets very few of his facts straight. He has instead produced little but a heap of deceptive, ignorant, confused trash.

Yet I must wonder, if Douglas is so concerned about Christianity, true, intolerant, non-politically correct Christianity, as he puts it (see section <#77> in WTL #105), why does he attack Paul of Tarsus based on the remarks and opinions of jews such as Sol Stein and Sigmund Freud, atheists such as Friedriche Nietzsche, and liberal theologians such as John Spong, himself an overt embracer of homosexuals, jews, and negroes as we have seen from Spong’s own websites? How is this collection of miscreants and sexual deviants any alternative to Paul of Tarsus, and how could they possibly deal with the just and moral Paul in an objective manner? And we’ve already seen the Paul-bashing H. Graber was also a follower of jews and socialists, just like John Spong shows himself to be. How do such perverts and miscreants become valid discerners of Paul, of Yahshua Christ, or of anything Christian or Biblical or just or good? All Paul-bashers everywhere must take note: by unjustly attacking Paul of Tarsus, you are all mere followers and flunkies of the jews and miscreants. And all attacks on Paul shall be manifested to be unjust when measured against the gospels and the prophets! In your ignorance, you are only scattering rather than gathering the people of Yahweh. All Paul-bashers everywhere had better repent, and reconsider their anti-Christ positions! W.R.F.

At this point, it becomes the reader’s responsibility to check out everything presented in this series taking the Paul-bashers to task! Either the facts, which have been presented in this series, are true or they are not true! This series may not bring a cessation of Paul-bashing, but it may make it much more difficult for those promoting Paul’s demise than they ever deemed it might be, as now their audience may demand documented proof of their allegations.

And not only that, but we have presented the truth to the matters which Clayton Dstrong(2 Thes. 2:3-4, my own translation). Thereby Paul tells us that the actual man of lawlessness, the Edomite Canaanite jew, was revealed by Christ, evident throughout the gospels, and especially in John chapter 8. Later on, in chapter 3 verse 2, Paul prays that he and his companions are spared from these jews: lt;#44 class=ouglas has raised to the best of our ability, and now the consequences rest squarely upon the reader’s shoulders to check out. The Paul-bashers needn’t ever say at the White Throne Judgment that no one ever warned them that they were in error, and that their reward might fall into the “hay, wood and stubble” category only to be destroyed by fire. Though they themselves, while they will suffer great loss, will nevertheless be saved if they are genetically Adamites.

Hopefully, now that this series of defending the apostle Paul has been completed, a discussion of some of the more difficult-to-understand teachings of Paul will be undertaken. Just where this new direction will lead has not yet been fully determined. Like this series defending the apostle Paul, this next sequence of study may take some time to cover. I don’t plan a verse-by-verse commentary, but rather shall concentrate on addressing the more difficult passages. Maybe if the harder-to-understand passages are developed, the rest will fall into their proper place. I warn you in advance, we’ll definitely get on some thought-provoking subjects.

One thing that must be kept in mind is the fact that during the life of Yahshua Christ, it would have been premature for Him to reveal the mysteries which Paul was shown by the Spirit. The reason for this is because certain things couldn’t be unveiled until after Christ’s death. That is why Paul’s ministry is so important! What Paul did was simply build on top of the ministry of Yahshua. In other words, Christ could not present the gospel of Redemption until He sacrificed Himself on the cross. Once that was in place, the Gospel was ready to be taken to the nations which were the twelve lost tribes of Israel. And James was correct when he spoke of “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”. What is important to notice is that James was martyred before the bad-fig “Jews” were dispersed from Jerusalem in 70 A.D., thus James in his epistle was not including them among the twelve tribes as judeo-churchianity tries to falsely declare today.

Judeo-churchianity has not yet learned that the house of Israel is not the house of Judah, and that the house of Judah is not the house of Israel. Neither have they learned that the good-figs of Judah are not the bad-figs of Judah nor are the bad-figs of Judah the good-figs of Judah. Neither have they learned that the house of David is only one family line within the house of Judah. Neither have they learned that there were two kingly lines descended from within the house of Judah: one from the house of Pharez-Judah and one from the house of Zerah-Judah.

If one listens to so-called “Christian television” long enough, one will be left with the impression that there are only two tribes of people: “Jews” and “Gentiles”. Almost every wannabee television preacher will use the words “Jews” and “Israelites” synonymously, as if they were the same group of people, surely making the identification of the various Israelite tribes more confusing. On the other hand, the apostle Paul never used the term “Gentile” in any of his writings, ever! Latin may have been one of the languages Paul was fluent in, but he never used the Latin word gentilis in his Greek writings, ever! It implores us, then, to understand the proper Greek word which Paul did use where the translators substituted the Latin word gentilis. The fact that Paul was fluent in many languages highly qualified him to take the Gospel to the lost nations of Israel. We read nowhere that Paul needed an interpreter to converse with people where he traveled. In fact at 1 Corinthians 14:18, Paul indicates he spoke in many languages “more than ye all”. If so, Paul would have understood Latin and would have understood the Latin term gentilis, but never chose to use it in place of the Greek term ethnos, meaning nation. Hopefully, these are examples of subjects we can address in our studies of Paul’s letters.

Paul quoted many times from the Old Testament. We need to determine in what context Paul was doing so. Unless we can ascertain the Greek words which Paul used, and their meanings, much of his message will be lost or poorly grasped. We want to comprehend thoroughly everything Paul did say, while not reading anything into it which he didn’t say or mean.

There are two general ways in which the reader can interpret their Bibles, (1) with a closed mind interpreting what they read determined by some of their preconceived ideas, and (2) with an open mind attempting to determine exactly what is being said related to the context in which it is written and taking into account the idioms of the language at the time it was written. It is simply amazing the various fanciful concepts some well-meaning people have developed from reading into various Scriptures ideas which are really not expressed. As we get into Paul’s epistles, we will undertake to explore various difficult passages that have, in the past, been so misconstrued and twisted entirely out-of-shape that today they are but an enigma to many.

We must remember that Paul of Tarsus was of the tribe of Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin was appointed to be a light-bearing tribe to the tribe of Judah, especially to David. This seems to be an important fact overlooked by most commentaries. We must understand that Yahshua Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and his disciples were His light-bearers to the ethnê (plural of ethnos), or the lost sheep of the house of Israel! Witness to this fact can be found at 1 Kings 11:36: “And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light always before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.”

Surely the fact that Paul was a Benjamite should be a signal to everyone that he was a man chosen to bear the light of Yahshua Christ to the ethnê (nations). What other tribe would we expect Yahshua to pick a man from to do such a job? We should be suspicious had Christ chosen a man of any other tribe! Thus, Christ’s choice of Paul is in context with the Old Testament! You can see from this that once we get all the pieces of the puzzle in their proper places, it proves the veracity of the Bible! When are we ever going to start studying the Bible rather than just skimming over the surface?

In addition to this, we must remember that there was to be a “fishing” period and a “hunting” period (Jer. 16:16), thus Christ called his disciples “fishers of men”. For anyone who wants to examine this situation, Paul was the greatest “fisherman” of all the apostles, yet the humble Paul said (1 Cor. 15:9) “For I am the least of the apostles ...” Yahshua Christ only picked twelve disciples, and one was a genetic devil. After Judas killed himself, the eleven took it upon themselves to appoint a replacement, and there is no record he ever fulfilled such an office. But Yahshua Himself chose Paul, and we have much recorded of his ministry. Inasmuch as Paul said “For I am the least of the apostles ...”, shows beyond all doubt that he was counted among the twelve, and we have no record where any of the other eleven disputed Paul’s claim, but much to support it.

We will now start a new series on Paul’s teachings. How long it will take or just where it will lead is not yet determined. It will be a large undertaking, and must be done correctly. 

Paul quoted many times from the Old Testament. We need to determine in what context Paul was doing so. Unless we can ascertain the Greek words which Paul used, and their meanings, much of his message will be lost or poorly grasped. We want to comprehend thoroughly everything Paul did say, while not reading anything into it which he didn’t say or mean.

This is my one hundred and seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my ninth year of publication. Since WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul. This is a subject for our own time for Peter said at 3:3-4: “³ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, ⁴ And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” One of the “scoffings” that is going on today is that of ridiculing the apostle Paul. Surely Peter, in his second epistle, prophesied of what we are witnessing in our present day. Peter went on in verses 5 through 7 to remind his readers that the “last days” would be similar to the days just before Noah’s flood, and speaks of them as being “willingly ignorant”. In verses 9 through 12, Peter warns his readers that they shouldn’t become overconfident in their own estimation, as Yahweh is not “slack concerning His promise”, and that Yahshua’s second advent would come upon them as a “thief in the night”.

After Peter warns his readers of these things which were to happen in the latter days, he paints a very descriptive picture of the upheavals of those events (i.e. “great noise”, “elements shall melt”, “fervent heat”, “shall be burned up”, “be dissolved”). After presenting all this, Peter admonishes us not to discredit Paul (and the message is for our present day in which we live), verses 14-16: “¹⁴ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. ¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” I would highly recommend that all Paul-bashers reconsider their position and repent while there is still time to do so, for it’s your “destruction” of which Peter speaks! With this lesson we are going to address another topic related to Paul and the ekklesia, and it will be presented by William Finck as follows:

 

MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING PAUL AND THE ‘CHURCH’

 

So many men look at the oppressive behemoth which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, and then foolishly place the blame for the creation of this monster and its offspring upon Paul of Tarsus, as if he ever developed such a thing. In doing so, these men are only repeating the romish church’s lies by which it claims an apostolic founding, and giving them credence as if they were true, which they certainly are not!

It should be evident to nearly anybody that the apostles probably wrote many more epistles than those which we have in our Bibles, that if we possessed them, we may possibly have a more complete picture of their ideal model for the function and structure of the truly Christian community. However, not out of line with that spirit of simplicity of life which is an object of Christian teaching, it may very well be that we need none other than the scant instruction which we do have. Here we shall examine precisely what the New Testament books, and especially the letters of Paul, really do say concerning the organization and management of a Christian community.

In the apocryphal books are found some writings, in the so-called epistles of Ignatius for instance, which do attempt to clarify or enhance the instructions in our Bibles (i.e., those of 1 Timothy). These writings must be rejected, viewed with suspicion not only because they often conflict with Paul’s writing, but also because they bear full support for the organized romish church structure as we know it. They are most certainly mere forgeries, and many commentaries have professed as much. All such post-apostolic writing shall be ignored here.

Both the prophet Daniel (7:8, 20-26) and Yahshua Christ Himself (Rev. 13:11-18) recorded beforehand the troubles that the romish church leadership would cause for us. Once one obtains a sound knowledge of history, the meanings of these prophecies and many others become astonishingly clear. Yet this foreknowledge by Yahweh of the romish church surely is not a divine blessing of such an organization, that it may somehow be considered righteous and legitimate (note Luke 4:5-7), for the prophecies themselves put forth a declaration quite to the contrary. Rather, it must be understood that the children of Israel were to be punished for seven times for their disobedience (Lev. 26). A “time” in prophecy being 360 years, seven times is 2520 years. This period began with the Assyrian invasions and deportations of Israel, which occurred from 741 to 676 B.C. (the 65 years of Isa. 7:8). The two beasts of Rev. 13, entities which are also outlined in Daniel chapter 7, are the succession of ancient world empires (also discussed in a different way in Daniel chapter 2) ending with the Roman, followed by the popery of the romish church. Each of these beasts was to last for about 1260 years (Revelation 13:5 dates the first, Daniel 7:25 the second) which is 3-and-a-half “times” (3.5 x 360 = 1260), or 42 “months” of years (42 x 30 = 1260), a day being a year in prophecy (i.e. Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6). A study of history surely does reveal that each of these beasts did indeed endure for about 1260 years. It is certainly evident that both the succession of ancient empires and the romish church were a part of Yahweh’s means of punishing the children of Israel for their disobedience. There is much more that could be said here, however it suits not the purpose of this discussion.

It is evident that the organization of the romish church was very closely patterned after the imperial Roman government, and also incorporated the major elements of pagan Roman religion. The popes were very much like the Roman emperors in many respects, and exercised authority over the kings of Europe for many centuries. The title “pontiff”, from the Latin pontifex, is derived from the Latin pontis or “bridge”. The title was used of pagan Roman priests and implies that the holder of the title was the bridge to their god. The title “Pontifex Maximus”, which belonged to the pagan Roman religious figurehead from early times, was taken by the emperors for themselves. “Priests” and “church” edifices (temples), “nuns” (vestral virgins), and many of their ceremonies and rituals, along with the colorful costumes and other symbols, are all derived directly from the pagan religions of old Rome. The “canonized” so-called “saints” replaced the pagan Roman pantheon, which included a collection of idols taken out of the nations conquered by Rome. The idea of a “patron saint” of anything, such as a place or an occupation, comes directly from Greco-Roman paganism, where gods or demons were given those same roles throughout pagan poetry. The “college of cardinals” is a shadow of the Roman senate. The diocesan system is quite like a system of provincial government, each bishop a proconsul or procurator. The title “cleric” signifies an “allotment holder”, the word being derived from the Greek κληροῦχος meaning “one who held an allotment of land, especially to citizens in a foreign country” (Liddell & Scott, hereinafter L&S). By the very language used, the romish church lays claim to the entire world! Of course, none of this has any support in the New Testament, neither in the Gospels, nor in the letters of Paul, nor anywhere else. Studying the epistles of the apostles, a very different picture of the intended “church” life emerges.

Wherever the word “church” appears in the standard translations of the New Testament, the Greek word is ἐκκλησία (1577, ekklesia). Difficult to discern from those translations, and poisoned by false concepts of the word “church”, the ἐκκλησία is “an assembly of the citizens regularly summoned” (L&S), which does not in any way denote an edifice or any systemized organization with a professional hierarchy, but is rather simply the assembly, those of the children of Israel summoned by Yahweh (i.e. Isa. 42:16; 43:1-7; 44:6-7, 21-23; 48:12-14; 49:1-7; Joel 2:32; Matt. 15:24; John 10:3), that body of true Israelite Christians either in the world or in any particular community, depending on the scope of the context. They are called the ἐκκλησία whether or not they happen to be currently assembled together (i.e. Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 14:23). Many in Israel Identity would prefer to translate ἐκκλησία from its components, “the out-called” or “the called-out ones”, which should not be deemed incorrect.

Early Christians gathered not to participate in any rigid program of rituals, scripted and repetitious from week to week. Nor did they gather merely to participate in the “Lord’s supper” (i.e. 1 Cor. 11:22), which the romish church has also made into a vain ritual (see 1 Cor. 11:17-26). Yahshua set the example of communion for us – in a private home at dinner with His loved ones. We should follow His example. Paul’s one recorded example of communion is at Acts 27:33-36 (compare Luke 24:30), where praising and offering thanks to Yahweh he broke bread and shared it with his fellows, without pomp or ritual. Rather, early Christians gathered to learn. The primary teaching instrument was the Word. Since books were scarce, being very costly to produce, they had to gather in order to receive the Word (Acts 17:2, 11; Rom. 15:4; 16:26). Paul mentions the scriptures often in his letters, and the record shows that he fully expected every Christian to be able to access them. By contrast, the romish church purposely withheld the scriptures from the common people for nearly a thousand years, even putting to death those who dared to translate them from Greek or Latin so that the common people may understand them. Paul would certainly not have approved of such behavior! Until the 1960’s the romish church ceremony and ritual was always conducted entirely in ‘church’ Latin, which the great majority of its attendants never understood, a practice which is absolutely contrary to Paul’s very own words at 1 Cor. 14:9, 19.

Matthew 16:18 not withstanding, nowhere in the New Testament is it mentioned that there is any one head over the assembly (any particular body of Israelite Christians), except Yahshua Christ Himself, and nowhere in scripture is it mentioned that any local assembly of Christians would be subject to any other authority (i.e. Eph. 5:21 ff.). Paul himself disowned lordship over anyone’s faith (2 Cor. 1:24). The popes have always claimed the title Vicarius Filii Dei (which sums to 666, counting the value of its letters in the Latin system), which means Substitute for the Son of God. In contrast, Paul wrote at Gal. 3:28 “... all you are one in Christ Yahshua”, and at Eph. 5:23 “Christ is Head of the assembly ...”, where the verb is in the Present tense, and not past or future. Where Paul said at Col. 1:24 “Now, I rejoice in these sufferings on your behalf, and I substitute for those deficiencies of the afflictions of the Anointed with my flesh on behalf of the body itself, which is the assembly”, the term “Anointed” is simply another term for the children of Israel, as demonstrated in my recent pamphlet Yahweh’s Anointed: The Children of Israel. Paul never wrote anything about Yahshua Christ needing any substitute! It should be apparent that dead men need successors as substitutes! Yahshua Christ, who lives, certainly needs no such thing! There is no support for popery anywhere in the New Testament – and especially in the letters of Paul – unless one wants to consider a small number of statements which are disjointed, misinterpreted, and taken out-of-context to be such support!

Concerning Matthew 16:18 and the changing of Simon’s name to “Peter”, this is mentioned in Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14 and John 1:42, however only Matthew’s gospel has the statements attributed to Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Even so, there is no indication that these statements could be an interpolation and they should not be considered as such. They must, however, be examined more closely. The A.V. translates Matt. 16:18 in part: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (πέτρος), and upon this rock (πέτρα) I will build My church ...”, and there is a distinction between πέτρος and πέτρα (petros and petra) which is lost in translation. Liddell & Scott define πέτρος “a stone, distinguished from πέτρα”, and πέτρα “a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock ... Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone”. Consequently, I would render this part of Matt. 16:18: “... you are a stone, yet upon this bedrock I will build My assembly ...”, in order to maintain the distinction, while at the same time demonstrating the false claims of the romish church to be but vanity. Even the A.V. rendering of πέτρος at John 1:42 indicates the correct meaning of the word, “stone”, where John gives the Hebrew equivalent, spelled “kephas” in English, and its Greek meaning. Certainly Peter, as he subsequently became known, is but a stone, and is not the rock upon which Yahshua Christ builds His ἐκκλησία (assembly). Even Peter saw this distinction, where in his own epistle he in turn calls his readers “living stones” and refers to Yahshua Christ as the “chief cornerstone” (1 Pet. 2:5-6). Paul describes Yahshua Christ as the foundation of His own building (1 Cor. 3:9-11). The authority given to Peter by Yahshua (Matt. 16:19) was also given to the other disciples (Matt. 18:18).

The romish pope-cult claims an unbroken chain of succession from Peter and Paul through a line of bishops of Rome down to today, and claims his authority from Peter, being the “rock” upon which the romish catholic church is built. An examination of history would reveal that the first claim is a lie: the early bishops of Rome were martyred in the persecutions, and most later bishops were mere political opportunists. An examination of scripture, including Paul’s epistles, reveals that the second claim is also a lie. In reality, the romish church is built upon the bones of the saints, both figuratively (i.e. Dan 7:25; Rev. 6:9; 12:17) and literally: for the cult’s foremost temple, called “Saint Peter’s Basilica”, is built upon a large necropolis (see Archaeology Odyssey, March - April 2001, p. 60, “City of the Dead”)! From the edicts of Justinian, and armed with the forged so-called “Donation of Constantine”, the romish church gained dominion over all of the Christian assemblies of the οἰκουμένη (the Adamic world), and persecuted all those who refused to prostrate themselves before it, such as the Waldenses (Vaudois) and the Celtic church of the British Isles. The romish church has been but a tool for the dragon in his war against the woman, true Israel.

Paul wrote not to the popish “one true church” at Rome, but to “all those in Rome who are beloved of Yahweh, called saints” (Rom. 1:7), who were actually distributed among several different assemblies, or “churches” (i.e. Rom. 16:5), as they were in other places also (i.e. 2 Cor. 8:1; Gal. 1:2). Nowhere did Paul recognize any single leader of the Roman Christians. In the Revelation, Yahshua Christ sent messages to seven different assemblies, all independent, and not to “one true church” (Rev. 1:11), and Rome was not even considered among these seven! How could even the enemies of popery or “churchianity” possibly blame the romish catholic beast on Paul? Here it shall be endeavored to examine precisely what Paul did say regarding the organization of the assemblies to which he wrote. Hopefully then it may be realized that Paul cannot in honesty be blamed for the romish catholic church behemoth.

Paul was reckoned as an ἀπόστολος (652, apostolos), which is “a messenger, ambassador, envoy” (L&S). In spite of his modern critics, there is no indication that the original eleven apostles ever denied Paul this title, but rather they respected him as such (i.e. Acts 15, 2 Pet. 3:14-16). Once the “lost” nations of Israel received the gospel, there was no longer a need for such an office, and no successor “apostles” were ever appointed. Yet Paul also counted himself as a mere “servant” or “minister”, i.e. 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 6:4; Eph. 3:7; 1 Tim. 1:12, even though his unique concern as an apostle was for all of the assemblies (2 Cor. 11:28), many of which the record shows that he himself founded. Paul had no subordinates, only colleagues: Rom. 16:3, 7, 21; 1 Cor. 3:5, 21-23; 4:1; 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:19, 24; 6:1-4; Phil. 4:3; Col. 1:7; 4:7 ff.; 1 Thess. 3:2; Ph’m. 1, 2, 24; and partners: 2 Cor. 8:23; Ph’m. 17. The Greek word συνεργός (4904, sunergos) is “working together, joining or helping in work, and as Substantive a fellow-workman, help-mate ...” (L&S). The A.V. rendered it “helper” at Rom. 16:3 and 2 Cor. 1:24, but more correctly “fellow laborer” at Phil. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:2 and Ph’m. 1 and 24, since “helper” may imply subordination to some, which the Greek συνεργός does not imply. Certainly Paul did not think well of self-promotion (i.e. Phil. 2:3, 7-8), and always wrote in the spirit of the words of Yahshua Christ such as are found at Luke 13:30 and 22:26-27. Evidently, individual members of an assembly communicated with Paul directly (i.e. 1 Cor. 1:11), and his letters were written to be read to the entire assembly, not being merely summarized or interpreted by some “priest”, but read in full (1 Thess 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:15), and even read to other assemblies besides those who were initially addressed (i.e. Col. 4:16), which surely also encouraged the copying and distribution of those letters. Paul probably wrote many more epistles than those which we now possess, and the ones which we have themselves indicate that others are missing, i.e. 1 Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16.

While Paul in his ministry had allocated resources both human (i.e. 1 Cor. 4:17) and monetary (Rom. 15:31; 2 Cor. 8 and 9), he coerced no one (i.e. 1 Cor. 16:12). His “service to the saints” at Jerusalem must be understood in the context of the social climate there at the time, and it does not provide a reason or excuse to beg support for “missionary” work in foreign lands to alien peoples as so often witnessed in this age. The example Paul set for himself was to work for his wages in order to support himself (i.e. Acts 18:3; 1 Cor. 4:12), which he also recommended others to do (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:9-12; 1 Tim. 5:8). Paul left no model for a professional priesthood which lived off the fat of the community like parasites (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47), which we see in the romish church and all of its offspring. There is not even a mention of any word meaning “priest” in connection with a New Covenant assembly in any of Paul’s writings! Only the most ignorant and unjust men could blame Paul for that monster which the romish church became, or for modern judeo-churchianity, things certainly not found in any of Paul’s instructions.

Here we have mentioned some of the various assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) which Paul wrote to. Paul founded Christian assemblies throughout the cities of the Greco-Roman world, as the records in Acts and his epistles attest. Note that Paul did not found the assemblies at Rome, which he wrote to before ever visiting. That the assemblies which Paul founded in Anatolia were valid Christian assemblies is verified both by Peter who wrote to them (1 Pet. 1:1), and also by Yahshua Christ Himself (Rev. 1:11; 2:1 - 3:22) who addressed and even commended some of them. So anyone who questions the validity of Paul’s work also questions the validity of 1 Peter, of 2 Peter (3:14-16) and of the Revelation. Only a fool could do such a thing. Hence, all Paul-bashers, of their own volition, make themselves fools!

Paul left no successors [unlike romish pope succession], and warned the assemblies that they were on their own after his final departure, clearly illustrated at Acts 20:17-38. Here Paul tells the leaders of the assemblies gathered to him that they themselves are overseers (ἐπίσκοπος, 1985, episkopos, the word from which “bishop” comes) of the “church of God” (the assembly of Yahweh), and no one else! Anyone who reads this account in Acts and then blames Paul for popery and the romish church beast is terribly foolish! Since Paul himself would not rule over the assemblies of Christ (2 Cor. 1:24), surely neither would he recommend that anyone else do so, except Yahshua Christ Himself, for whom there is no substitute (i.e. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18)! So it is evident that Paul left behind him a collection of independent, autonomous Christian assemblies, which both Peter and Yahshua Christ also recognized and acknowledged. Now the internal structure of the local assembly, from the epistles of Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament, shall be examined, beginning with a compilation of the terms used to describe governance within the assembly, or Christian community. The usage of these terms outlined here may be verified with a Strong’s Concordance.

ἐπίσκοπος (1985, episkopos) is a noun, and the very word from which the English word bishop is derived, by way of the Vulgar Latin ebiscopus and Medieval English bisceope. ἐπίσκοπος appears five times in the N.T. and in the A.V. it was translated only once, at Acts 20:28, as “overseers” in the plural. Otherwise it appears as the borrowed “church” word bishop at Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7 and 1 Pet. 2:25. An ἐπίσκοπος is properly “one who watches over, an overseer, guardian ... a public officer, intendant ...” (L&S). The related noun ἐπισκοπή (1984, episkopê) is “a watching over, visitation ... the office of ἐπίσκοπος ... generally, an office ...” (L&S). In the A.V. ἐπισκοπή is “the office of a bishop” at 1 Tim. 3:1, “bishoprick” at Acts 1:20 (compare Psa. 109:8), and “visitation” at Luke 19:44 and 1 Pet. 2:12.

Verbs related to ἐπίσκοπος are ἐπισκοπέω (1983, episkopeÇ), and ἐπισκέπτομαι (1980, episkeptomai). The verb ἐπισκοπέω is in the A.V. the “looking diligently” of Heb. 12:15 and “taking the oversight” of 1 Pet. 5:2. ἐπισκέπτομαι is in the A.V. to “look out” at Acts 6:3, and to “visit” on ten other occasions.

My own translations have rendered the word ἐπίσκοπος either overseer or supervisor. The word ἐπισκοπή is either office or more fully office of supervisor. The transliteration “bishop”, which is not a translation but is instead a borrowed word interjected into the language for devious “church” purposes, I have cautiously avoided.

πρεσβύτερος (4245, presbuteros) is the comparative form of πρεσβύς which is “an old man ... Comparative πρεσβύτερος ... elder ...” (L&S), and appears over 60 times in the N.T. as a noun, an elder(s), as it usually is in the A.V. The related noun πρεσβυτέριον (4244, presbuterion) is “a council of elders” (L&S). The A.V. renders πρεσβυτέριον as “elders” at Luke 22:66, and “estate of the elders” at Acts 22:5. However at 1 Tim. 4:14 the A.V. merely transliterates the word, using another “church” word merely borrowed from Greek: “presbytery”.

διάκονος (1249, diakonos), a noun, is “a servant, waiting-man, Latin minister ...” (L&S) and appears 30 times in the N.T. In transliteration, it is the source of the borrowed “church” word deacon, Old English diacon and Late Latin diaconus. διάκονος  is in the A.V. “minister(s)” 20 times, and “servant(s)” 7 times, and either of these translations are acceptable, so long as the term minister is understood to mean servant and not taken as some position of authority, which the Greek meaning of the word surely does not bear. On 3 occasions the A.V. renders this word as “deacon(s)”, at Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8 and 12, which is not acceptable since those renderings manipulate the word so as to somehow support the artificial structure of the organized “church”. διάκονος in those passages should not be distinguished from the other 27 passages in which the word appears.

The related noun διάκονία (1248, diakonia) is “the office of a διάκονος, service ... 2. attendance on a duty, ministration ...” (L&S) and appears 34 times in the N.T. The A.V. has rendered the word “administration(s)” twice, “to minister” once, “ministering” three times, “ministry” or “ministration” 22 times, “relief” once, “service” three times, “serving” once and “office” once.

The verb διακονέω (1247, diakoneÇ), is “to minister, serve, do service ... II. to furnish, supply ...” (L&S) and appears in the A.V. 37 times. The A.V. has rendered the word twice to administer, ten times to serve and 23 times to minister, and all of these are acceptable, as long as one understands the word minister as a verb in the sense of performing a service to the assembly, or for the assembly, and not ruling over it, a perception which the Greek meaning of διακονέω does not support nor convey. Yet like διάκονος, the A.V. rendered διακονέω as “to be a deacon” twice, at 1 Tim. 3:10 and 13, which following the “church” Liddell & Scott also mentions, but which is omitted from the definition given above. Of course, διακονέω may mean to be a διάκονος, but “deacon” is a “church” word borrowed from Greek for artificial “church” purposes, and not an English word.

In my own translations, διάκονος is usually servant, but nearly as often minister. διακονέω is usually to serve, but nearly as often to minister. διάκονία is most often a service, but also in various contexts an administration, attendance, ministering, ministry, office, or supply.

It must be mentioned, that in the A.V. a diverse group of 12 other Greek words have on a total of 28 occasions been rendered “(to) minister (-eth, -ing, -s, -try)”, none of which should be taken to imply the holding of any office or position within the assembly, and so they shall not be discussed here.

Now that the basic terms describing offices within an organized Christian assembly have been defined, and the manner in which the A.V. has treated those words has been observed, their application in the New Testament may be discussed, once the meaning of one more Greek word has been examined.

χειροτονέω (5500, cheirotoneō) only appears twice in the N.T., however it is a very important word. Its interpretation determines whether a Christian assembly should select its own leaders, and thereby remain autonomous, or whether some outside, supposed authority selects those leaders, where the assembly then becomes subject to that supposed authority.

Liddell & Scott define χειροτονέω “to stretch out the hand, for the purpose of voting ... II ... to vote for, elect, properly by show of hands ... Passive to be elected ... χειροτονηθῆναι, election, was opposed to λαχεῖν, appointment by lot ...” and this is the natural meaning of the word, since its components, χείρ and τόνος, are a hand and a stretching respectively. This definition was derived from the 7th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon. The 9th edition of Liddell & Scott does add “appoint” to the word’s definition, yet it is obviously following the “church” since it cites both N.T. passages where the word appears, but no secular authority in order to show that the word was ever actually used in such a manner.

The A.V. rendering of Acts 14:23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed”, contains several errors which shall not be reviewed at length here, but which are discussed in the notes for this passage in my own translation of Acts, part of my forthcoming edition of The Records of Luke. My own translation of Acts 14:23 reads thusly: “And elders being elected by them in each assembly, praying with fasting they presented them in whom they had confidence with the authority.” The important issue to note here is that χειροτονέω is rendered “elected” (appearing here in the past tense), and not “ordained”.

The second occurrence of χειροτονέω in the N.T. is at 2 Cor. 8:19, a verse rendered in part by the A.V.: “And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us in this grace ...”, language which is quite ambiguous. From my own edition of Paul’s epistles, this same pericope reads: “and not only, but our fellow traveler has also been hand picked by the assemblies to be endued with this favor...”, and “hand picked” may just have well been “elected”. The assemblies chose who was going to represent them by traveling to Jerusalem with Paul to present their gift to the needy there; Paul himself did not make the choice. This is even more evident reading the previous verse, 8:18, which I have read: “And we have sent along with him that brother of whom there is approval in the good message throughout all of the assemblies”.

There are many Greek words which may be rendered appointed, chosen, or ordained in English. The use of χειροτονέω by Luke and Paul in these two passages very clearly shows in both context and definition that the leaders and servants of a Christian assembly should be elected by that assembly. The assembly chooses its own leaders. No one sets leaders over them, as so-called “churches” do today, and there is no other passage in the New Testament which gives credence to such an idea. The romish church built its authority upon the decrees of Justinian and its own false claims, and the ignorant masses were led to believe them, just as so many still do today. Only the most foolish of men could blame this on Paul of Tarsus. W.R.F. [End of the first installment of two by William Finck on this subject. The second installment will be continued in WTL #108.]

It should be becoming obvious here that, even in Identity circles, there are false concepts of just what an “assembly” should be.

 

This is my one hundred and eighth monthly teaching letter and completes my ninth year of publication. Since WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul. With this lesson we will continue with part two of an essay by William Finck entitled:

 

MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING PAUL AND THE ‘CHURCH’

 

In the definitions of the words used in the N.T. given previously, we have seen what appears to be two positions of authority within the Christian assembly. These are ἐπίσκοπος (overseer or supervisor) and πρεσβύτερος (elder). That these are legitimate positions within the assembly is found not only because Paul uses the terms in such a context, but Peter, James and John do likewise, and their so doing verifies many of Paul’s statements for us (i.e. 1 Peter 5:1, 2; James 5:14; Rev. 4:4, 10 et al.). That these two offices are actually one and the same is fully evident from the discourse in Acts chapter 20, at vv. 17 and 28, and at Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Pet. 5:1-2. Where the A.V. has “ordain” at Titus 1:5, the Greek word is καθίστημι (2525, kathistâmî) which may mean “to ordain, appoint” but also “to establish” (L&S). While the meaning of this one word here may be argued, we have already seen the manner by which elders were to be selected, by election of the assembly at Acts 14:23 and 2 Cor. 8:19 (though the election there was for a different purpose), so here I must read καθίστημι as establish.

Peter discusses the role of an elder at 1 Pet. 5:1 ff., where he states that they should lead by example, and not lord (become a dictator) over the assembly. Likewise, Paul discusses the role of supervisor (“bishop” in the A.V.) at 1 Tim 3:1-7. That “elder” and “supervisor” are one and the same role, Joseph Thayer discusses at length in his Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament under πρεσβύτερος (4245): “That they [οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, elders] did not differ at all from the (ἐπίσκοποι) bishops or overseers (as is acknowledged also by Jerome on Tit. i. 5 ...) is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately, Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit. i. 5, 7, and that the duty of presbyters is described by the terms ἐπισκοπεῖν, 1 Pet. v. 1. sq., and ἐπισκοπή,, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 44, 1; accordingly only two ecclesiastical officers, οἱ ἐπίσκοποι and οἱ διάκονοι [overseers or supervisors and ministers or servants] and are distinguished in Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 1, 8. The title ἐπίσκοπος denotes the function, πρεσβύτερος the dignity; the former was borrowed from Greek institutions, the latter from the [Judaean]” [brackets mine, but not parentheses]. James also mentioned elders in his epistle (5:4), and they are discussed again by Paul at 1 Tim. 5:17 ff.

So we see that overseer or supervisor (A.V. “bishop”) and elder are one and the same office, and we have seen that the men of the assembly are elected to this office by the assembly, as previously discussed referring to Acts 14:23 and the verb χειροτονέω. From the instructions given by Paul at 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and 5:17-24 and elsewhere, it is also evident that an assembly may have more than one elder at any given time. It is also evident that the assembly should consider men who have at one time or another served in the capacity of a teacher of scripture (a function performed by a minister) when filling a position of elder, as Paul instructs at 1 Tim. 3:2. The elder is a leader of and an example to the assembly, but not its lord or ruler (1 Pet. 5:3). Yahshua Christ is the one and only Head over one and all in every Christian assembly: 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18 et al. There is no prescription for popery in the New Testament, and especially in the letters of Paul. In the temporary absence of Yahshua Christ, scripture is the only valid authority: Acts 17:2, 11; 18:24, 28; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 11:2; 14:37 (v. 2 Pet. 3:15-16); Gal. 2:5; 6:6; Col. 3:16; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:15-17; 4:2 et al.

As we have also seen Thayer agree, the only other office in the Christian assembly is διάκονος, minister or servant (sometimes “deacon” in the A.V.). From the definition of διάκονος discussed previously, we have seen that minister, servant and deacon are all one and the same. Paul discusses the qualifications of ministers at 1 Tim. 3:8-13. Note that in 1 Tim. 3, Paul’s instructions disqualify every single romish catholic cardinal, bishop and priest, along with many of the ministers of other denominations, from being legitimate servants of the assembly of Yahweh.

Any person at any time may serve as a minister to an assembly, and even voluntarily (1 Cor. 16:15), although it is clear from 1 Tim. 3:8-13, in conjunction with other statements of Paul, that minister may also be an office in the assembly to which one or more persons may be elected, each performing some specified function for an extended period of time. These may be teachers, or messengers, or caretakers of the elderly, or any other capacity which the community of Christians may require or even desire. Eph. 4:11-12 lists some of the functions which a minister may be chosen to perform, and other functions are evident elsewhere, such as at Acts 6:1-7; Rom. 16:1; 2 Tim. 2:2 and 1 Pet. 4:10-11. So a minister is one who serves the assembly in a certain task, or even multiple tasks, depending upon his or her abilities. A minister is a servant, not an authority figure, and surely his work must be monitored by the overseers. Various gifts beneficial to the assembly are discussed in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. At Rom. 12:7 διακονία, ministering or administration is listed as one of these gifts, for which note also 1 Cor. 12:5. Yet 1 Cor. 14:26 ff. reinforces the notion that any member of the assembly, and not just a selected minister, may share his gifts, insights or abilities with the assembly.

While women may serve the assembly in certain capacities, and were even counted by Paul as colleagues (Rom. 16:1, 3; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phil. 4:3), they are forbidden to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34), and forbidden from teaching or being chosen as elders or having any position of authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). So while women may hold positions as ministers, there are certain limitations which by necessity must be imposed.

All men of age (20 years: Num. 1:3 et al.) in a Christian community are equals (i.e. 1 Cor. 12:12-26; James 2:1 ff.), with a certain amount of deference given to those who are older than us who are upright members of the community (1 Pet. 5:5). As we have seen, an elder or overseer is not a lord or boss, but a leader who teaches by example. The verb rendered to rule in the A.V. at Rom. 12:8 and 1 Tim 3:4, 5 and 5:17 is προΐστημι (4291, proïstâmi) and means merely to lead, govern, preside, direct, manage, etc. It is most literally to stand before and not “rule” (for which there are many other Greek terms) as the organized ‘church’ would have it of their appointed “bishops”, something Paul would certainly not recommend. We have also seen that a minister is not an authority figure, but is a servant. A minister is not a “preacher” but may be a teacher, or a proclaimer of the Word, or an administrator of some other task. Yahshua Christ, and by extension His Word in scripture (New Testament and Old), is the only authority. All matters should be brought before the assembly and judged by the Word, which shall be discussed at greater length below. One important difference from the Old Testament judges-era model is explained in 1 Cor. 5: those who have erred terribly should at the most be excluded from the community, rather than condemned (stoned), and Yahweh will see that they are judged.

Surely the above advice given by Paul at 2 Thess. 3:14, 1 Tim 6:3 and Tit. 3:10 must be applied to every and any member of the assembly, including ministers and elders, and therefore 1 Tim. 5:19 allows for an impeachment process of those officers who go astray. This must necessarily be conducted before the assembly, which would decide the issue. Officers elected by the assembly must therefore be answerable only to the assembly. My own translation of 1 Tim. 5:19 reads thusly: “An accusation against an elder you must not receive publicly, except ‘by two or three witnesses’,” and the main difference with the A.V. is in reading the Greek word ẻκτός (1622, ektos), which is discussed at length in the notes to my edition of Paul’s letters. Of course Paul’s admonishment here, where he cites Deut. 19:15, should stand for both elders and any other member of the assembly.

The Christian assembly, being autonomous and answering to no other authority except the Word, must therefore assume responsibility for itself and not turn to secular authorities to fulfill its needs. Those who look to the governments of man to solve their problems invite the government to become involved in every facet of their lives. The government becomes their god. One may deny the veracity of such a broad statement, yet this is the very dilemma which we in America suffer today. The Christian assembly provides for its own members and resolves its own social problems. Such is clear in the examples given at Acts 2:44-46; 4:32-37 and 6:1-7. Note also in chapter 6 of Acts, when the apostles recommended that men be selected to serve the assembly by managing a particular necessity, that the people chose the men, and not the apostles. This example, and those given here previously, show again that the people of the assembly choose their own leaders and ministers. Not even Peter, James or John would dictate by appointing these men over the assembly. Why should any organized ‘church’ (at the time of the apostles or since, or even in the Identity assemblies of today) assume that they have a right to do otherwise? Certainly Paul wouldn’t have, as we have already observed here. These examples of Christian social life set forth in Acts are also evident in Paul’s epistles, for example at 1 Tim. 5:1-16.

The Christian assembly providing duties of community to its own members, the members must look only to the assembly for those services. This is explained by Paul concerning matters of justice at 1 Cor. 5 and 6, (chapters poorly translated in the A.V.). Since the secular authorities disdain the laws of Yahweh, they cannot judge righteously, nor provide for a community righteously, and should therefore be avoided by Christians. My own translation of 1 Cor. 5:12-13 reads thusly: “¹² What is it to me to judge those outside? Not at all should you judge those within you. ¹³ But those outside Yahweh judges; ‘you will expel the wicked from amongst yourselves’.” The Christian assembly must expel wrongdoers, and not “judge” (i.e. condemn) them, trusting that Yahweh Himself will see to it that they are treated in accordance with their deeds. Again, my own translation of 1 Cor. 6:1-11 reads thusly: “¹ Dare any of you, having a matter against another, have it decided before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ² Do you not know that the saints will judge the cosmos? And if by you the cosmos is judged, are you unworthy of the smallest trials? ³ Do you not know that we will judge Messengers, let alone the things of this life? ⁴ So then if you should have trial of things pertaining to this life, those who esteem themselves least in the assembly, those will be set to judge. ⁵ I speak from respect to you. So is there among you not even one wise, who would be able to decide among his brethren? ⁶ But brother is brought to trial by brother, and this before those not believing! ⁷ So then already there is altogether discomfiture among you, seeing that you have matters for judgment among yourselves. Why would you not still more be wronged? Why would you not still more be defrauded? ⁸ You would rather do wrong and defraud, and this of a brother? ⁹ Or do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of Yahweh? Do not be led astray: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor rapacious shall inherit the kingdom of Yahweh. ¹¹ And these things some of you may have been, but you have cleansed yourselves; moreover you have been sanctified, moreover you have been deemed fit, in the name of Prince Yahshua Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”

In 1 Cor. 6:1 Paul tells the assembly not to sue for justice before “the unrighteous”, or non-Christian, secular authorities. In 6:2-3 Paul tells the assembly that “the saints”, Israelites who have accepted the gospel and have returned to Yahweh, separating themselves from the evils of the “world” and from the unrighteous, shall judge the “cosmos” or “world” (Adamic society), and so they certainly should be able to settle their own matters among themselves. In 6:4 Paul advises that they select “those who esteem themselves least”, i.e. men who are of a humble disposition, in order to judge such matters. In 6:5-6 Paul expresses his own shock and disbelief that no one among the assembly would be able to judge such matters, and that one Christian would venture to sue another before a non-believer. In 6:7-8 he continues to admonish them for having such problems among themselves at all, and also warns them that they would probably only be wronged even further by the secular authorities. Just think of all the jews, mamzers, and other assorted heathens who sit as judges in America today! And not one of them could ever be righteous before Yahweh!

The local ἐκκλησία, assembly or Christian community, answers to no authority except the Word. There is no basis for a single, one-world command structure such as the romish catholic “church” is organized. Paul certainly never recommended such a thing! For this reason, and much of what follows is of my own opinion, I believe that much latitude is given to the local assembly, to organize and regulate itself based upon its own custom and economic status. I would think that the number of elders (supervisors) elected, the number of ministers (servants), whether or not compensation is granted for time spent in service, or if any of these positions are “full-time” or “part-time”, are all dependent upon the size, economic status, and desire of each particular assembly. The assembly itself should decide the authority of its elders, powers delegated to them, functions of ministers, and any other manner of government. Because the children of Israel have not yet been fully restored from their state of punishment, secular authorities should be obeyed (Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2:11-17; Matt. 22:21 [Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25]; John 19:11), but not placed before Yahweh (Acts 5:29). Surely it may sound as if the function of the Christian assembly is “democratic”, but this is certainly not the case since the governing authority (or constitution) is the Word, and therefore the will of the masses is restricted. The assembly has no authority to disobey or circumvent the Word for any reason!

Are elder, or overseer, and minister, or servant, full-time positions? Should these officers receive compensation from the assembly, living off the good will of the assembly? Although such need not be encouraged, it is not unlawful, i.e. Rom. 15:27 and 1 Cor. 9:1-18 (where Paul also explains why he did not marry, and that he need not have lived in poverty – both contrary to romish church dogma). The example which Paul made was to preach the gospel without burdening the assembly, without cost to the hearers, i.e. 1 Cor. 9:18; 10:33; 2 Cor. 11:7; 12:13; 2 Thess. 3:8; and also to work at labor in order to support himself: Acts 18:3; 1 Cor. 4:12. He recommended to his followers that they follow his example: 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:9-12; 1 Tim 5:8.

While Paul explains in 1 Cor. 9:1-18 why he and Barnabas chose not to marry, he instructs that elders and ministers of the Christian assembly not only should be married, but they must be married. This is not hypocritical on Paul’s part. It has been previously explained here that the office of apostle was quite unique, and required much travel from those who held it, who also endured much hardship. All of the apostles were very young when they were selected, including Paul (Acts 7:58), and evidently at least several of them put their mission ahead of the prospects of marriage. Traveling with a family would impose a great burden and expense on a man. Paul traveled for nearly 30 years! Neither could a mere laborer afford both to travel and support a family with a home. To properly conduct the office of apostle in a simple Christian lifestyle, having a family along would be greatly inhibitive.

The A.V. usually translated the imperative form of Greek verbs as “let...”, rather than “must...”. My own translation of 1 Tim. 3:1-13 reads as follows: “¹ Trustworthy is this saying. If anyone strives for an office of supervisor, he is desirous of good work. ² Therefore it is necessary for that supervisor to be irreproachable, a husband of one wife, sober, discreet, orderly, hospitable, inclined to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not a brawler but reasonable, not contentious, not loving money, ⁴ governing his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence, ⁵ (now if one does not know to govern his own house, how would he care for an assembly of Yahweh?) ⁶ Not a neophyte, lest blinded with pride he would fall into condemnation of the False Accuser. ⁷ Now it is necessary also to have a good accreditation from those outside, lest he fall into a reproach and a trap of the False Accuser. ⁸ In like manner reverent ministers, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not shamefully desirous of gain, ⁹ holding the mystery of the faith with a clean conscience. ¹⁰ But even they must be scrutinized first, then being void of offense they must minister. ¹¹ Likewise reverent wives, not slanderous, sober, trustworthy in all. ¹² Ministers must be husbands of one wife, governing their children and their own houses well. ¹³ For they that are ministering well obtain for themselves a good degree and much liberty in faith which is in Christ Yahshua.” Again it must be mentioned, these remarks by Paul alone disqualify nearly, if not every, romish catholic pope, cardinal, bishop or priest from service to the true assemblies of Yahweh, and disqualify many of those belonging to the protestant sects as well. Only an ignorant, blasphemous, self-serving man could possibly blame Paul for these organized religious sects, since Paul himself refutes them at every turn!

There is no prescription in Paul’s letters for popes, cardinals, or priests. All references to priests in Paul’s letters are in the context of the Old Covenant, where the performance of prescribed rituals at precise times, along with other duties necessitated a professional priesthood. Romish sacramentalism and their priesthood are vestiges of Babylonian paganism readily adopted by the later romish “church” and adapted to their perverted interpretations of the New Testament in order to satisfy their desire for control over the people. None of this can be blamed on Paul, who consistently states in his epistles that the rituals, “works of the law” in the A.V., have been done away with in the New Covenant (i.e. Rom. 3:20, 27, 28; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Heb. 6:1; 9:14). Even the Melchizedek priesthood mentioned by Paul at Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20 and 7:1-21, after Psalm 110:4, is said to belong to none other than Yahshua Christ. Again, any man who blames Paul for romish churchianity and its offspring is profusely ignorant.

I must also add, that not only many of the early so-called “church fathers”, but many commentators unto this very day have looked to earthly models, drawn from our own historical experience, as the basis for “church” structure. They have not realized that there is no proper model in our recorded experience which demonstrates how an assembly of the children of Yahweh should operate, except in His only guidance: the scant instructions which we have in the epistles of the New Testament, and what we see in the gospels and Acts. This model offered by the apostles remains outside of our experience, since it has never been tried to any significant extent, and since those who have tried it have been persecuted, suppressed, or even destroyed by the romish church or various governments, much of what we do know of those groups which have tried to live a true Christian life is mere propaganda! Today there are a few groups in America which have come close to a true Christian model of community living, such as the Amish or the Mennonites, yet even they rely upon the larger outside community (i.e. tourist dollars) for a good part of their sustenance. So many commentators have accepted the structure adopted by the romish church, a blending of old Rome’s paganism and its model of imperial government, as if such a model were based on scripture, which it certainly is not! Yet others look to the Judaean “sanhedrin” as a proper model, which it is not since it was sectarian and oligarchical. Many other alternative models are based on greed and a desire to concentrate power, while appearing on the surface to be righteous. Mormonism is one example of these. We have seen here that the authority of assembly elders should not transcend the immediate community, each which should elect its own elders. Any more than that is not Scriptural.

There is not one legitimate religious authority with U.S. Government tax-exempt status (IRS 501c3). Such status is a reward by the government granted only if the organization holding it agrees to follow certain guidelines. True Christianity, an exclusive, racist, discriminating doctrine, cannot possibly be found operating within those guidelines! That true Christianity is racist can be found as quickly as one can examine the language of Matt. 13:47-48 or 25:31-46, which by themselves should be enough to support the statements offered here, although many more scriptures follow suit. Yet this is only one issue – albeit a major one – where tax-exempt “churches” capitulate to government guidelines. Bob Jones’ University in South Carolina did this very thing in recent years, being one prominent and public example. Yet as Yahweh raised judges and leaders for the children of Israel as He deemed it necessary, so even now will He raise true ministers and elders for His people. As the children of Israel awaken, and get out of Babylon (which includes all of those tax-exempt phony “churches”), even though we must continue to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, then as we render to Yahweh what is His, Babylon will crumble under its own weight: for not enough of the people of Yahweh shall be left to support it any longer. [End of essay by William Finck.]

I am sure that if you have followed carefully this essay in WTL #’s 107 & 108, you may be astonished at how far we have drifted from adhering to what Scripture instructs us to be doing. Rather than having Christian assemblies, we have one-man self-appointed dictators hand-picking their subordinate, supposTahomaTahoma class= (4291, /span/sup edly “anointed” officers under them. So much for all those oil-rubbing, water-plunging clowns who want to lord it over the laity, rather than become a servant. Those rituals had their rightful place in the Old Testament. I’ve heard of some people going around these days rubbing or spraying oil on the outside walls of banks. I ask you, when do we start “anointing” the devil? Please name me book, chapter and verse!

 

THE MISUSE OF THE TERM “CHURCH”

 

I received a sarcastic letter from a professing Identity minister, with a scathing question written at the end: “Do you belong to a local church?” To make a long story short, I will reproduce here the answer I gave this man as a reply to this portion of his letter to me: “... Your last question was ‘Do you belong to a local church?’ My understanding of the word ‘church’, is that it means ‘the called out ones.’ Are you trying to tell me that I am not a ‘called out one’? If not, why did you ask the question? Every time that I’m out driving around town, and see a White Israelite, I see a ‘called out one’, and thus the ‘church’ though they may not be aware of it. Please explain to me how a building built out of concrete and wood represents ‘a called out one’ which appears to be your position ...” In a brochure I wrote recently entitled Founder Of Waldenses Was Not Peter Waldo, I addressed this subject thusly:

Some people in Israel Identity today will put emphasis on being a member of a local church as if somehow that was a prerequisite for being a Christian. The term “church” in Greek (#1577) is ekklesia and means “a calling out” or “called out ones”, and the only people who are “called out” are true Israelites. Whenever one notices a White Israelite walking down the sidewalk one is observing “a called out one” or a member of Yahweh’s assembly. Had some of these people today who put their emphasis on a so-called “local church” lived back in the time of the Waldenses, they would have asked, “Are you a member of a local romish church?”; how absurd! That single White Israelite seen walking down the sidewalk is a “called out one” whether he is alone or in a building with 10,000 other Israelites. In the Waldenses, we have an example of the true ekklesia of Yahweh, and nobody cares to mention them or reflect on the persecution they endured. And that persecution was executed by the hand of the “man of sin”, or the office of the pope of the romish catholic church, and that title doesn’t deserve to be written in capital letters! The next time anyone asks you if you are a member of a local church, let them know real quickly that you are “a called out one” whether alone or with 10,000 in a sizable edifice. [Note Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 14:23]. The truth is, when you are alone in the privacy of your own immediate family, you constitute, if racially pure, a Holy ekklesia! A multiracial group never establishes an ekklesia, whether among one’s own immediate racially-mixed family or in a large building with diverse races represented [that is, in attendance]!

In order to establish just what is meant by the term “church”, I will glean from several Bible Dictionaries and put it in my own words. The English word “church” with its cognate “kirk” is derived from the word kyriakón signifying “Yahshua’s” or “belonging to Yahweh”. Simply put, the New Testament equivalent is ekklesia as originally employed by the Greeks to denote an assembly or congregation of free citizens summoned or “called out” and such an assembly could be called for various reasons. At Acts 19:39, we find instruction for calling an assembly to resolve various legal matters. So if anyone is under the delusion that the heralding is for worship services only, he is sadly mistaken. An ekklesia can be called for many reasons!

Paul at Romans 9:4; 16:4; Heb. 9:1-11, reminds, and he was addressing Romans who were part of the lost tribes, that their ancestors had been “called out as a special people.” In its simplest meaning, the word may be taken to denote the “assembly” or “congregation” of those who are recipients of his heavenly favor and have been “called out” to be witnesses of His Redemption. Romans 9:4; 16:4; Heb. 9:1-11 is not referring to a religious service in a building somewhere, but the calling out of all the members of the twelve tribes, and there’s not a building in the entire world that could hold that many people. Yet they represent an assembly. The problem is, we have too many people with tiny 2x4 brains who can’t comprehend something other than a building on the corner of an intersection with a steeple and a bell, with a small group of people thinking they’re the only people on the entire planet.

Some have the erroneous idea that an ekklesia is a gathering together in a solitary building. Rather, sometimes it is used to denote scattered groups of Christians over a wide area as the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2). On other occasions it is used with reference to a body of Christians dwelling in the same immediate locality such as the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1). Some narrow-minded people today only accept the “local” hypothesis as being the correct one. And if its the church on the other side of the street, it can’t be the right one, for only our church on our side of the street has the truth. Yet others, even in Israel Identity, such as Everett (Sileven) Ramsey, claim we must put ourselves under someone in authority regardless of doctrine.

Many are not aware that whenever Yahshua met with his disciples they were an ekklesia, and most of the time they had no building. Not only that, but after Yahshua’s Ascension, when the apostles met in small groups they constituted an ekklesia. But if one were to ask a thousand church-goers today what constituted a church, one would get a thousand different answers, and to most of them it would simply be a building in one way or another.

While we haven’t even scratched the surface on this subject, we need to mention one more, that being the ekklesia without “spot or wrinkle” found at Ephesians 5:27: “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” In other words, an ekklesia “without blemish”. At Deut. 32:5 it speaks of these blemished people thusly: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.” This same thought is alluded to at Jer. 2:21: “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” In the very next verse, Jeremiah explains what he was talking about in verse 21. Verse 22 reads: “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh singular-Elohim.” Who then, are these people who could purchase forty gallons of very strong lye soap and shower for forty days and forty nights finding it impossible to wash away the various shades of their mud-colored skin? Jude 12 describes them thusly: “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” To be “twice dead” is to be born without the spirit breathed into Adam. All non-Adamites are born spiritually dead only to physically die again. And upon their physical death there is no resurrection for them!

This is my one hundred and ninth monthly teaching letter and starts my tenth year of composing these publications. Since WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul. In the upcoming lessons I will continue commenting on Paul’s writings directly or indirectly. At this time I will bring your attention to some interesting information which may give you a new perspective on some little known evidence that the present-day roman catholic church was not the original church established by Paul at Rome. To do this, it will be necessary to critique several sources to come up with a logical assessment of what the truth might be. I must also state that I do not entirely agree with every minute detail from the sources which I am about to use.

From The Ensign Message, Ap-Jn, 2004, I gleaned some extraordinary evidence under the title “Where Did the Twelve Apostles Go?”, and subtitle “Where Are Peter And Paul Buried?” Paraphrasing it: it explains how in the year 656 A.D., Pope Vitalian sent the remains of Peter and Paul to Britain as gifts to king Oswy to be buried there. Cited for this is Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. The imperative question that demands to be asked is: to which church at Rome do we trace our theology? St. Peter’s Church is a replacement for the church built by Constantine between the years 326-361, supposedly over Peter’s tomb. The latter is modeled after the Roman Pantheon (temple of pagan gods), and hardly Christ-honoring! This article reads:

 

“Where Are Peter and Paul Buried?

 

“For centuries the Christian world has taken for granted that Peter and Paul are buried in Rome. No one, it seems, has thought to question the tradition. Granted, Paul was brought to Rome about A.D. 67. He was beheaded, then buried on the Ostian Way. But are his remains still there? Granted, too, that universal tradition declared the apostle Peter was also brought to Rome in Nero’s reign and martyred about the same time. Many pieces of ancient literature - some spurious, some factual - confirm that both Simon Magus, the false apostle, who masqueraded as Peter, and Simon Peter himself died at Rome. The question is - which Simon is buried today under the Vatican? Is there proof that the bones of the apostles Peter and Paul were moved from Rome, and are not there now? YES!

“There is a reason the Vatican has been hesitant to claim the apostle Peter’s tomb has been found! They know that it is Simon Magus, the false Peter, who is buried there, not Simon Peter the apostle. Here is what happened. In the year 656 [A.D.] Pope Vitalian decided the Catholic Church was not interested in the remains of the apostles Peter and Paul. THE POPE THEREFORE ORDERED THEM SENT TO OSWY, KING OF BRITAIN! Here is part of his letter to the British king: ‘HOWEVER, WE HAVE ORDERED THE BLESSED GIFTS OF THE HOLY MARTYRS, THAT IS, THE RELICS OF THE BLESSED APOSTLES, PETER AND PAUL, AND OF THE HOLY MARTYRS LAURENTIUS, JOHN, AND PAUL, AND GREGORY, AND PANCRATIUS, TO BE DELIVERED TO THE BEARERS OF THESE OUR LETTERS, TO BE BY THEM DELIVERED TO YOU’ (Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, bk. III, ch. 29). Could anything be more astounding? The bones of Peter and Paul (termed ‘relics’ in the Pope’s letter) sent by the Pope from Rome to Britain - to the land of Israel! About a century and a half earlier Constantius of Lyons took the relics of all the apostles and martyrs from Gaul and buried them in a special tomb at ST. ALBANS IN BRITAIN. (Life of St Germanus.) Is it significant that the work of God and God’s College in Britain are in St. Albans? Think that over!”

Because this is a critical review on the subject, I will quote from an article from the Mar-Apr, 2007, edition of Archaeology, published by the American Institute of Archaeology (AIA):

 

“WHO’S BURIED IN ST. PAUL’S TOMB?

 

“The Vatican recently announced the discovery of what may be the tomb of St. Paul in Rome’s second-largest basilica. The first century Christian martyr was long suspected to be buried beneath the main altar of the basilica, St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls, originally built in the late fourth century A.D. Now Vatican Museum archaeologist Giorgio Filippi’s excavation through the wall of the altar has revealed a stone sarcophagus, more than six feet long and three feet tall, near three marble plaques including one bearing the inscription, in Latin, ‘Saint Paul the Martyr.’

“According to the New Testament, Paul joined the early Christian church after his famous conversion on the road to Damascus, when he is said to have heard the voice of Jesus. After spending much of his life proselytizing, he was sent to Rome to stand trial and was executed around A.D. 64. St. Paul was buried at the present-day site of the basilica, where a small church was erected to commemorate him.

“‘Absolute proof that it holds St. Paul’s bones is impossible,’ says Leonard Rutgers, an archaeologist at the University of Utrecht who visited the excavation. According to textual evidence, St. Paul’s remains were removed from the original site in A.D. 258, reburied in another part of Rome, and then finally moved back to the site of the basilica when it was built in the late fourth century. ‘So they were schlepping these bones around a lot,’ says Rutgers. ‘It’s hard to say if the remains in the sarcophagus itself belong to the saint. But it is still a significant late-fourth-century burial.’

“According to Filippi, historians had assumed that St. Paul was buried in a columbarium, or wall niche, which was typical of the period. ‘Instead,’ says Filippi, ‘we are now certain that sarcophagi existed in Rome by the fourth century, when Christianity was just beginning to assert itself.’

“The sarcophagus will remain beneath the altar, as Church law forbids the movement of sacred relics. But further study is still a possibility.

“‘There is a small hole in the upper part of the sarcophagus sealed with mortar,’ says Filippi. ‘Perhaps if the Pope authorized us, we could use an optical probe to study the inside. Naturally for us archaeologists it would be interesting to know if the remains inside really belong to St. Paul’.” (See www.archaeology.org) To this I would add, wouldn’t we all be interested?

The following report by the Associated Press is typical of about 30 to 40 different news agencies carrying the story, of which I will not repeat any of the rest. If the reader wishes, he can go to the Internet and critique each one of them (search for “Filippi”). I am simply quoting these various sources concerning Paul’s arrest, conviction, execution and final burial place/s. I cite these various sources so the reader can pit one against the other and come to his own conclusion:

“USA Today - AP - December 06, 2006: ‘Vatican archaeologists find tomb believed to be that of Apostle Paul’:

“ROME (AP) — Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome’s second largest basilica.

“The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project’s head said this week.

“‘Our objective was to bring the remains of the tomb back to light for devotional reasons, so that it could be venerated and be visible,’ said Giorgio Filippi, the Vatican archaeologist who headed the project at St. Paul’s Outside the Walls basilica.

“The interior of the sarcophagus has not yet been explored, but Filippi didn’t rule out the possibility of doing so in the future.

“Two ancient churches that once stood at the site of the current basilica were successively built over the spot where tradition said the saint had been buried. The second church, built by the Roman emperor Theodosius in the fourth century, left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt.

“When a fire destroyed the church in 1823, the current basilica was built and the ancient crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar.

“‘We were always certain that the tomb had to be there beneath the papal altar,’ Filippi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

“Filippi said that the decision to make the sarcophagus visible again was made after many pilgrims who came to Rome during the Catholic Church’s 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint’s tomb could not be visited or touched.

“The findings of the project will be officially presented during a news conference at the Vatican on Monday.”

If one will go to the following website he will find:

www.biblelandhistory.com/italy/paul-in-rome.html

“The Death Of Paul In Rome by A.T. Robertson

“The details are all wanting. Tradition supplies only a few, which may be true or not. The story is that Paul was beheaded on the Ostian Road. It was customary for criminals of prominence to be executed several miles out of the city so as to avoid the crowds. We may picture the event in a possible manner. One day in late spring or early June the executioners came to Paul’s dungeon and led him out of the city. One is reminded of Jesus as he bore his cross along his (sic the) Via Dolorosa. Paul, as a condemned criminal, would be the victim of the rabble’s sport. He would have no defender. We do not know if Luke was with Paul to the very last. We may at least hope so. If he could, he would surely walk along as near Paul as would be allowed. But no band of Christians followed with him now. He was going out of Rome on his way to the true Eternal City. He knew Rome well, but his eyes were fixed on other things. Outside the city the busy, merry life of the time went on. The crowds flowed into town. Some were going out. Paul was only a criminal going to be beheaded. Few, if any, of the crowds about would know or care anything about him. At a good place on the road some miles out the executioners stopped. The block was laid down. Paul laid his head upon it. The sword (or axe) was raised. The head of the greatest preacher of the ages rolled upon the ground. Tradition says that a Roman ‘matron named Lucina buried the body of St. Paul on her own land, beside the Ostian Road.’ Be that as it may, no Christian can come to Rome, especially by the Ostian Road, without tender thoughts of Paul, the matchless servant of Jesus.” (A.T. Robertson, Epochs In The Life Of Paul, pp. 316-317).

The next reference I will use is from a group which may have splintered off from the Worldwide Church Of God founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. This I also found on the Internet. I am skeptical of almost everything put out by Armstrong, although it was through his The United States And Britain In Prophecy that I first learned of my Israel Identity. I didn’t trust him then, and I still don’t, but I couldn’t refute the scriptures cited. I have heard the allegation made that Armstrong simply plagiarized J.H. Allen’s book Judah’s Sceptre And Joseph’s Birthright. However, the following seems to have been composed by a scholarly person. I have, though, placed my own critique in brackets at one place in the following dissertation which is a question and answer discussion.

“Q&A Church of the Eternal God FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

“Are there any reliable historical records that show how, where and when the apostle Paul died?

“The Holy Scriptures do not record Paul’s death, and although historians agree that Paul was murdered, they are somewhat divided regarding the precise events leading to Paul’s death.

“For instance, the 27th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, copyright 1959, writes on page 394, under ‘Paul’:

“‘Paul’s fate is hardly obscure. He himself saw that the charge against him, unrebutted by independent evidence, must bring him to the executioner’s sword, the last penalty for a Roman citizen. With this late [seco]nd century tradition agrees (Tertullian, ‘De praescr. haer.’ 36), namely the very spot on the Ostian Way, marked by a martyrmemorial (‘tropaion,’ Caius ‘ap.’ Euseb. ii 25), probably at the modern Tre Fontane, some three miles from Rome. But the traditional date (June 29) reaches us only on far later authority. Acts simply suggests summer A.D. 62; and we may perhaps imagine Timothy reaching Rome in time to share Paul’s last days.’

“Historians are by no means in agreement regarding the actual year of Paul’s death.

“The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, by James Hastings, copyright 1917, states on page 694:

“‘The close of Paul’s life, therefore, like its beginning, is enveloped in obscurity. That he suffered martyrdom at Rome there can be no doubt. That it was by beheading, and that the place of execution was three miles outside the city on the Ostian Way, is the consistent tradition of the Roman Church. The date will lie between A.D. 64 and 67, most probably nearer the former date than the latter limit.’

“Historians are divided, whether Paul’s death took place immediately after the end of the events described in Acts 28:30-31, that is, around A.D. 62, or whether a few years after those events, that is, between A.D. 64 and 67. The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 10, states on pages 151-152:

“‘Luke brings his book to a close with a summary account of Paul’s stay in Rome and tells us that he had full freedom in his preaching and teaching ... The abruptness of the author’s conclusion has led to much speculation among New Testament scholars. Some believe that the work was unfinished due to the author’s death. Others maintain that the ending of Acts was lost. A few contend that Luke intended to write a third volume ...’

“We might interject here that some feel that Luke ended the account in the book of Acts in such a drastic way, as he was not inspired to reveal, at that time, the location of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel. The book of Acts does not report the later activities of the original apostles, such as Peter, because, as some contend, they preached the gospel to the lost ten tribes (compare Matthew 10:6).

“The Broadman Bible Commentary continues: ‘Cadbury (The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 333) cites an imperial edict attributed to the reign of Nero which specifies the time limit when cases were dropped. For capital cases in Roman provinces across the sea which were brought to Rome, the accuser and the accused had to appear in court before the maximum limit of 18 months. If the time limit should be exceeded, the case went by default. Perhaps Luke implied that Paul’s case was dropped by telling us that the apostle lived in Rome for two whole years at his own expense. If this was the situation, the author did end his book in a highly dramatic manner. The default was equivalent to an acquittal before Caesar’s court and gave tacit legal approval to the Christian movement ...

“‘Clement of Rome about A.D. 95 says that Paul ‘preached the gospel to the uttermost bounds of the west.’ It is quite possible that Clement’s information is based on Paul’s express hope to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24,28). Tradition also tells us that the apostle, after his release, was arrested again by Roman officials and put in prison at Rome. Further, during the persecution of Christians by Nero in A.D. 64, Paul was put to death by the executioner’s ax. He was spared from crucifixion because he was a Roman citizen.’

“Eusebius explains in The History of the Church, edited 1965, pp. 98-99, that Paul was spared in his first trial, as he was ‘rescued out of the lion’s mouth, the reference being apparently to Nero [or Satan, compare 1 Peter 5:8, using Nero as one of his instruments], because of his bestial cruelty.’ Eusebius also explains that ‘Nero’s tyranny did not begin till A.D. 62, when Paul’s first imprisonment was over.’

“Frank J. Goodwin writes in A Harmony of the Life of St. Paul, edited 1951, on pages 194-196:

“‘Paul was acquitted after his first trial, and was remanded to prison ... After the first trial nothing is certain. ‘That he underwent execution by the sword,’ says Alford, ‘is the constant tradition of antiquity, and would agree with the fact of his Roman citizenship, which would exempt him from death by torture.’ (Proleg., p. 97). Of his last trial and death there is tradition only, but no history (see Conybeare and Howson, II, pp. 488-490).’

“Nevertheless, Conybeare and Howson state, in The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, reprinted 1976, on pages 782 and 783, that Paul was released from prison after his first trial, but subsequently again arrested and killed by the Romans. They point out: ‘The death of St. Paul is recorded by his contemporary Clement ...; also by the Roman presbyter Caius (about 200 A.D.) (who alludes to the Ostian road as the site of St. Paul’s martyrdom), by Tertullian, Eusebius ..., Jerome, and many subsequent writers ... The statement that Paul was beheaded on the Ostian road agrees with the usage of the period, and with the tradition that his decapitation was by the sword not the axe.’

“A handout on the Epistles of Paul, by the Ambassador College of the Worldwide Church of God, in the fall of 1982, stated the following under ‘Rome’:

“‘Rome, an ancient city dating back some 700 years prior to Christ’s birth, was in the time of Paul the powerful capital of a world-ruling empire. The city sat upon seven hills along the Tiber River in what is today modern Italy. The city itself rests nearly fifteen miles inland from Italy’s western coast. [sic Rome sitting on seven hills has no significance here.]

“‘Paul’s first visit was in chains from Caesarea. He arrived in Rome after a long troublesome voyage and immediately held conference with Jewish [sic Judaean] leaders there (Acts 28:16-17). His first imprisonment was in his ‘own hired house’ (Acts 28:30). He received Onesimus here (Philemon 10) as well as Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). He wrote the ‘Prison Epistles’ of Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon probably in 60-61 A.D. He expected acquittal as recorded in Philemon 22.

“‘Activities between his two Roman imprisonments are rather sketchy. We may wonder if he was able to visit Philippi (Philippians 1:26; 2:24), Colossae (Philemon 22) and Spain (Romans 15:24_, 28). We may be rather sure he did visit Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3; 3:14, 15) as well as Crete (Titus 1:5), Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), Troas (2 Timothy 4:13), Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20) and Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). It was during this time Paul probably wrote Timothy (first epistle) and Titus from Macedonia.

“‘Finally we come to Paul’s second arrest, his imprisonment and martyrdom. He is imprisoned as an evil-doer (2 Timothy 1:8; 2:8, 9), and writes his final epistle to Timothy in anticipation of death between 65-67 A.D. The epistle gives detail to Paul’s situation during his second imprisonment. It was here in Rome that tradition stated Paul was beheaded.’

“In his remarkable book, The Drama of the Lost Disciples, edited 1993, George F. Jowett writes on page 127: ‘In the year A.D. 66 we are told that Claudia, with her husband and children, rescued the murdered body of St. Paul,span style=, interring it in the private burial grounds on the Pudens estate [at Rome], where they were all to rest together.’ He continues, on pages 179-180:

“‘But what of Peter and Paul? Did they remain buried at Rome, in the grave where the loving hands of Claudia, Pudens and their children had placed them?... The positive answer is found in a document written by Pope Vitalian to the British King Oswy, A.D. 656. The letter is still in existence. Probably to the astonishment of many, the letter states that Pope Vitalian permitted the remains of the bodies of St. Paul and St. Peter, with the remains of the martyrs St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Gregory and St. Pancras, to be removed from Rome to England and re-interred in the great church at Canterbury. This historic record is beyond refutation ... The full facts concerning this amazing incident are related by the Venerable Bede, A.D. 673-735, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation.’

“Excerpts from the Pope’s letter to King Oswy read [quoted from Opera Historica, Volume I, p. 501]: ‘But to your messengers, the bearers of this our letter, we have caused to be given the benefits of the saints, that is to say, the relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs, Laurence [or Lawrence], John and Paul and of Gregory and Pancras, all to be delivered truly to your excellency.’

“It is therefore reasonably certain that Paul was murdered under Nero through beheading. He was buried in Rome, but his body was later transferred to England, where it is today. Paul is still dead, lying in his grave, and waiting for his resurrection at the time of Christ’s return to this earth, in a few years from now.” Church of the Eternal God, PO Box 270519, San Diego, CA 92198.

While this source did quote from the Drama Of The Lost Disciples near the end of the chapter entitled “The Glorious Cavalcade”, pages 179-180, George F. Jowett’s conclusions to the chapter are quite interesting on pp. 180-181, which read as follows:

“Regardless of the preservation of the letter sent from Pope Vitalian to King Oswy, Bede, being a man of devout character and erudition, would never make a false report on such an important matter as the transfer of those saintly bodies from the care of the Roman Catholic hierarchy at Rome to England if it were not so. His stature in the Augustinian church is noted in the record that the Venerable Bede is a canonized saint in the Roman Catholic Calendar.

“The common belief was, and still is among the Roman Catholic laity, that the body of St. Paul rests beneath the high altar in the cathedral at Rome, erected to his honour; but it is well known in the high places in both Christian churches that for many centuries only his empty stone sarcophagus remains in the vault.

“Professor Kinnaman, the learned American scholar and archaeologist, in recent times has in his book Diggers for Facts, this reference to St. Paul’s life work, writing :

“‘The real earthly remains of the Apostle to the Gentiles [sic nations] sleep in the soil of England beyond the reach of the arm of the Roman law.’

“What of the tablet seen in the vault at St. Paul’s Without-the-Walls? Is it the lid of the stone coffin, supplied and inscribed by order of Constantine? The stone sarcophagus is in St. Paul’s Cathedral at Rome, but his body rests with St. Peter and the many other saints in England, described by historians as ‘the most hallowed ground on earth’.”

 

OTHER MISCONCEIVED CONCEPTS

 

If the remains of both Peter and Paul are interred in Britain we have an interesting situation, for there are many other saints buried there also, such as Joseph of Arimathea, Mary, the mother of Christ, and Martha, Mary Magdalene, Marcella, Maximin, to mention a few. How many of the bodies of the other apostles and their contemporary company were moved from other locations to Britain would be difficult to ascertain. Not only are most of us mistaken about the burial locations of the saints but also how Yahshua Christ will return. First, let’s check Acts 1:9-12 to see what it says:

“⁹ And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. ¹⁰ And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; ¹¹ Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Yahshua, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. ¹² Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.”

The futurists use this passage, plus Zechariah 14:1-4, to claim that Christ will return to Mount Olivet when He returns at His Second Coming, and neither passage supports such a conclusion. My question is: What is there at that location today that would make it worth His while to return there? Our problem is, we have been mesmerized by all those promoting the futurist doctrine, quoting Zechariah 14:1-4 which says:

“¹ Behold, the day of Yahweh cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. ² For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. ³ Then shall Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. ⁴ And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

These four verses are prophecy already fulfilled when the Romans under Titus destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For anyone who has an Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible, both the original six-volume edition or the abridged edition by Ralph Earle can check this out.

The part that confuses most people is: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem ... Then shall Yahweh go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.” One must stop here and consider all the nations that fought against Jerusalem during its history. Psalm 83:5-12 names a few of them which include “The tabernacles of Edom...” which today we would consider as bad-fig-jews. So get it straight here, whom Yahweh is going to fight against! It’s not talking about all the nations on the planet during a so-called future supposed seven year period of tribulation!

At verse 1, Clarke says: “This appears to be a prediction of that war in which Jerusalem was finally destroyed, and the Jews scattered all over the face of the earth, and effects produced by it.” At verse 2, he says: “many were preserved for slaves, and for exhibition in the provincial theaters.” At verse 4, “It was on the Mount of Olives that Titus posted his army to batter Jerusalem ... I really think that these words refer to the intrenchments, etc., which the Romans made while carrying on the siege of this city; and particularly the line or trenches which the army made on Mount Olivet itself.” Clarke’s comments may not be entirely perfect, but at least he correctly identifies to whom the prophecy refers.

The A Commentary On The Holy Bible by Matthew Poole at verse 2 says in part: “... The residue of the people; that small number of Jews [sic Judaeans] which fled to Pella, and who were spared by Titus. Shall not be cut off from the city; literally, were not forbidden to dwell in or about the city; mystically, were not cut off from the church, nor ceased to be a church; this the more likely, for Titus utterly ruined the city.” Thus, Poole also identifies this passage with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It was to The residue of the people, (v. 2) who were truly pure unmixed seed of the Tribe of Judah that fled to Pella for which Yahweh would fight. And He would use the Romans who were of Zerah-Judah (who were the seed of the woman) to destroy the city and Temple, fulfilling in part Rom. 16:20 & Gen. 3:15. I say in part, for while Titus and his Romans did well, they didn’t complete the job of bruising Satan under their feet. So when it says at verse 4, “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”, it’s speaking metaphorically of Titus and his Zerah-Judah Romans, and not Yahshua’s Second Coming.

At Zechariah 14:8 we read: “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem ...” Were not these “living waters” the teachings of Christ and the mysteries revealed to Paul which had been hidden from the foundation of the world? Both Clarke and Poole agree that the terms “former sea” and “hinder sea” are simply metaphors for salty unusable waters of the Mediterranean and Dead seas. And was not the gospel launched from Jerusalem when Christ said at Acts 1:8: “... and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth ...”? The rest of the 14th chapter of Zechariah presents other difficulties which we won’t go into here.

Another passage at Zech. 8:23 taken totally out-of-context reads: “Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” Here the word “Jew” should be Judaean and it is speaking of the apostles who were all Benjamites (except Judas), and therefore of the southern kingdom of Judah. The futurists of today try to make us believe that it means the bad-fig-jews presently masquerading as God’s chosen!

This is my one hundred and tenth monthly teaching letter and completes my ninth year of publication. We will continue our commentary on the Yahweh-inspired teachings of Paul. It may not appear that way in this letter, but William Finck will show that Paul’s writings agree with and are in parallel to those of John, thus the title:

 

SIN AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

And, Who Are The Modern-day Sadducees?

 

A strange “flesh is evil” or “the devil is the flesh” theology has developed among some sects labeling themselves as “Christian Identity”. With this twisted theology, since all men sin (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8), and since, as the A.V. has 1 John 3:8, “He that committeth sin is of the devil”, then all men must be of the devil! Then, taking Paul’s discourse concerning the trials of the flesh out-of-context (Rom. 7:13-25), some claim that our only enemy is the flesh. All of this certainly seems to run parallel to the typical “White-liberal” guilt-complex and self-hatred ideologies found in certain socio-political segments over the past couple of centuries: that men are evil, and especially White men. Little do they realize that Yahweh Himself created the flesh of Adamic White man, and then added His Spirit to it (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7), and that Yahweh blessed those men and women whom He created (Gen. 1:28; 5:2; 9:1). Therefore the “flesh is the devil” theologians indirectly blame Yahweh Himself for all the world’s evil! Their theology is akin to that of “Calypso Louie” Farrakhan and the radical black “Nation of Islam”: they teach their willing listeners that the White man was created by an evil mad - black - scientist!

Yet further on in Romans, in chapter 8, we find that Paul warns us that it is other forces which we must beware of, not the flesh but “... angels ... principalities ... powers ...” and “... any other creature [creation]” which would seek to separate Adamic White man from Yahshua Christ (Rom. 8:38-39). Paul clarifies this elsewhere, at Eph. 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” While all of the errors of the “devil is the flesh” crowd cannot be addressed here, we shall endeavor to examine John’s comments concerning sin, found in his epistle known as 1 John. Before beginning, however, a few of the prophecies concerning Israel and sin must be noted:

•            Isa. 43:25: “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy [Israel’s] transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”

•            Isa. 44:21-22: “²¹ Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me. ²² I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.”

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

•            Jer. 50:20: “In those days, and in that time, saith Yahweh, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I [p]reserve.”

Now it must be notably inquired: which Israelite is excluded from these promises? Not one! Surely one may pontificate in regards to the evils which certain men have done, and grouse about the totality of Yahweh’s promises to Israel: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). Paul knew better, telling us explicitly that “... all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27; cf. Isa. 59:20-21). Once we examine John’s epistle, we shall see that John’s teaching concerning Israel and sin, as did Paul’s, mirrored that of the prophets.

Before proceeding, I must say that the passages of 1 John quoted below shall be my own translations, so that I may avoid dealing with certain errors found in the A.V., although one may certainly compare these to the A.V. or other versions if one wishes, and I would welcome one to do so. Some differences with the A.V. are due to differences between the Greek manuscripts which the A.V. translators used, compared to the oldest Greek manuscripts available. My translation shall follow the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed. (NA27). Here I would like to first define three Greek words, from the 9th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon:

•            ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō, 264), a verb: “... miss the mark, especially of a spear thrown ... 2. generally, fail of one’s purpose, go wrong ... II. ... do wrong, err, sin ...”

•            ἁμαρτία (hamartia, 266), a noun: “... a failure, fault ... error of judgment ... 2. ... guilt, sin ...”

•            ποιέω (poieō, 4160), a verb: “Used in two general senses, make and do. A. make, produce ... 2. create, bring into existence ... invent ... II. bring about, cause ... B. do, much like πράσσω ... practise ... to be doing, act ... operate ...”

The words ἁμαρτάνω and ἁμαρτία are commonly to sin and sin in the A.V., and to avoid confusion I shall render them in that same manner here. Hopefully my reasons for showing the definition of ποιέω shall become evident further on. ποιέω is not a special verb, for it appears over 600 times in the N.T. in various contexts. Now to translate and discuss some passages concerning sin from John’s epistle:

1 John 1:5 - 2:2: “⁵ And this is the message which we have heard from Him and we announce to you: that Yahweh is light and there is not any darkness in Him. ⁶ If we should say that we have fellowship with Him and we would walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice [ποιέω] the truth. ⁷ But if we would walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of His Son Yahshua cleanses us from all sin [ἁμαρτία]. ⁸ If we should say that we have no sin [ἁμαρτία], we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we would admit our sins [ἁμαρτία], He is trustworthy and just, that He would remit the sins [ἁμαρτία] for us and would cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we should say that we have not sinned [ἁμαρτάνω], we make [ποιέω] Him a liar and His word is not in us. ¹ My children, I write these things to you in order that you do not sin [ἁμαρτάνω]. And if one should sin [ἁμαρτάνω], we have an Advocate with the Father: the righteous Yahshua Christ. ² And He is a propitiation on behalf of our sins [ἁμαρτάνω]; yet not for ours only but for the whole Society.”

John’s teachings here concerning Israelites and sin are quite identical with Paul’s, such as those found at Rom. 3:21-26. Here we see perfect harmony with the utterances of the prophets, such as those cited above, that all Israelites who accept Yahshua Christ the Redeemer shall be cleansed of their sin. Of course, no other race of people but Israel has this benefit, since it was only prophesied for and covenanted with Israel. The Society of 1 John 2:2 is Adamic Society, the White Nations of Europe and – at that time – the Middle and Near East and the Mediterranean coasts, which had descended primarily from the Old Testament Israelites along with some of the other notable Genesis 10 Adamic families. For 1 John 2:3-6 see the gospel of John, 14:15, and for 1 John 2:7-11 see John 13:34-35.

1 John 2:12-14: “¹² I write to you, children, because your sins [ἁμαρτία] are remitted through His Name. ¹³ I write to you, fathers, because you have known Him from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have prevailed over the Evil One. ¹⁴ I have written to you, little children, because you know the Father. I have written to you, fathers, because you have known He who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong and the Word of Yahweh abides in you and you have prevailed over the Evil One.”

Speaking to children at 2:12, John must mean that their sins, past, present and future, are remitted: for hardly could they have sinned yet! The phrase “the Evil One” in vv. 13 and 14 is in both instances τὸν πονηρόν, the masculine singular Accusative case of ὁ πονηρὸς. While πονηρός is an adjective, evil or wicked, with the Article it is a Substantive: a group of words which function as a noun, and in the masculine gender it must be translated as a masculine noun, the Evil One here. This phrase appears elsewhere in the N.T. in this context at Matt. 6:13; 13:19, 38; Luke 6:45; 11:4; John 17:15; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thes. 3:3 and in 1 John here and at 3:12 and 5:18 and 19. In none of these places could “the flesh” possibly substitute for “the Evil One”, as those whom advocate that “the devil is the flesh” so insist.

1 John 2:15-17: “¹⁵ Do not love Society nor the things in Society. If one should love the Society, the love of the Father is not in him. ¹⁶ Because all which is in Society, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the pretense of life, is not from of the Father but is from of Society, ¹⁷ and the Society passes on, and its desire, but he doing [ποιέω] the will of Yahweh abides forever.”

Reading this passage it must be noted that while Yahweh created all things, He certainly cannot be blamed for those things which Society, or those in Society, have devised for themselves apart from His laws. With this passage compare Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 7:31-34; Eph. 2:2; James 4:4; and 2 Pet. 1:4 and 3:4-12.

While thus far John has been discussing Israel, sin, and Israel’s relationship to Yahweh through Christ, next he introduces another element for discussion: those who are anti-Christ. Bear in mind that χριστός (5547), the Greek adjective which when used with the Article as a noun is transliterated “Christ” or “the Christ”, is properly the Anointed, and so “Anti-Christ” is literally the Anti-Anointed, also with the Article here as a Substantive.

1 John 2:18-21: “¹⁸ Little children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the Anti-Christ comes, even now many Anti-Christs have been born, from which we know that it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They came out from us but they were not from of us. For if they were from of us, they would have abided with us, but so that they would be made manifest that they are not from of us. ²⁰ Yet you have an anointing from the Holy One and you all know ²¹ I have not written to you because you know not the truth, but because you know it and because any lie is not from of the truth.”

Anti-Christs “have been born”; the verb is γίγνομαι (1096) and Liddell & Scott define it thusly: “Radical sense to come into being ... 1. of persons, to be born ... 2. of things, to be produced ... 3. of events, to take place, come to pass, come on, happen ...” So we see that Anti-Christs aren’t made but by being born: it’s genetic! John’s statements at 2:19 describe perfectly the Canaanite-Edomite jew, for which compare his gospel at 8:33-47; 10:26; and Paul at Romans 9:1-13 and 20-22.

1 John 2:22-27: “²² Who is a liar, if not he denying that Yahshua is the Christ? He is the Anti-Christ, who denies the Father and the Son! ²³ Each denying the Son has not the Father either; he being in agreement with the Son also has the Father. ²⁴ That which you have heard from the beginning must abide in you. If that which you have heard from the beginning should abide in you, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father. ²⁵ And this is the promise which He promised to us: eternal life.

“²⁶ I have written these things to you in reference to those leading you astray. ²⁷ And the anointing which you have received from Him, it abides in you and you have no need that one should teach you, but as His anointing teaches us concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, then just as He has taught you, you abide in Him.”

In the first century, as also today, it was quite difficult to tell the wheat from the tares, due to the amount of intermarriage between the Canaanites, Hittites and Edomites, with the true Adamic Judaeans, Greeks, Romans and others. Here John tells us that the gospel is the filter by which the children of Yahweh are distinguished from the others. Those in agreement with the gospel message are the children of Yahweh. In John’s second epistle, at 2 John 9-11, we find: “⁹ Each who going forth and not abiding in the teaching of Christ has not Yahweh. He abiding in the teaching, this man also has the Father and the Son. ¹⁰ If one comes to you and does not bear this teaching, do not receive him into the house and do not speak to welcome him. ¹¹ For he speaking to welcome him takes a share in his evil works.” This passage should also be compared to Matt. 4:4; Luke 6:46-49; 1 Tim. 6:3-5 and 1 Pet. 4:17, where we find complete cohesion on the matter. Today many so-called “Christians” profess Christ, yet know little of what He actually said, and so their professions are vain. Once one thoroughly examines the parables such as that of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43), one should realize that there can be no true “Jews for Jesus”. Once one examines the parable of the net (Matt. 13:47-48) and sees that the fish are divided by “kinds” or races, or that of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46), seeing that the sheep are nations (as in ethnicities), and the goats are nations (likewise), and that all people shall be divided thusly, upon hearing this many so-called “Christians” begin denying the gospel of Christ! And even these are only examples, yet clear and powerful ones.

1 John 2:28-29: “²⁸ And now, children, you abide in Him, in order that if He should appear, we would have freespokenness and would not be dishonored by Him at His presence. ²⁹ If you know that He is righteous, you also know that each who is practicing [ποιέω] righteousness has been born from of Him.”

The Adamic race has organized systems of law and justice all throughout its history, from the dawn of civilization in ancient Sumer unto this very day – in spite of the fact that as of late, as in the past, Satan (the jews and their kin) has poisoned our legal systems both here and in Europe. Paul, speaking to Israelites and comparing “lost” Israel to the first-century Judaeans, tells the Romans: “¹² For as many as have done wrong without law, without law then are they cleansed; and as many as have done wrong in the law, by the law they will be judged, ¹³ (since not the hearers of the law are just before Yahweh, but the performers of the law are to be considered just; ¹⁴ for when the nations, which do not have the law, by nature practice the things of the law, these, not having law, themselves are a law; ¹⁵ who exhibit the work of the law written in their hearts, bearing witness with their conscience, and between one another considering accusations or then defending the accused;) ¹⁶ in a day when Yahweh will judge the secrets of men, according to my good message, through Yahshua Christ.” (Rom. 2:12-16, my own translation). By law here Paul meant the Divine law: that delivered through Moses, which “lost” Israelites no longer had. Paul shows here that the Romans were fulfilling in part Jer. 31:33, in their endeavor to codify equitable laws and to create a system of justice. In contrast the Edomite jew, who has the law and reads it but does not practice it, not having it written in his heart, shall be judged by the law and condemned! This same message is clear in many of Yahshua’s own recorded conversations with those in Jerusalem.

1 John 3:1-3: “¹ Look at the sort of love which the Father gave to us, that we should be called the children of Yahweh! And we are. For this reason Society does not know us, because it did not know Him. ² Beloved, now we are children of Yahweh, and not yet has it been made manifest what we shall be. We know that if He is made manifest, we shall be like Him, since we shall see Him just as He is. ³ And each who having this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

Considering 3:1, Adam is the son of Yahweh (Luke 3:38), as are all of Adam’s descendants, as Paul told the Ionian Greeks of Athens (Acts 17:28), who were Japhethite descendants of Javan (Gen. 10:2). Yet of all of Adam’s descendants, only the children of Israel were specifically recognized as children of Yahweh, i.e. Deut. 14:1; Isa 43:6; 45:11; Hos. 1:10. In the proper Biblical context, John 1:12 should read: “But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His Name.” The word often translated “adoption” at Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5 and Eph. 1:5 is υἱοθεσία (5206), which is properly the placing of a son or the position of a son, and as Paul tells us, this position is for Israelites who accept the New Covenant and the gospel of Yahshua Christ. For 1 John 3:2 see 1 Cor. 15:50-54 and 2 Cor. 3:18.  For 1 John 3:3 see 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 5:26-27; Heb. 2:11; 10:10-22; James 4:8 and 1 John 1:7-9.

1 John 3:4-12: “⁴ Each who is practicing [or ‘creating’, ποιέω] sin [ἁμαρτία] also practices [or ‘creates’, ποιέω] lawlessness, and sin [ἁμαρτία] is lawlessness. ⁵ And you know that He has been made manifest that He may remove sins [ἁμαρτία], and there is no sin [ἁμαρτία] in Him. ⁶ Each who is abiding in Him does not sin [ἁμαρτάνω]. Each who is sinning [ἁμαρτάνω] has not seen Him nor does he know Him.

“⁷ Children, let no one deceive you, he who is creating [or ‘practicing’, ποιέω] justice is just, even as He is just. ⁸ He who is creating [or ‘practicing’, ποιέω] sin [ἁμαρτία] is from of the False Accuser [or ‘Devil’], since the False Accuser sins [ἁμαρτάνω] from the beginning. For this the Son of Yahweh has been made manifest, in order that He would do away with the works of the False Accuser. ⁹ All who have been born from of Yahweh do not create [or ‘practice’, ποιέω] sin [ἁμαρτία], because His seed [σπέρμα, sperm ] abides in him, and he is not able to sin [ἁμαρτάνω], because from of Yahweh he has been born. ¹⁰ By this are manifest the children of Yahweh and the children of the False Accuser. All who are not creating [or ‘practicing’, ποιέω] justice are not from of Yahweh, and he not loving his brother, ¹¹ because this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. ¹² Not as Cain who was from of the Evil One and slaughtered his brother; and with delight he slaughtered him, because his deeds were evil, but those of his brother righteous.”

All men sin, as we have seen John himself state above at 1:10, as Paul also did at Rom. 3:23, and so John can’t possibly be stating that all men are of the False Accuser. The children of Israel, who are the children of Yahweh, have an Advocate in Yahshua Christ even if they do sin, as John has already told us in his epistle at 2:1-2 and 12. Yet here John uses a phrase which he did not use in chapter 2 in respect to sin. Where earlier only the verb ἁμαρτάνω is used to describe the act of sinning, here the verb ποιέω is used in conjunction with the noun ἁμαρτία to describe the practice, or even the creation of sin, at 3:4, 8 and 9, and so John’s intent here must be distinguished from, and understood within the context of, his earlier remarks concerning Israel and sin. It should be obvious here that John makes reference not to the occasional sinner, but to the authors of sin. John must mean not the fool who lusts and buys a pornographic video or magazine, but the pornographer himself; not the weak or sickly man who turns to drugs, but the drug manufacturer; not the desperate man who takes out a usurious loan, but the usurer himself. All men have weaknesses which they are entrapped by at one time or another (note Paul’s warning at Gal. 6:1), yet one who is tempted by such weakness is certainly not “of the False Accuser”, and no Israelite is “of the False Accuser”! The authors or creators of sin are of the False Accuser, and history reveals who they are. The panderers are the evil ones, not those who are weak!

Here, as we have seen above in chapter 2, the terms ὁ διάβολος and ὁ πονηρὸς  are both Substantives and must be treated as masculine singular nouns: the False Accuser and the Evil One respectively. That ὁ διάβολος, generally the Devil in the A.V., is an epithet for Satan, the serpent, etc. is evident from Rev. 12:9, and also in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament where ὁ διάβολος translates the Hebrew phrase, also a Substantive in Hebrew, for the Satan, at Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; and Zech. 3:1-3. At 1 Chron. 21:1 the word is a Substantive, but without the Article in the Septuagint, so only a False Accuser, as the word is also used in the N.T. at John 6:70. Where John says that “the False Accuser sins from the beginning”, he can only be referring to the Genesis account and the events caused by the Serpent which are recorded there. The parable of the wheat and the tares, referred to above, tells us that the good seed are the sons of the Kingdom, sown by the Son of Man, and that the tares are those sown in among the wheat by the False Accuser. This could only have happened in the events related at Genesis chapters 1 to 3, upon the creation of Adam – the good seed – and the seduction of Eve – creating tares among the wheat, the race of Cain – where Rev. 12:9 tells us that the False Accuser is the Serpent, “that serpent of old” which can only be the Serpent of Genesis chapter 3! One may resort to Gen. 4:1, however the Hebrew of that verse is demonstrably corrupt, and so it cannot be relied upon, nor even properly translated. Several ancient, albeit apocryphal, accounts refute Gen. 4:1 for us, as do the Aramaic Targums. Cain was “from of the Evil One” because he was a child of the Serpent. The Greek word ἐκ (1537), “from out of, out from, forth from, from” (Thayer), used with the Genitive case of a person, as it is here, denotes “... generation, birth, race, lineage, nativity ...” (Thayer, ἐκ, II., 1.) here as it does throughout the Bible. The descendants of Cain (Genesis 4:16-24; 15:19-21; 1 Chron. 2:55) are the seed of the Serpent, and the descendants of Seth (Gen. 4:25-26; 5:1 ff.) the seed of the woman mentioned at Gen. 3:15.

Many scoff, that there was a race of people here on earth before Adam. Yet examining the text of Genesis 1:26 certainly reveals that Yahweh was not alone when He created Adam. Rev. 12:7-9 shows that there was a rebellion from Yahweh by “angels” which is certainly not in our historic recollection (but the Rev. account referred to here has its parallels in both Egyptian and Greek myth), and so may very well have happened before Adam! There are, as paleontology certainly has revealed, many races of men upon the earth before Adam, and no record of their having been created by Yahweh. Those angels of Rev. 12 are those which Yahshua Christ – who is Yahweh in the flesh – must have had in mind when He said: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). Jude calls these “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation ...” and now we no longer see them because “... he [Yahweh] hath reserved [them] in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Yet their descendants are here with us today, and we know them as jews, arabs, and the other mixed and non-Adamic races of the world. Among these are the “serpents and scorpions” of Luke 10:19: directly related by Christ to the Satan who fell from heaven in 10:18! The Edomite jews are called a race of vipers or serpents often in the New Testament, i.e. Matt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33 and Luke 3:7. At John 8:44 Yahshua tells the Edomite jews that their true father is the False Accuser, who is the Serpent. At Luke 11:47-51 He tells them that their race (not “generation”) is responsible for the blood of the prophets, beginning from Abel. Only Cain is responsible for the blood of Abel, and the Edomites descended from Cain through the wives of Esau, as found in the Genesis account, where we see that Esau had married Canaanites (Gen. 36), which tribe mingled with the Kenites (Gen. 15:19-21). Luke 10:18-19 shows these serpent-people to be connected to the fallen angels, as does Rev. 12:1-9: for only Herod the Edomite King of Judaea played the part of the dragon, in his failed attempt to slay the infant Christ (Matt. chapter 2).

In the epistle of Jude, the apostle discusses those “certain men” who “crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men”, and so they surely aren’t fellow Israelites (compare Acts 20:29; 1 Pet. 5:8-9; 2 Pet 2:1-22 and John 10:1, 26), and these men are they who are “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only God Yahweh and our Prince Yahshua Christ” (Jude 4), for which see 1 John 2:12-27, cited above. As John tells us, Anti-Christs are born as such (1 John 2:18). In his epistle Jude goes on to describe the corruption of these men, and much of Jude’s material is borrowed directly from the “apocryphal” Book of Enoch, not found in our Bibles but available nevertheless. Not only was Enoch quoted heavily in Jude’s short epistle, but the book was also often quoted or alluded to dozens of times by James, Peter and Paul, in the Revelation and in the gospels. The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece in its appendix entitled “Loci Citati Vel Allegati”, shows 65 quotes from or allusions to Enoch in the New Testament. Jude quotes Enoch directly at vv. 14-15 of his epistle, in condemnation of these men: “¹⁴ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, Yahweh cometh with ten thousands of his saints, ¹⁵ To execute judgment upon all, and to convince [convict] all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

In 1 Enoch chapters 6-11, which Jude quotes from and which Jude obviously accepts as Scripture, these fallen angels are called both “angels” and “Watchers”, and along with parallels to Genesis chapter 6 we find also that these angels are blamed with introducing to mankind all sorts of devices which induced men to sin. They were also blamed for the mixing of species, and we find this: “... Proceed against the bastards and reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men ...” (1 Enoch 10:9, Charles ed.). We also find: “In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: (and) to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobates and children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear ...” (1 Enoch 10:13-16).

The New Testament fully identifies for us the children of the Watchers, if only we would believe it. While the children of Adam are not perfect, we have an Advocate in Yahshua Christ. He is the tree of life whom the children of Adam need to embrace and eat from if they are to live (Gen. 3:22; John 6), and the children of Israel now have no other purpose in this life! Judas Iscariot, being a Canaanite (and so a “devil”, John 6:70-71), had no cloak or Advocate for wrongdoing, i.e. Matt. 26:24-25; 27:3-5; Mark 14:21, 41, 44; Luke 22:22; John 8:21-24. None of the other races, the Edomite jews, or any of the arab [mixed] peoples have any such Advocate: and Enoch tells us explicitly that they shall all be destroyed, as Yahshua Christ Himself tells us of the “goat” nations at Matt 25:32-46, the “chaff people” of Matt. 3:12 and Luke 3:17; the “tares” of Matt. 13:40.

Who is it today in Hollywood, New York, and our other centers of commerce, who are introducing all sorts of sin into the world? Who has been in control of our banking systems, our economies, and who has been engineering our wars? Who has had control over our media, and even now controls our academic institutions? Who are the proponents of “multiculturalism”, “diversity”, and are therefore the authors of our pending destruction? Jude tells us of these people that they were given over to fornication, which is race-mixing, and the pursuit of “strange flesh”, the “way of Cain” and the “error of Balaam” (Jude 7, 11) which are all related. The children of the Devil, the authors of sin, are surely the subject of 1 John 3:4-12. All those who purport that “the Devil is the flesh” are little more than modern-day Sadducees (Acts 23:8) who in vanity pretend that all which Creation consists of must lie before their half-blind eyes (but see Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:3), and therefore they deny half of their Bible while pretending to be Christians! Acts 23:8 says in part: “For the Sadducees say that there is ... neither angel, nor spirit ...” Is this not precisely the same doctrine the no-Satan people are promoting? What, then, distinguishes them from the Sadducees? And, were not the Sadducees even more vile than Pharisees?

One of the greatest tricks in war is to devise a way in which your enemy is blind to your very existence. The romish church unwittingly covers for the jews by pretending that Satan is some bogeyman. The “no-Satan” or “the devil is the flesh” crowd do likewise: spreading a cloak for the true Satan – the jews – to hide behind. Are they also acting in ignorance? Or do they know exactly what they are doing?

                                               William Finck

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

After reading this composition, one should no longer have any difficulty spotting a modern-day Sadducee. As soon as they start spouting “no-Satan” or “no-angel” doctrine they expose themselves for what they really are! They will make all kinds of disparaging remarks about the Aramaic Targums, but evidence for the targums can be found at Nehemiah 8:7-8. During their sojourn in Babylon, the Judahites had changed their language, and the Levites had to paraphrase the Scriptures from Hebrew into Aramaic. It is tantamount to condemning John Wycliffe for translating the Scriptures from Latin into English. Had it not been for Wycliffe, we might still be floundering in ignorance today! Shall we also discredit the portion of Daniel which was written in the Syriac, the Aramaic international language at the time? The Syraic paraphrase brought the Hebrew idiom down to the people!

This is my one hundred and eleventh monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of composing these publications. Since WTL #88 we have been continuing a series defending the apostle Paul. We have, for now, completed the phase of defending Paul’s writings, and we will now concentrate on some of the more important passages of Paul’s epistles. Those who are condemning Paul have wittingly or unwittingly joined with the bad-fig-jews to destroy anything Christian. With this lesson, we will take up the subject of how it took Peter fourteen years to fully comprehend his vision at Acts 10:10-16. The other passage where this topic is discussed is at Galatians 2:1-21. The 15th chapter of Acts has probably raised more problems than any other chapter in the Book of Acts. Likewise, the 2nd chapter of Galatians is difficult to correlate with Acts chapter 15, even though both are addressing the same subject. It might seem to many that Paul was creating a new belief system, but he regarded his gospel as a fulfillment of former scripture. Paul makes this clear at 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” So don’t ever accuse Paul of starting a new religion! And inasmuch as Yahshua Christ Himself said at Matthew 15:24: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” So neither did Paul go to anyone other than “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, or he could never have made such a statement as he did at 1 Corinthians 11:1!

So, to get this lesson started on the right track, we must understand that Paul never went to anyone except lost Israelites, nor did he introduce a new religion. Just because the famous David Livingstone went to Africa to missionary among the natives, followed by Henry M. Stanley, does not lend credence to the view that such an activity was sanctioned by either Yahshua Christ or Paul, but just the opposite! Today’s churches are following Stanley and Livingstone rather than Yahshua Christ or Paul.

Most well-intending, but misinformed Christians point to Acts 10:10-16 to support their insistence upon the consumption of unclean foods such as swine, where Peter had a vision, which says: “10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.”

Three times makes this very important! You will notice here it says, “... great sheet knit at the four corners ...”. Any truly alert Bible student will recognize that the “four corners” spoken of here represent Israel as they camped in the wilderness in the formation of a square. It’s not unclean animals in the sheet but unclean Israelites who were divorced from the Covenant. Once divorced, they became “not a people”, and came under the classification with unclean heathen. Then Christ, whom most people call “Jesus” but who was Yahweh in the flesh as Yahshua, came to redeem Israel back to Himself. Israel, once divorced by Old Testament law, could not be remarried to Yahweh again, except by one provision, and that being that either Israel or Yahweh must die. This was the whole purpose of the crucifixion, for upon Yahshua dying, the way was clear for Him to once again remarry Israel as he had done before. Therefore, it says further, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Yahweh didn’t die for pigs, but rather Israelites! Unclean food is as dangerous to eat as it ever was! It is blasphemous to even suggest that Christ died for pigs!

The significance to the matter of this vision is found at Acts 11:1 & 18, which say the following: “¹ And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles (sic divorced heathen lost Israelites) had also received the word of God ... ¹⁸ When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles (sic divorced heathen lost Israelites) granted repentance unto life.” Pigs? You’ve got to be kidding!

One would think that once Peter had this vision his disposition toward non-Judaeans would change, yet fourteen years later he had the same attitude. But let’s review the passage which was the purpose for Peter’s vision in the first place, found at Acts 10:1-9:

“¹ There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, ² A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. ³ He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. ⁴ And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. ⁵ And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: ⁶ He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. ⁷ And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; ⁸ And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.”

We see from this that not only Peter had a vision, but also Cornelius had a matching counterpart vision paralleling Peter’s. To dwell only on Peter’s part of the vision is a terrible mistake, for the one without the other makes the whole narrative of no value whatsoever. In other words, Peter’s vision without Cornelius’ vision is worthless, and Cornelius’ vision without Peter’s vision is just as worthless. Yet the only thing many can think of when reading this passage is eating a ham sandwich. Maybe it should be called: “ham sandwich theology”. Here we have probably one of the most important passages in all Scripture, and some want to reduce it to a ham sandwich!

Here, in the 10th chapter of Acts, we have the first reaching out, after the Crucifixion, of the Bridegroom to lost Israel, the bride, welcoming her back to the fold with these coordinated visions to both Peter and Cornelius. It is the ultimate jeer of blasphemy to cheapen such a great event: for the remarriage of Yahshua to His Israel people. Cornelius was only the first of many to follow. However, it took Peter fourteen years to grasp the full significance of his vision. We will now pick up the story fourteen years later at Galatians 2:1-21 (KJV):

“¹ Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. ² And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles [sic nations], but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. ³ But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: ⁴ And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus [sic Yahshua], that they might bring us into bondage: ⁵ To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. ⁶ But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: ⁷ But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; ⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles [sic nations]:) ⁹ And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen [sic nations], and they unto the circumcision. ¹⁰ Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. ¹¹ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. ¹² For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles [sic nations]: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. ¹³ And the other Jews [sic Judaeans] dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. ¹⁴ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew [sic Judaean], livest after the manner of Gentiles [sic nations], and not as do the Jews [sic Judaeans], why compellest thou the Gentiles [sic nations] to live as do the Jews [sic Judaeans]? ¹⁵ We who are Jews [sic Judaeans] by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles [sic nations], ¹⁶ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus [sic Yahshua] Christ, even we have believed in Jesus [sic Yahshua] Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. ¹⁷ But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. ¹⁸ For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. ¹⁹ For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. ²⁰ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

It can be demonstrated that by “works of the law”, Paul was referring to the Old Testament rituals prescribed by the law to atone for sin, and not the law itself. I would like to lift out verses 11 through 16 to show you that Peter had not changed his ways of shunning non-Judaeans except in the case of Cornelius. And one must remember that the incident with Cornelius had happened fourteen years previous to this, and he was still snubbing all non-Judaeans. These lifted out verses say:

“... ¹¹ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. ¹² For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles [sic nations]: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. ¹³ And the other Jews [sic Judaeans] dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. ¹⁴ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew [sic Judaean], livest after the manner of Gentiles [sic nations], and not as do the Jews [sic Judaeans], why compellest thou the Gentiles [sic nations] to live as do the Jews [sic Judaeans]? ¹⁵ We who are Jews [sic Judaeans] by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles [sic nations] ...”

The following is William Finck’s translation of these same five verses: “... ¹¹ But when Kephas had come to Antiochia, I had confronted him personally because he was condemning himself: ¹² for before some who were to come from Iakobos, he had eaten in common with the Nations, but when they came he withdrew and separated himself, being in fear of those of the circumcised; ¹³ and also the rest of the Judaeans had acted with him, so that even Barnabas had been led away by them in hypocrisy. ¹⁴ But when I had seen that they did not walk uprightly, according to the truth of the good message, I had said to Kephas before them all: If you, being a Judaean, live like a foreigner and not like a Judaean, how do you compel the Nations to imitate the Judaeans? ¹⁵ We, Judaeans by nature, and not wrongdoers from the Nations ...”

If you have a good center reference in your Bible, the “fourteen years” mentioned at Galatians 2:1 will take you to Acts 15:2, where we need to quote verses 1 through 15, for it is parallel to Galatians ch. 2:

“¹ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. ² When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. ³ And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles [sic nations]: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. ⁴ And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. ⁵ But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. ⁶ And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. ⁷ And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles [sic nations] by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. ⁸ And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; ⁹ And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? ¹¹ But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus [sic Master Yahshua] Christ we shall be saved, even as they. ¹² Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles [sic. nations] by them. ¹³ And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: ¹⁴ Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles [sic nations], to take out of them a people for his name. ¹⁵ And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written ...”

It is quite clear with these first 15 verses of Acts 15 that Peter hadn’t really comprehended the full significance of his vision of the four-cornered sheet until fourteen years later, when confronted by Paul. Please note the words of Peter again at verses 7-9:

“... ⁷ And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles [sic nations] by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. ⁸ And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost [sic Spirit], even as he did unto us; ⁹ And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith ...”

Had not Paul confronted Peter about this issue, Peter would have continued his snubbing of the non-Judaeans, but because Paul “withstood him to the face”, Peter remembered his sheet-vision and made this meritorious confession. Had not Paul stood his ground, we today might never have heard the message of the gospel. In our prayers, we should never stop thanking Yahshua for sending us Paul who stood up to Peter! Also, in our prayers we should never stop thanking Yahshua for picking Peter as an apostle, for without his honesty and intestinal fortitude concerning his sheet-vision we might not have this great confession of his, which was a major turning-point for all of us lost Israelites.

These passages which I have been quoting here have generated every kind of error and confusion, for lack of understanding, and many times Luke is blamed. As I have stated before, the Book of Acts is a book of transition from the Old Testament to the New. Not that the Old is nullified or abolished, but the New Testament is simply a fulfilling of the Old. Therefore, what might seem true at the beginning of Acts is not necessarily true at the end of Acts. For instance, at the beginning of Acts both Peter and Stephen did not fully comprehend the true identity of lost Israel. The bottom line is: Peter and Stephen were not totally aware of who all composed true Israel at the time they made their utterances at Acts 2:22-23; 3:12-15; 5:29-30 & 7:51-53! Not knowing the so-called “Gentiles” (ethnos) were actually Israelite “nations”, Peter and his companion disciples considered them as “unclean”, and they were not about to take the Gospel to non-Israel people! Had Peter and his companion disciples known the so-called “Gentiles” were Israelites, the vision wouldn’t have been necessary!

Acts 2:22-23 reads: “²² Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Yahshua of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: ²³ Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain ...” Was Peter addressing any of the lost tribes of Israel here? NO! At this point in time, there were not even ½ of one percent of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin or Levi represented in Judaea, and nearly 0% of the other tribes. The only one from the other tribes that is mentioned in the New Testament is Anna, at Luke 2:36. And chances are that some of whom Peter was addressing were actually of an Edomite or Canaanite extraction. So when Peter is recorded as saying, “Ye men of Israel” this misconception on his part must be taken in its proper context. At Acts 3:12-15, Peter commits the same miscue where he says:

“¹² And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? ¹³ The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yahshua; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. ¹⁴ But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; ¹⁵ And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” The only way the phrase “Ye men of Israel” can be in context here is if it is referring to the citizens of Judaea, and we will take a look at a passage where “citizens” are meant rather than any tribe of Israel. The term “citizens” is used in its proper context at Luke 19:14 where it says: “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.”

Again at Acts 5:29-30, Peter didn’t fully comprehend when he said: “²⁹ Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. ³⁰ The God of our fathers raised up Yahshua, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” When reading this in the KJV the words “we” and “ye” are in conflict with each other. On the one hand Peter said, “We ought to obey God”, but in the next verse said, “whom ye slew and hanged on a tree”. It should be clear here that two different parties are meant. The word “our”, in the phrase “The God of our fathers”, is also confusing to some readers. All we have to do to resolve what is being said here is to ask the question, “Is it recorded anywhere that Peter and the other apostles helped to crucify the Christ?” It is amazing, but there are those in Israel Identity who actually teach that the “ye” are “we”! Two such people are Ted R. Weiland and Matthew Janzen.

Then at Acts 7:51-53 we read: “⁵¹ Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. ⁵² Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: ⁵³ Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.” This is part of the exhortation which Stephen gave to the remnant nation of Judaea just before he was stoned to death by a mixed crowd. Historically, knowing who the “citizens” of Judaea at Stephen’s time were, it is obvious that there were both a smattering of pure-blooded Judahites as well as those who had an Edomite or Canaanite genetic background. So part of Stephen’s allegations here can apply to the Judahites, while other allegations apply to the Edomite-Canaanite mixed group. It is evident here, like Peter before him, Stephen was unable to discriminate between the two types of citizens occupying Judaea.

Also, to add to this disarray of language the term “Jew” is confusing as we read it in most Bibles. The only way we can analyze the term “Jews”, as used in the KJV at Acts 2:5, is to examine the context of that verse! To begin this process, I will quote from The Complete Word Study New Testament, compiled and edited by Spiros Zodhiates, on the Greek word #2453 translated “Jews”, page 779:

“2453. Ἰουδαῖος loudaíos; fem. Ioudaía, neut. Ioudaíon, adjective, Jewish, substantive, a Jew or a Judean, from Judea. All the posterity of Jacob were called ‘Israel’ or ‘children of Israel’ from the surname of the patriarch, until the time of King Rehoboam. Ten tribes, revolting from this prince and adhering to Jeroboam, became known from then on as the House of Israel. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, remaining faithful to the family of David, were called the House of Judah. Therefore, after the defection of the ten tribes, Ioudaíoi, Jews, signified subjects of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs. 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 38:19; 40:11). After the Babylonian captivity, the name ‘Jews’ was extended to all the descendants of Israel who retained the Jewish religion, whether they belonged to the two or the ten tribes and whether or not they returned to Judah ... It is in this extensive sense that the word is applied in the NT (Acts 2:5, 10 [cf. 26:7; James 1:1]) ...”

While this source is not entirely perfect, it clearly demonstrates how the application of this term came into misuse. It also shows why there was a lack of discrimination concerning the identification of the citizens of Judaea: between those of true Judah and those of Edomite-Canaanite extraction, and how with such perversion of the two separate terms “Judah” and “Israel” became errantly synonymous. Once we grasp this fact, we can better understand why it is recorded that both Peter and Stephen addressed the citizens of Judaea as “Ye men of Israel” rather than “Ye men of Judaea”. The same mistake is still being made today among all religious sects, and even among those in Israel Identity who should know better. Had Peter and Stephen really wanted to have addressed “Ye men of Israel”, they would have had to send letters throughout the continent of Europe and much of eastern Asia. The reality is, both Peter and Stephen did not fully comprehend who the true Israelites were or where on earth they had gone. And had it not been for the sheet-vision to Peter and the mysteries revealed to Paul, we still wouldn’t know these things today! And it takes a blithering idiot to associate Peter’s four-cornered sheet-vision with a ham sandwich!

It wasn’t easy for Paul to gain support in Jerusalem for his Yahweh-given commission, to go to the nations that lost Israel had become. It was during the Council of Jerusalem which convened in or near the year 49 A.D. that differing matters came to a head and weighty decisions were made which greatly effected the course Paul and the ekklesia would take. At this time, there were only three centers where Christianity had a substantial foothold: Jerusalem, Antioch and Glastonbury in Britain. Unbeknown to the Council of Jerusalem, its days were numbered, for in another 20 years Jerusalem would exist no more. So it was imperative that Paul’s mission to the nations be successful. For Paul, it was now or never. I don’t believe that the average Bible student is astute enough to anticipate such pending catastrophes that loomed ahead for Paul. Paul would never live to see the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, but he predicted it at Romans 16:20. So not only were the Council of Jerusalem’s days numbered, but Paul had only about 18 years to complete his job. Therefore, every single minute of every single hour of every single day was of the essence. And the entire key to the question lay with Peter, and how timely was his great confession of his vision, and when he finished speaking there was no further discussion on the matter!

Dare we even consider the damage that would have been done to Christianity had the Council of Jerusalem continued in a deadlock with Paul on the issue for another five or six years? No doubt that would have wiped out one of Paul’s missionary journeys, to say the least. It is my opinion that had not Peter spoken out when he did, the Council of Jerusalem would never have reconciled their differences with Paul, and Christianity would not have survived! So by Peter’s initiative the dispute was settled, and one of the major hurdles was overcome for the transition from the old Temple rituals to the uniting of the wife (lost Israel) to the Bridegroom (Yahshua).

With that heated debate resolved, the delegation from Antioch had won their case. When one considers the circumstances of the Jerusalem ekklesia in 49 A.D., the final decision reached by the followers of the Nazarene there must be considered one of the boldest and most generous in the annals of ecclesiastic history. While the Jerusalem ekklesia ministered exclusively to their own nation in making this great decision, they refused to impede the progress of the other branch of the Christian mission, whose every success would mean further oppression for themselves. Their only request was that in view of Judaean fears and sensibilities, the converts of the nations abstain from certain heathen practices named at Acts 15:20. To such a decree Paul seems to have been more than happy to concede.

The decision made at Jerusalem had far-reaching effects. It freed the Gospel from any unnecessary entanglement with Judaism and the ritual institutions of the Old Testament. Thus the mission to the nations and the Jerusalem ekklesia were able to progress side by side for a short period without any essential conflict, until they were finally forced out to Pella during the Roman siege in 70 A.D. Secondly, the reactions to Paul were clarified, and the Christian community at Jerusalem came to have a more positive attitude toward him.

After the disruption caused by the Judaizers (whether they were bad-fig-jews or misguided Judahites) had been settled at Antioch, Paul decided to make another visit to the various ekklesia which had been founded during his first missionary journey. This score of years between the conference of the Council of Jerusalem until its fall under Titus should be looked upon as probably the most critical period of the history of the ekklesia. After the differences had been resolved, Paul was able to revisit the various ekklesia that he had founded during his first missionary journey, establishing them securely in the faith. With the problem of the so-called “Gentiles” behind him (which were really the nations that the lost tribes of Israel had become), the door was opened for him to make at least two more major missionary journeys to proclaim the Gospel to the lost tribes.

I hope, by this presentation, the reader has a greater awareness of the true meaning of Peter’s four-cornered sheet-vision, and how by the guidance of the Spirit it became the means of clearing the way for the Gospel to be spread to the lost Israel nations. The Scriptures are full of symbolism, and we have to learn how to recognize those symbols. Peter’s vision of a four-cornered sheet was an Israel symbol, for Israel always camped in the formation of a square. If in the past you have been unable to recognize the true meaning of Peter’s vision, don’t feel bad, for Peter himself didn’t realize its true meaning for about fourteen years. And if Paul hadn’t “withstood him to the face”, he may never have recognized its true interpretation. It is people who don’t understand the symbols of Scripture, but rather attach a literal meaning to them (like a ham sandwich) that confuse the subject. During my lifetime, I have sat under a lot of preaching, and I don’t remember a single pastor who didn’t get on the ham sandwich subject when commenting on these passages. To literalize the Scriptures to this extent cheapens them to a very low level. Not only that, but it causes much confusion among the laity that makes it almost impossible to establish the truth of the matter.

With many good-intending Christians today (and probably in the past) if one suggests that these passages aren’t speaking of eating unclean foods, they get very irate. These well-intending Christians’ conduct is usually very friendly and amiable, that is, up until one interferes with their ham sandwich, and then all hell breaks loose.

This is my one hundred and twelfth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. Since WTL #88 we have been presenting a series defending the apostle Paul. With the last lesson, #111, along with this one, and in upcoming lessons, I will continue commenting on Paul’s writings directly or indirectly. There are a lot of misconceptions concerning Paul’s writings and I will attempt to clear these misunderstandings up. The very first thing we must understand is Paul’s Yahshua-given mission, which almost everyone applies to the so-called “Gentiles” (a Latin term which no New Testament writer ever employed either in spoken or written word). I will repeat here what I said in lesson #111:

Paul makes it very clear at 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” So don’t ever accuse Paul of starting a new religion! And inasmuch as Yahshua Christ Himself said at Matthew 15:24: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” So neither did Paul go to anyone other than “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, or he could never have made such a statement as he did at 1 Corinthians 11:1! I will be repeating this admonition (meaning rebuke) several times in this upcoming series. A “rebuke” or “reprimand” is not a very nice thing to have to give, but it must be made very clear that Paul was never called to take the Gospel, meant for lost Israel only, to any non-Israel heathen people! There are two terms used in most translations which cause much confusion: “jew” and “gentile”, and until we comprehend the original meanings, we will continue to be as blind as bats. Because I have addressed these two misnomers several times, I will not repeat them here, but they would be better rendered in the majority of cases “nation” and “Judaean” or “Judahite”. And as for the term translated “jew”, we must differentiate between the counterfeit “bad-fig-jews” and the genuine pure-blooded “good-fig-Judahites”, and they are as different as night is from day.

In order to comprehend Paul’s mission to the “ethnê” (lost Israel nations), we must go back to 2 Kings 17:7-23 to where lost Israel was last heard of in the Old Testament: “⁷ For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against Yahweh their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, ⁸ And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. ⁹ And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against Yahweh their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. ¹⁰ And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: ¹¹ And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom Yahweh carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke Yahweh to anger: ¹² For they served idols, whereof Yahweh had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. ¹³ Yet Yahweh testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. ¹⁴ Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in Yahweh their God. ¹⁵ And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom Yahweh had charged them, that they should not do like them. ¹⁶ And they left all the commandments of Yahweh their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. ¹⁷ And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke him to anger. ¹⁸ Therefore Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. ¹⁹ Also Judah kept not the commandments of Yahweh their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. ²⁰ And Yahweh rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. ²¹ For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drove Israel from following Yahweh, and made them sin a great sin. ²² For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; ²³ Until Yahweh removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.”

Not only was the ten-tribed northern kingdom of Israel carried away, but we read at 2 Kings 23:26-27: “²⁶ Notwithstanding Yahweh turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. ²⁷ And Yahweh said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

So approximately 600 to 750 years from the captivities of Israel and Judah, Paul was commissioned to go to these cast-off people with the message of the Gospel. The casting off of Israel and Judah was equivalent to being divorced, and there are several passages with that kind of terminology. By Old Testament law, once a person divorced his or her spouse, and that spouse was found with others (in this case other gods), it was then unlawful to remarry that spouse once more, and this same provision applied to the divorce of Yahweh from Israel. But there was a provision that if one of the divorced parties were to die, then the other party could lawfully remarry. Therefore, Yahweh took it upon Himself to come in the flesh as Yahshua and die so that He could remarry Israel. And by His death, the requirements of the law had been met and He was free to take lost Israel once more as His bride. This was the Gospel (good news) that Paul took to the lost Israel nations. The price of the law had been met and Israel was redeemed (purchased back), and no other people are included. It is only from this premise that one can understand the mission and writings of Paul. If the reader is already aware of, or is willing to adopt these essential precepts, we can get on with our exploration of Paul’s epistles.

Another very important premise we must establish is the fact that the Gospel (good news of redemption for Israel) could not be announced until after Christ’s death and Resurrection. Anything before that time would be premature, for before that time the redemption (purchasing back) had not taken place, and for that job, Paul was especially chosen.

Another concept that must be dispensed with is the false doctrine of being “born again”. The Greek says “born from above” and in simple terms means being born of the heavenly race. I have also addressed this issue several times in my writings and won’t repeat it here. It was only Nicodemus who misunderstood it, and nominal-churchianity takes the same position as Nicodemus. What is important is where Paul stated at Galatians 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” William Finck, in his The Letters of Paul, has a much better translation of this verse, and it reads thusly: “Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his offspring. It does not say ‘and to offsprings’, as of many; but as of one: ‘and to your offspring,’ which are anointed.” The seed in the KJV phrase “And to thy seed, which is Christ” should be applied to Abraham’s seed “Israel” rather than “Christ”, although Christ was one of Abraham’s seed. The plural “seeds” are those who can trace their lineage back to Abraham but who are not under the Covenant. William Finck furnishes an explanation on this verse with a note thusly:

“Note 39: Here Paul contrasts σπέρματι, the Dative singular of σπέρμα (4690), with its Dative plural, σπέρμασιν. Thayer says of σπέρμα that “the singular is used collectively of the grains or kernels sown”, although later Thayer claims that this is not so here, perverting Paul’s use of the word and calling it “genius”. In the context of this and other of Paul’s epistles, I must read this to be a comparison of the several races sprung from Abraham: Jacob-Israel with Ishmael (Gal. 4:21-31), with Esau-Edom (Rom. 9, 10, and 11), and even those from Keturah.

“The word ‘seed’, as in English, also in Greek and Hebrew is a singular used collectively, of many of a single type. The Greek plural of σπέρμα appears in the N.T. only at Matt. 13:32 and Mark 4:31, where diverse types are meant. This is true in Old Testament Hebrew also, where zera (2233, ‘seed’) occurs in the plural only at I Sam. 8:15, where it is used of crops, and diverse varieties are implied.

“Many may point to the verb ἐστιν here, properly the singular ‘is’ (of εἰμί, 1510) but here ‘are’, and it is easily demonstrable that ἐστιν is often translated ‘are’ when referring to a collective noun, or a collection of objects. One need not look further than Gal 4:24 and 5:19 for examples of this, and Luke 18:27 is another example.

“Since σπέρμα may be translated ‘race’ (Liddell & Scott, σπέρμα, II. 2.), in all fairness, I may have done better to translate this verse: ‘Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his race. It does not say ‘And to races’ as of many; but as of one: ‘and to your race’, which is Anointed.’”

I hope all of this demonstrates some of the problems we encounter when we read Paul’s epistles. It all boils down to this: Sometimes what we think we are reading is not at all what is being said. Now the explanation given by nominal-churchianity is that the seed at Galatians 3:16 is “spiritual seed”; that somehow Abraham had “spiritual seed” as well as natural seed. And they usually insinuate that the “Gentiles” are the spiritual seed, thus they create a dual gospel, one for the so-called “Jews” and another for the so-called “Gentiles”. They even go so far as to say that Yahweh’s promise to make Abraham’s seed (Gen. 22:17), “as the sand which is upon the sea shore” as being the “Jews”, and becoming as numerous as the “stars” at (Gen. 15:5) as being the “Gentile church”. They will go further to say that the “Jews” are God’s earthly kingdom, while the “Gentiles” are God’s “heavenly church”. And yet these same people will cite Gal. 3:28 and declare there is no difference between a “Jew” and a “Gentile”. Well, if in their estimation there is no difference, why is one on earth and the other in heaven? This passage would better render “Jew” and “Gentile” as “Judaean” and “Greek”, because truly in context at this passage, they are both Israelites that are being referred to. It’s like the verse at Colossians 3:11 which says: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” The Greeks of this verse are Israelites; the Judaeans of this verse are Israelites (not to be confused with the bad-fig-jews); the circumcision of this verse are Israelites; the uncircumcision of this verse are Israelites; the Barbarians of this verse are Israelites; and the Scythians of this verse are Israelites. And when it says, “... Christ is all, and in all ...”, the “all” is not speaking of non-Israelites.

At Galatians 3:19, the term “seed” is again used by Paul, and in this verse it is referring to Yahshua the Christ. Paul explains why Moses introduced the law at Sinai, and how long it would be mandatory. But let’s read the verse: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” The law was given by Yahweh through Moses at Sinai as a measure to keep Israel within moral and genetic parameters so they could survive as a race of people until the coming of the “seed” (Christ), at which time He would write the law in the hearts of His people. The existence of the law never ceased with the coming of Christ, but only the method of enforcement. Under the Old Testament it was of necessity harsh and cruel, but starting with the New, it became a desirable code of living guided by the Holy Spirit. A mediator is a go-between, and did not Moses serve as a mediator, delivering the law from Yahweh to the Israel people? And when the “seed” came, did not Christ Himself become the final mediator once and for all?

At Galatians 3:21, a far more important question is asked: “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” This verse is simply asking, does the law hold precedence over the promises, or do the promises hold precedence over law? The answer is: The promises hold precedence over the law. William Finck, in his The Letters of Paul translates this verse thusly: “Therefore is the law in opposition to the promises of Yahweh? Certainly not! If a law had been given having the ability to produce life, indeed justification would have been from of law.” This verse is simply stating that if we don’t have the promises of Yahweh, we don’t have anything! The promises are called covenants, and, therefore, we have the Edenic Covenant, the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Palestinian covenant, The Davidic Covenant, the Solomonic Covenant, and the New Covenant, all of which take precedence over the law. But, how long would these covenants have lasted had we not had the moral law, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, which means thou shalt not mix thy race? The tenth commandment is the one that says, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” Was Yahweh so inept that He made two commandments just alike? What would happen today if nominal-churchianity would speak out against race-mixing? But rather, they defend the ones who do intermix.

We shall now critique another interesting verse at Galatians 3:8 as translated by the KJV. It is intriguing because, for a change, the translators did a better job of translating the Greek term “ethnos”, which is #1484 in the Strong’s Greek dictionary of his concordance. Had the KJV translators done as well on both the Old and New Testaments, we might have a better insight on Holy Writ today. Let’s now read Galatians 3:8 as per the KJV: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” It should be noted that in this verse both the words “heathen” and “nations” are from the Greek word “ethnos” which is assigned #1484 in Strong’s.

I will now copy this same verse from the E-sword program which will show the Strong’s numbers behind each word: Gal 3:8: And(1161) the(3588) Scripture(1124), foreseeing(4275) that(3754) God(2316) would justify(1344) the(3588) heathen(1484) through(1537) faith(4102), preached before the gospel(4283) unto Abraham(11), saying, In(1722) thee(4671) shall all(3956) nations(1484) be blessed(1757). Notice, as I stated above, both the words translated “heathen” and “nations” here are the Greek word #1484, “ethnos”. I believe that the translators found themselves in a quandary, as the Old Testament from which this verse is taken says, in part (Gen. 12: 3): “... and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed ...” This tells us two things: (1) that the “nations” of Galatians 3:8 and the “families” of Genesis 13:3 are the same people, and (2) that Paul understood that the many nations that Abraham’s seed would become were the same people as those translated “Gentiles” in most (but not all) of the New Testament. This verse at Gal. 3:8 becomes quite intriguing, as not even the KJV translators could avoid the true meaning. Abraham was promised by Yahweh that his seed would become many nations, and Paul was commissioned to go to those same nations of people.

But all of these translational errors may not have been the fault of the King James Version translators, as they may have inherited the problem. The first man known to translate the New Testament from Greek into Latin was Saint Jerome, born at Strido, Dalmatia near 340 to 350 A.D. to Christian parents. He was educated at Rome. He is said to have had a vision during a period of illness, causing him to decide to become an ascetic. Hence, he went into the desert of Chalcis, later traveling to various cities of the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He visited such cities as Antioch and Constantinople, where he became impressed with the teachings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and started to write theological tracts. In 382, he returned to Rome, and there undertook to translate the works of the scholar and theologian Didymus of Alexandria. Far more important, he revised and retranslated the Latin Bible using older Greek manuscripts. Evidently, Latin manuscripts were already in existence at Jerome’s time, but we are not informed by whom they were translated. Anyway, Jerome’s translation later became the version known as the Vulgate. It should be obvious, then, that the Latin term gentilis (Gentiles) was first used in these Latin translations. But in the 4th century A.D., the term gentilis had an entirely different meaning than is attributed to the term today. The Latin term for “nation” is “gens” and is a root word for gentilis, which was later transliterated “Gentiles”. Evidence for this can be found both from the Junior Classic Latin Dictionary, Latin-English and English-Latin, by Antonio J. Provost, head of the Modern Language department, University of Notre Dame, and The American Heritage Dictionary Of the English Language, New College Edition, with the Indo-European roots appendix.

Secondly, portions of the Latin version of the Bible were first translated into English by John Wycliffe. Wycliffe was born in Yorkshire, England around 1324, and died Dec. 31, 1384. Descending from a noble family, he was educated at Oxford University and appointed master of Balliol Hall, later called Balliol College. He was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, and became noted as an opponent of the religious orders against whom he directed scathing religious writings. Upon a dispute between Edward II and the papal court in regard to certain tribute money which the king refused to pay, Wycliffe came forward with a number of tracts supporting the king. In 1377 he found himself summoned before a convocation at St. Paul’s Church by Courtenay, Bishop of London, but was assisted by friends, breaking up the meeting by provoking much confusion.

Wycliffe originally was a Nominalist, but later was attracted to the teachings of St. Augustine. With skepticism, he examined the contemporary teachings of the Roman church, and found himself in a position obligating him to object to many of them, using the Scriptures tosup/supfont-family: Calibri Is support his position. He further lashed out against the combined power politics and economic abuses carried on by the church of Rome, and considered it to be anti-Christian. He condemned the worship of saints, questioned any benefit gained by having celibate priests, fought against the doctrine of transubstantiation, and against oral confession.

But there is evidence that Wycliffe did not complete his English translation of the Latin Bible. There are two versions, and the first attempt to complete Wycliffe’s translation was taken over by Nicholas of Hereford (one of Wycliffe’s followers), then completed by another unknown hand. Those who finished the work continued to follow the Latin style, which shows in strained or graceless English renderings. Later, Tyndale (although using Greek and Hebrew manuscripts), adopted some of Wycliffe’s writing style. (Wycliffe information gleaned from The World Scope and Collier’s encyclopedias.)

What should we conclude from this evidence? Answer: It should be manifestly evident, had Tyndale translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek, the term “Gentiles” would never have appeared in his translations. Since Wycliffe lived in the thirteen hundreds, his understanding of the Latin term gentilis was probably “nation” rather than today’s corrupted definition “non-Jew”. For the Latin word “gentile”, Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary cites its origin as: “Middle English, from Late Latin gentilis, from Latin gent-, gens nation”, and the meaning for the Latin gens: “a Roman clan embracing the families of the same stock in the male line with the members having a common name and worshiping a common ancestor.”

Hopefully, this will resolve some of our questions concerning Paul’s teachings, but we haven’t even scratched the surface yet. It may be somewhat comparable to being in a third grade arithmetic class while Paul is teaching calculus, let alone having to deal with the corrupt translations. But if one fervently desires, and keeps an open mind and will pray, the Spirit will reveal it to him. Much of Scripture is purposely written so certain people will never understand it. That’s the reason for the parables, symbols, euphemisms, and metaphors.

The next passage we are going to tackle is Galatians 3:23-26 which reads: “²³ But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. ²⁴ Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. ²⁶ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Yahshua.” Paul is not addressing individual Israelites in these verses. Rather, he is speaking of all the 12 tribes from the time of the giving of the law at Sinai until the first Advent of Yahshua. The long period the tribes of Israel spent under the Mosaic law, handed down by Yahweh, was a training period for immature children. As children, when we didn’t obey the rules we were spanked, and we had to learn our lessons the hard way. After approximately 700 years out of our 2,520 years (or seven times) punishment, we had matured to the point that the fullness of time had come for Yahshua to arrive at his first Advent. From the giving of the law until the Crucifixion of Yahshua, the law was our schoolmaster. We were, as it were, “shut up” or “locked up” in our unbelief. In this condition, our only salvation was the fact that we were the inheritors of Yahweh’s promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We can claim no other! When it says here “But before faith came ...”, it simply means before the gospel was proclaimed or published. And how can one have faith in something of which he has never heard? With the language of this passage, Paul can only be addressing the lost sheep of the house of Israel, of whom the Galatians were a part. One must remember, however, that the faith had not fully come until the completed work of the death, burial, and resurrection of Yahshua.

Let us compare how William Finck translates Galatians 3:23-26 in his The Letters of Paul: “²³ But before the faith was to come we had been guarded under law, being enclosed to the faith destined to be revealed. ²⁴ So the law has been our tutor for Christ, in order that from faith we would be deemed righteous. ²⁵ But the faith having come, no longer are we under a tutor; ²⁶ for you are all sons of Yahweh through the faith in Christ Yahshua.”

Let us now continue by reading Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” You will notice that it doesn’t say anything here about one being baptized into a denomination having put on Christ! If you ask the average churchgoer how he became a member of his church, he’ll usually answer, “I was baptized into it.” Being baptized into Christ is entirely different than the Old Testament ritual of Baptism which John the Baptist practiced. There is not a drop of water in this verse; it’s as dry as a bone. John the Baptist clearly stated at Matthew 3:11: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ...” It is quite clear from this verse that the mode of baptism was changed from the old cleansing of the Old Testament, but again, this would not happen until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Yahshua. Therefore, it was necessary for Christ Himself to be baptized with John’s water baptism. To put on Christ implies to be clothed with Him, His character, His manner, and His precepts. And believe it or not, Yahshua insists on racial purity. Therefore, anyone who promotes or tolerates multiculturalism or miscegenation in any way, shape or manner definitely is not clothed with Christ!

As there was not a drop of water in the baptism unto Christ at Galatians 3:27, neither is there a drop of water in the baptism unto Christ at Romans 6:3-4, which says: “³ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yahshua Christ were baptized into his death? ⁴ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” To be “baptized into his death” means to be nailed to a cross, not dipped into a pool of water. Because Yahshua died in our stead, in essence, we were nailed to the cross with Him, even though it was nearly 2000 years ago. Not only were we nailed to the cross with Him but we were buried in the tomb with Him. And as Christ was raised from the dead, so shall we be raised in resurrection to life like Him and “walk in newness of life” both in this life and the next. Anyone who doesn’t believe that we died with Christ should take a look at Rom. 6:8 which says: “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him ...”

Another verse where baptism is as dry as a bone is found at 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Judaeans or Greeks, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” Here the word “drink” might imply water, but it can not be the numerous lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers, creeks, pools or baptistries people have been dunked into all over the world. To show that this verse doesn’t have a drop of water in it, it says we are baptized into one body, which eliminates all of these water sources. One could be baptized a hundred times in water, but it wouldn’t accomplish what is described in the two passages at Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3-4!

Another baptism that didn’t have a drop of water in it, and was dry as a bone, is found at 1 Corinthians 10:1-4: “¹ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; ² And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; ³ And did all eat the same spiritual meat; ⁴ And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was the Anointed.” That there wasn’t a drop of water with this baptism and that it was as dry as a bone can be verified at Exodus 14:16: “But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.” It was rather the Egyptians who were baptized with water, and drowned.

Another passage where there isn’t a drop of water in baptism and is as dry as a bone is found at Ephesians 5:25-27 where it says: “²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; ²⁶ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” The “water” here at verse 26 is only symbolic, thus not an application of actual water. This “washing of water by the word” is the very best form of baptism found in the entire Bible for cleaning away all false doctrine. It is a baptism we need daily throughout our lives.

At Colossians 2:10-12 we have another example of baptism that doesn’t have a drop of water in it, and is as dry as a bone. Not only that, but we have a “circumcision not made with hands” and a knife. Inasmuch as the circumcision is made without hands, it would appear, like the circumcision, we have a baptism without water!: “¹⁰ And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: ¹¹ In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: ¹² Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

Earlier we got on the subject of being clothed with Christ. To get an example of that, we need to turn in the Old Testament to Isaiah 61:10, which reads: “I will greatly rejoice in Yahweh, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.” No doubt, Paul had passages like this in mind when he wrote the third chapter of Galatians. It would be an interesting project to check the cross-references in our Bible to count how many times he did just such a thing.

This is my one hundred and thirteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. With this lesson, we’ll resume our series on the teachings of Paul. Paul makes it very clear at 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” So don’t ever accuse Paul of starting a new religion! And inasmuch as Yahshua Christ Himself said at Matthew 15:24: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” So neither did Paul go to anyone other than “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, or he could never have made such a statement as he did at 1 Corinthians 11:1!

It is amazing, but almost every denominational religious sect today proclaims two gospels. They surely don’t get such an idea from Scripture, for Paul’s Galatians 1:8 states: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” From this verse, it should be manifestly clear that there is but one Gospel. Yet, one repeatedly hears the proclamation by so-called pastors: “Because the jews rejected Christ, He turned to the Gentiles.” They will demandingly insist that the jews (as they call them) are under the Covenant made to Abraham (as an earthly kingdom), and that the Gentiles are under the Gospel of grace (or a heavenly kingdom). Thus, they bring upon themselves the curse of Galatians 1:8. The bottom line is, the Gospel of the Kingdom which Yahshua Christ proclaimed is the same Gospel of the Kingdom which Paul took to the nations.

If the gospel to the nations were to anyone other than true Israelites, Paul could never have stated at Ephesians 1:7: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace ...” Only a kinsman can redeem, so the Ephesians could only have been some of lost Israel Yahshua referred to at Matt. 15:24! Here Paul ties “redemption” and “grace” tightly together as one, so whenever Paul speaks of grace, he is referring to redemption. Redemption means to purchase something back which one owned before, so there is no way that Yahshua could have offered non-Israelites redemption. When Paul wrote, “In whom we have redemption ...” he was including himself on the same footing with the Ephesians, for both Paul and the Ephesians were Israelites! Paul continues at Eph. 1:10-11: “¹⁰ That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: ¹¹ In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” Again, Paul included himself with the Ephesians when he stated, “... we have obtained an inheritance ...” Had non-Israelites ever “obtained an inheritance”? Absolutely NOT! But both Paul, and the Ephesians he was writing to, did, through the covenant promises by Yahweh to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Paul never so much as hinted that the Ephesians were non-Israelites, yet that is the theme of churchianity today! Why didn’t Paul say, “In whom I have redemption” and “... I have obtained an inheritance ...”? What is there about the word “we” that many find so difficult? Why didn’t Paul tell the Ephesians, “I am under the kingdom promises made to Abraham, and you Ephesians are under the gospel of grace”? Yet, this is what nominal churchianity is reading into the scriptures today!

Maybe it would be well to go ahead to Colossians 2:8-9 which reads: “⁸ Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. ⁹ For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” In order to comprehend the connection to our subject we must go back to Eph. 1:10: “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth ...” In essence, Paul was gathering back to Christ the Ephesians who were a portion of the lost Israelites! It is important to notice here that in Christ dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily. In short, Christ encompassed the Father, and the Son, and also the Holy Spirit. They are not three separate entities as some suppose. Just after His Resurrection, during the 40 days before His Ascension, Yahshua Christ looked like any other White Israelite, not some weird spook from outer space. He walked and talked with His followers and ate fish with them. When standing upon the Mount of Olives, He suddenly ascended as they watched Him go, not as some ghost or spirit, but rather they saw Him go bodily. Not only did He go bodily, but He will return bodily at His 2nd Advent. Now the non-whites are not Christ’s redeemed, so there will be no “gathering together in one” for them!

We notice that this gathering “together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” consists both of the earthly and heavenly. Therefore, we must differentiate between the two. Yahshua Christ made this distinction at John 8:23-24 addressing the bad-fig-jews: “²³ And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins ...” Yahshua Christ then went on to tell the bad-fig-jews that they must believe, but another passage at Romans 10:14 says: “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” Yahshua knew this, but He wasn’t about to explain this to the bad-fig-jews for He didn’t want them as converts. What then, were the sins of the bad-fig-jews which Yahshua had reference to? It all goes back to the days of Baal worship in Judaea where they had sex orgies under every green tree, where a few of the pure Judahite women birthed half-breed Canaanite children. Not only did this happen in Judaea, but some in the northern kingdom of Israel were also guilty of this same thing. To show you this, I will repeat a portion of William Finck’s Broken Cisterns, ^#2:

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

If you were not formerly aware of the difference between a good-fig-Judahite of the tribe of Judah and a bad-fig-jew (half-breed Canaanite-Judahite mixture), you should be now! No wonder Jeremiah gave such a graphic depiction at 2:21-22: “²¹ Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? ²² For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh.” Jeremiah was saying that the bad-fig-jews were nothing more than half-breed Canaanites, and that no amount of washing with strong lye-soap can wash the Canaanite appearance away! And the Canaanites had absorbed the Kenites at Genesis 15:19, who were the descendants of Cain (See Strong’s #’s 7014 & 7017). Yet, nominal churchianity tries to tell us today that these bastards are “God’s chosen people”! (And I do mean “bastards” in the literal sense!)

One should now be comprehending the difference between the earthly and the heavenly. There is no uncertainty that Yahshua was telling the bad-fig-jews that they were earthly or from beneath, and that He Himself was heavenly, being from above. But we must take into account that the White Adamic people are a heavenly people on the earth, as was also Yahshua Christ. That was what Yahshua was trying to explain to Nicodemus at John 3:3 when He said: “... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus was the first to misunderstand Christ’s words, but nominal churchianity has since assumed the same position. Those who practice biblical quackery today insist that this means to be regenerated spiritually. It should have been translated “born from above” meaning born of the heavenly race. The born-again concept is patently false. All one need do is go to verse 31, and we see that Yahshua Christ Himself was born from above: “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” Thus, we have earthly-people and heavenly-people. David made it clear at Psalm 39:12: “Hear my prayer, O Yahweh, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.” Therefore, it is the White Adamic people of the covenants to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that Yahshua Christ is to gather to Himself at Eph. 1:10. That “gathering together” could not begin until after the death and Resurrection of Yahshua, and Paul was assigned by Christ to begin that process. There is but one Gospel, and that is the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth with Yahshua as king over a heavenly race of people. All others need not apply!

To understand these things one must ask for wisdom, and secondly, one must be able to recognize false doctrine when it is being taught. For instance, one might hear the comment, “Abraham was the beginning of the jewish nation.” When you hear such a stupid remark, you can mark it down in your memory bank that that teacher doesn’t know what he is talking about, even though he may be able to quote passage after passage. One can hear these kinds of unlearned comments almost continually over radio and television. Paul in his prayer for the Ephesians wrote this at 1:15-23:

“Therefore even I, having heard of your own faith in Prince Yahshua and the charity which is for all the saints, ¹⁶ do not cease giving thanks concerning you, making mention in my prayers, ¹⁷ in order that the God of our Prince, Yahshua Christ, the Father of honor, would give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in His knowledge, ¹⁸ the eyes of your mind being illuminated for you to know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the honor of His inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹ and what is the exceeding greatness of His power for us who are believing, according to the operation of the might of His strength, ²⁰ which He produced in the Christ, having raised Him from the dead, and sat Him at His right hand in the heavenly places ²¹ over every realm and authority and power and dominion, and every name being named, not only in this age, but also in the future. ²² And all things He placed under His feet, and has given Him a crown over all things in the assembly, ²³ which is His body, the fulfillment of that which all things in all are being fulfilled.” (Translation by William Finck in his Letters of Paul)

Inasmuch as we’re on the subject of Ephesus, it would be well to give an abbreviated review of some of its history. For the serious Bible student, there is much more history to be found than can be presented here. The Following is from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 9, pages 266-267:

“EPHESUS ... a famous city of Asia Minor, located at the mouth of the Cayster River south of Smyrna (now Izmir), dating from prehistoric times. Ephesus is said to have been settled before 1000 B.C. by lonian Greeks from Athens, and there during the seventh century B.C. waserected the earliest-known temple of the Oriental fertility goddess later identified as the Greek Artemis, whose cultoriginated in the pre-Greek period. During the seventh century,the government changed from an aristocracy to a tyranny, while during the sixth century the city was conquered by the Lydian King Croesus, who brought prosperity and splendor to Ephesus by contributing generously towards a new, enormous temple of Artemis. Fragments of the outer columns, adorned with reliefs and carrying Croesus’ dedicatory inscriptions, are still preserved in the British Museum. When Croesus suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of the Persian King Cyrus in 546 B.C., Ephesus became part of the Persian Empire.

“During the Ionian revolt of 499 B.C., Ephesus remained loyal to Persia, and also participated on the Persian side in the Persian Wars with Greece. About 470 B.C. Cimon, the Athenian, was able to wrest the city from Persia and incorporate it into the Athenian Empire. When Athens and Sparta fought the Peloponnesian War, Ephesus remained loyal to Athens until captured by the Persians in 415 B.C.;later it came under Spartan control. In 401 [B.C.] Ephesus became the center of Cyrus’ revolt against his brother, the Persian king Artaxerxes.

“In 356 [B.C.] the temple of Artemis was burned down by Herostratus, a fanatic, but its restoration was soon begun and was encouraged and supported by Alexander the Great, who liberated Ephesus from the Persians in 334 B.C. The restored Artemision was celebrated as one of the Seven Wonders of the World during the Hellenistic era; in Roman times it became known as the Temple of Diana of the Ephesians. Parts of its remains are in the British Museum.

“Lysimachus, one of Alexander’s successors, resettled the city in the mountains and built a new harbor. Ephesus was held alternately by Egypt and Syria until its surrender to Rome in 190 B.C.; it was turned over to Eumenes of Pergamum until it was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 133 B.C. Joining the revolt of Mithridates of Pontus in 88 B.C., it surrendered in 86 B.C. and two years later it was sacked by Sulla. During Rome’s Civil War following the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C., Ephesus was exploited by both sides, but under Augustus the city became a provincial capital and was later one of the most beautiful cities of the Roman Empire until it was captured by the Goths in A.D. 262.

“Christian Ephesus became famous not only through St. Paul’s visit to it, but as a bishop’s seat and the meeting place of many ecumenical councils during the fifth century of the Christian Era. Later the city was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire, and it still belongs to Turkey. The rediscovery of Ephesus – the ruins lie in an almost inaccessible swamp, except for the mountain city founded by Lysimachus – was undertaken first by English archaeologists between 1869 and 1874 and later, from 1895 forward, by Austrians.”

To get an idea of how Paul’s ministry fits into the picture at Ephesus, I will now quote a portion from the Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, page 182, under the heading Ephesus and subtitle:

“Connection with Christianity. – The Jews [sic Judaeans] were established at Ephesus in considerable numbers. Acts 2:9; 6:9. It is here and here only that we find disciples of John the Baptist explicitly mentioned after the ascension of Christ. Acts 18:25; 19:3. The first seeds of Christian truth were possibly sown here immediately after the great Pentecost. Acts 2. St. Paul remained in the place more than two years, Acts 19:8, 10; 20:31, during which he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians. At a later period Timothy was set over the disciples, as we learn from the two epistles addressed to him. Among St. Paul’s other companions, two, Trophimus and Tychicus, were natives of Asia, Acts 20:4, and the latter was probably, 2 Tim. 4:12, the former certainly, Acts 21:29, a native of Ephesus.”

Now that we have a general view of the history of Ephesus, we will pick out the more interesting points and demonstrate how they connect with Israel’s past. At this point, it is important to grasp that some of the Israelites that had been in Egypt left there before Moses led those who remained through the Red Sea. In particular, some of Zerah-Judah left and settled in the area of the Dardanelles. The designation Dardanelles is derived from the name Darda found at 1 Kings 4: 31. If one will simply consult most any good dictionary one will find under the name “Dardan” that it will refer to the term “Trojan”. The major citadel of the Trojans was Troy, and up until 1870 critics dismissed the story of Troy as a myth. Since that time, however, archaeologists have discovered nine different layers at the site of Troy, the oldest going back to around 3000 B.C. These nine layers are nothing more than evidence of nine destructions at the site (usually by fire), and another citadel built on top of the former site. Which of the nine layers was the citadel of the Trojans hasn’t been determined with certainty.

But, there is another way to determine the approximate time that Darda settled in the area of the Dardanelles. First we will go to 1 Kings 4:31 where it reads: “For he (Solomon) was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite [Zarah-ite], and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.” The name Darda is the same person or namesake spelled Dara at 1 Chronicles 2:6 where it says: “And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all.” Dara is #1873, while Darda is #1862, but Strong connects them. I have to believe that both of these passages speak of the same people, as most of the names match perfectly. We know that Zerah was the twin brother of Pharez born to Judah and Tamar at Gen. 38:29-30, so down-line the chronology would be: Judah – Zerah – ... Mahol ... – ... Darda, the genealogies often either skipping generations or referring to grandsons as sons. In The Iliad, Book 20, Homer gives a genealogy listing Hektor, the great Trojan prince and defender of Troy from the Danaan Greeks, as being the sixth generation from Darda. Since all ancient Greek sources tell us that Troy fell around 1185 B.C., one can see that the possible time frame for Darda surely coincided with the time that the Israelites were in Egypt. Another fact that many may not be aware of is that the clan of the Roman Caesars could trace their lineage back to the Trojans. That would make the Caesars twin brothers in lineage to Yahshua Christ! Well, that puts a whole different view on Zechariah 13:6 which reads: “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” The bad-fig-jews were never Christ’s friends. Such a notion is absurd! That is why Christ directed the statement from the cross to the Roman soldiers casting lots for his garments at Luke 23:34: “Then said Yahshua, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.” All of those Roman soldiers may not have been of Zerah-Judah, but their leadership was in Tiberius Caesar. Of all the Roman soldiers who took part in the crucifixion of Yahshua, chances are every one of them were lost Israelites from one tribe or another. Isn’t it strange how everything we thought we knew turns out to be just the opposite?

Another tribe from which many left Egypt before the Exodus was Dan. The portions of Dan who settled in Greece are called Danaans or Danaoi by modern writers. Long after the Exodus, they were followed by Phoenicians from northern Israel, and by Dorians from further south, these too being Israelites. See William Finck’s brochures Classical Records of the Dorian & Danaan Israelite-Greeks and Classical and Biblical Records Identifying the Phoenicians for substantiation of these assertions.

The following is an excerpt from Finck’s brochure The Divorce Discourse: “The Dorian Greeks were not Israelites of the Assyrian deportations, but rather had migrated out of Palestine by the 12th century B.C., when they took the Peloponnesus from the Danaan Greeks. The Danaans, also Israelites, had left the main body of Israel much sooner, being a part of the tribe of Dan who left before the Exodus, leaving from Egypt and settling in the Peloponnesus.” We see here there were different parties of Israelites who had settled in Greece. The following is from Finck’s brochure on the Dorian and Danaan Greeks:

“... Further evidence that the Dorians were Israelites is found in Josephus, in his record of a letter written by a Spartan (or Lacedemonian, and they were also Dorian Greeks) king to Jerusalem about 160 B.C., which is found in Antiquities 12.4.10 (12:226-227):

“‘Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, To Onias, Sendeth Greeting. We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Judaeans and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concern as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.’ That this account of the letter, and its contents, is factual is verified by the reply to it recorded by Josephus at Antiq. 13.5.8 (13:163-170), by Jonathan the high priest.

“The reply to this letter was long delayed, due to the Maccabean wars and problems amongst the Judaeans which are described by Josephus. Since it is also documented in 1st Maccabees chapter 12 in the Apocrypha, here the version from Brenton’s Septuagint is supplied: ‘Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other people of the Judaeans, unto the Lacedemonians their brethren send greeting: There were letters sent in times past unto Onias the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you, to signify that ye are our brethren, as the copy here underwritten doth specify. At which time Onias entreated the ambassador that was sent honourably, and received the letters, wherein declaration was made of the league and friendship. Therefore we also, albeit we need none of these things, for that we have the holy books of scripture in our hands to comfort us, have nevertheless attempted to send unto you for the renewing of brotherhood and friendship, lest we should become strangers unto you altogether: for there is a long time passed since ye sent unto us. We therefore at all times without ceasing, both in our feasts, and other convenient days, do remember you in the sacrifices which we offer, and in our prayers, as reason is, and as it becometh us to think upon our brethren: and we are right glad of your honor. As for ourselves, we have had great troubles and wars on every side, forsomuch as the kings that are round about us have fought against us. Howbeit we would not be troublesome unto you, nor to others of our confederates and friends, in these wars: for we have help from heaven that succoureth us, so as we are delivered from our enemies, and our enemies are brought under foot. For this cause we chose Numenius the son of Antiochus, and Antipater the son of Jason, and sent them unto the Romans, to renew the amity that we had with them, and the former league. We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. Wherefore now ye shall do well to give us an answer thereto. And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judaeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham: now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s. We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.” Now that we have established that many of the Greeks were lost Israelites, let’s take a look at the history surrounding our subject of Ephesus.

From the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. X, p. 414: “EPHESUS, a very ancient city on the west coast of Asia Minor. It was situate on some hills which rose out of a fertile plain near the mouth of the river Caÿster, while the temple and precincts of Artemis, or Diana, to the fame of which the town much of its celebrity, were in the plain itself, at the distance of about a mile. The situation of the city was such as at times to command a great commerce ...

“The earliest inhabitants assigned to Ephesus are the mythical Amazons, who are said to have founded the city, and to have been the first priestesses of the Asiatic Artemis. With the Amazons we hear of Leleges and Pelasgi as in possession. In the 11th century B.C., according to tradition, Androclus, son of the Athenian king Codrus, landed on the spot with his lonians, and from this conquest dates the history of the Greek Ephesus. But here the Ionians by no means succeeded in absorbing the races in possession or superseding the established worship. Their city was firmly established on Coressus and Prion, between which hills lies the city harbor; but the old inhabitants still clustered in the plain around the sanctuary of Artemis. When, however, we call the deity of Ephesus Artemis, we must guard against misconception. Really she was a primitive Asiatic goddess of nature of the same class as Mylitta and Cybele, the mother of vegetation and the nurse of wild beasts, an embodiment of the fertility and productive power of the earth.”

Strabo, in his Geography, repeats the myth concerning the founding of Ephesus by Amazons (11.5.4), and tells us that while the Leleges did inhabit parts of Caria, which was the ancient name of the district which includes Ephesus, the region was inhabited principally by Carians. Later the region was settled by both Aeolian and Ionian Greeks, and while Ionians took Ephesus, Carians and Leleges continued to occupy its environs (12.3.21; 14.1.3). The relationship of the Carians and Leleges to the Israelite Trojans and Phoenicians is discussed by Finck in his brochure, Classical Records of Trojan-Roman-Judah.

Later Ephesus became even more Hellenized. From the same Britannica article: “Alexander established a democratic government at Ephesus. Soon after his death the city fell into the hands of Lysimachus, who determined to impress upon the city a more Hellenic character, and to destroy the ancient barbarizing influences. To this end he compelled, it is said by means of an artificial inundation, the people who dwelt in the plain by the temple to migrate to the Greek quarter on the hill now identified as Coressus, which he surrounded by a solid wall. He recruited the numbers of the inhabitants by transferring thither the people of Lebedus and Colophon, and finally, in order to make the breach with the past complete, renamed the city after his wife Arsinoë. But the former influences soon reasserted themselves, and with the old name returned Asiatic superstition and Asiatic luxury. The people were again notorious for wealth, for their effeminate manner of life, and for their devotion to sorcery and witchcraft.” Both Lebedus and Colophon were Greek cities near Ephesus, founded in ancient times, according to Strabo (14.1.3). The Ionian Greeks are descendants from Javan, a son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). The Aeolian Greeks were a division of the Dorians (Strabo, 8.1.2), and so they were Israelites.

One purpose of this lesson is to give the Bible student an idea of what the political and religious environments were like in the Roman Empire when Paul was called by Yahshua to take the Gospel of redemption to the nations consisting of the lost tribes of Israel. While the Caesars and the other original founding Roman clans were of Zerah-Judah, Rome had fallen into a deplorable moral state. You name it, they were doing it. Everything immoral you see happening in America today was going on then in the Roman Empire and Ephesus was no exception. If you claim to be a Christian, put yourself in Paul’s shoes and contemplate how you might have handled such a situation. Well, handle it Paul did, and he didn’t mince words. Later on, after Rome became bankrupt monetarily, it was decided to make the slaves citizens so they could pay taxes. Some of the slaves were White people, but some were not. It had been a law in Rome that Whites could not marry with the other races, that is, up until that time. Once the non-white became a citizen, Rome could no longer deny interracial marriages, and that was the final demise of the empire. All of this had been predicted by the prophet Daniel.

Checking with the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by James Hastings, vol. 1, under Ephesus, it is estimated that it had a population of a third of a million people, and with no high-rise buildings would have covered a wide area. It had a fine harbor along the banks of the Cayster. One can only imagine living conditions in such a crowded area. The message which Paul delivered both publicly and from house to house overwhelmingly astonished men day and night with tears, and to the Ephesians it was morally revolutionary. Though no frontal attack was made, nor offensive language used, by proponents of the Christian faith, it rapidly became evident that the old order and the new could not thrive side by side. This sort of thing was not peculiar to Ephesus alone, but followed Paul wherever he went. It is stated at Acts 17:6: “And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also ...”

The only hope we have today is active stewardship in reliance upon the Covenant Yahweh made with Abraham. He saw in Abraham a people with a higher potential. So when Paul went to Ephesus, Abraham’s children listened and accepted the Gospel of redemption offered to them. In turn, the Ephesians carried the message all over Asia Minor. Everything starts and ends with the covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! It is hoped, with this lesson, one will gain a greater perspective than ever on Ephesus and what Paul did there, and be in a position to challenge those who would censure him!

This is my one hundred and fourteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. William Finck shall demonstrate how Paul’s words at 1 Cor. 10:20 and Col. 2:18 may be understood in a Biblical context. One may also later consider how Paul’s words at 2 Cor. 6:14, “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens ...” should be applied:

 

THE PROBLEM WITH GENESIS 6:1-4 (© 2007): Various theories have been developed around the text found at Gen. 6:1-4, and it is quite often that discussions concerning these verses, like many others in the Bible, become emotionally charged. This is because people often tend to build their own personal belief systems upon a single Biblical passage, or perhaps a couple of passages, rather than upon the entire body of Scripture accompanied with sound studies in language, archaeology, and history, which truly are necessary in order to obtain an honest understanding of Scripture. For instance, upon examining this particular passage, it is quite obvious that it contains a conflict which is irresoluble within the Masoretic Text or Septuagint alone, when compared to other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Here, an explanation of this conflict shall be provided, and a resolution offered. Yet in order to do so we shall peruse Biblical literature, deemed apocryphal by many, found outside of the Masoretic Text upon which today’s popular Bible versions are based.

In the King James version, Genesis 6:1-4 reads thusly: “¹ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ³ And the LORD [Yahweh] said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. ⁴ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” From Gen. 6:5 ff. we see the evil which these illicit unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” had wrought, resulting in Yahweh’s destruction of that old society in the great flood. Yet Noah, who was “perfect in his generations”, was spared with his family. The word rendered “generations” in the A.V. at Gen. 6:9 is Strong’s Hebrew dictionary #8435 toledah, and means “descent”. In other words, the blood of Noah and his offspring hadn’t been tainted by the race-mixing described in the preceding verses.

Yet the conflict in this passage lies here: with one exception, the words “man” and “men” in Gen. 6:1-4 are from the Hebrew word adam, Strong’s #120, signifying those of the White Adamic race descended from Adam through Seth. The word for “man” at Gen. 6:5-7 is also adam. Yet the Hebrew word rendered “men” in the phrase “men of renown” in 6:4 is enosh, Strong’s #582, a different, less specific word for man. Sometimes used of Adamic men, enosh is often used disparagingly, or also in contrast to adam, where men of non-Adamic races are referred to. For examples see Dan. 2:43 (where the Aramaic equivalent enash, Strong’s #606, is found), and in the Psalms at 8:4; 9:19-20; 10: 18; 90:3 and 144:3, where it is advisable that one examine the various Hebrew words used for “man” and “men” in these passages, using a Strong’s Concordance or other similar reference tool. Now Scripture tells us elsewhere that Adam was the son of God (Yahweh), at Luke 3:38. This is verified of Adam’s descendants, and especially of the chosen line of the children of Israel, at Deut. 14:1; Isa. 43:6; 45:11; Hos. 1:10; 1 John 3:1-2 and elsewhere, but also of other branches of the Adamic race, for instance of the Ionian Greeks (descendants of Javan, Gen. 10:2) at Acts 17:28. Now if the children of Adam are the children of Yahweh, which Scripture verifies in so many places, then there should be nothing wrong with the events described at Gen. 6:1-4, and with unions between the sons of Yahweh and the daughters of Adam! For the children of Adam were specifically told to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Yet because the events described at Gen. 6:1-4 were indeed the cause of much evil – even for Yahweh to destroy nearly all of Adam-kind – certainly it is evident that this passage contains contradictions which require further research in order to resolve.

Three sources for ancient texts shall be employed here in order to present a solution resolving the conflict found in Gen. 6:1-4. They are The Dead Sea Scrolls by Florentino G. Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (hereinafter TDSS), The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich (hereniafter TDSSB), and the edition of the Book of Enoch translated by R.H. Charles, first published in 1912 but still available in reprints from several publishers (i.e. www. artisanpublishers.com, www.kessinger.net; hereinafter 1 Enoch, as the book itself is commonly labeled). TDSSB is a translation of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are ancient copies of Biblical books. TDSS is a translation of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are peculiar to the Qumran sect which produced the scrolls, not known from other sources or clearly sectarian in nature, in addition to books found among the scrolls which are known from elsewhere but are considered to be apocryphal, such as copies of the Book of Enoch.

According to TDSSB, fragments of twenty-four ancient manuscripts of Genesis have been found: twenty at Qumran and four elsewhere in the Judaean desert. Quite interestingly, none of these have preserved for us any portion of the passages found in the Bible at Gen. 3:15-4:1 or 6:1-12. Yet among the Dead Sea Scrolls is found the Genesis Apocryphon, of which TDSSB says on p.3: “Retelling portions of Genesis was a popular business in the Qumran community. The Genesis Apocryphon, preserved to a length of twenty-three somewhat fragmentary columns, is an Aramaic work that rehearses the lives of Enoch, Lamech, Noah and his sons, and Abraham. The creation, the flood, and events in the life of Abraham were extremely popular with the writers of the Second Temple period. Theological issues found their beginnings in Genesis as well. Discussions concerning the pollution of humans and divine beings by sin were centered on the mysterious union of ‘the sons of God and the daughters of men’ in Genesis 6:1-4, and messianic musings were founded on the blessings to the tribe of Judah in Genesis 49:10.” It is apparent here that TDSSB commentators have not distinguished one very important fact: that the Septuagint and later Hebrew Masoretic texts as we know them are the products of the respective priestly establishments of their days; the former is Judaean, of the Second Temple period, the latter is jewish, of the early Medieval Age. Examining the Genesis Apocryphon, 1 Enoch, and the fragments of Enoch literature among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with other sources both official and apocryphal, it is evident that there is a tradition concerning Gen. 6:1-4, and Gen. 4:1 also, which is contrary to the one that has been preserved by the religious establishment at Jerusalem and the later Masoretes. As we shall see, this alternate tradition not only resolves the conflict found in our Bibles in Gen. 6, described above, but also dovetails quite perfectly with the versions of Genesis 4:1 found in the Aramaic targums, and other “apocryphal” passages which allude to the events recorded there. All of these “apocryphal” works are representative of the understanding of religious people of the time who were independent of both the later Second Temple priesthood and the jewish rabbis. Even if the details of the Genesis Apocryphon were contrived, and at least some of them apparently were, the general theme nevertheless represents an understanding of the Biblical account by certain early writers, which when put together with other independent ancient sources cannot be discarded. The same is true even if the Book of Enoch wasn’t actually written by the patriarch Enoch. Evidence shows that it actually consists of several books later combined into one, which were written at various times. This alternate tradition shall now be presented here.

First another related tradition, which may have grown from the text of Gen. 6:9, has it that when Noah was born, he was of magnificent effulgence. From 1 Enoch 106:1-6, a fragment of the apocryphal Book of Noah (which is believed to have originally been a separate work and evidently incorporated into the Book of Enoch, as Charles explains in his Introduction, on pp. 46-47): “1. And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. 2. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were as white as wool [Charles notes that ‘long locks’ is a likely corruption], and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright ... 4. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. 5. And he said unto him: ‘I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth’.” While there does seem to be a discrepancy here, comparing verses 5 and 6, where apparently “angels” are perceived by the writer to be the “sons of the God of heaven”, Biblical Scripture tells us that the race of Adam are the sons of Yahweh, the God of heaven, already cited above. More may be said about this in relation to the Scripture found in Matt. 22:30 and 1 Cor. 15:39-58, and since the fate of the children of Adam is to be “like the angels of God in heaven”, then it is evident that certain “angels” are also the children of Yahweh, yet this does not resolve the problem with Genesis 6:1-4. Similar to the passage cited above are fragments from Qumran labeled 1Q19 and 1Q19bis (1QNoah), called 1QBook of Noah, Frag. 3, from TDSS: “1 [...] ... [...] 2 [...] ... were aston[ished ...] 3 [ ... (not like the children of men) the fir]st-born is born, but the glorious ones [...] 4 [...] his father, and when Lamech saw [...] 5 [...] the chambers of the house like the beams of the sun [...] 6 [...] to frighten the [...] 7 [...] ... [...]”. While these fragments are very incomplete, there is enough to see that the tradition concerning Noah and his birth were also extant among the people of the Qumran community.

This concern of Lamech with the condition of his son Noah, as portrayed by the writers of these apocryphal documents, fully reflects what these early writers believed had been transpiring during the age of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, of which the events of Gen. 6:1-4 were a part. From 1 Enoch 6:1-2: “1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children’.” Seeing all of this, now the concern attributed to Lamech, as portrayed in surviving fragments of the Genesis Apocryphon, may be understood. From the Qumran scroll labeled 1QapGen ar, or 1QGenesis Apocryphon, Col. II from TDSS, we have these words attributed to Lamech: “1 Behold, then, I thought in my heart that the conception was (the work) of the Watchers, and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to the Nephil[in] 2 and my heart within me was upset on account of this boy. Blank 3 Then I, Lamech, was frightened and turned to Bitenosh, my wife, [and said:] 4 [Behold,] I adjure you by the Most High, by the Great Lord, by the King of all A[ges, ...] 5 [...] the sons of heaven, that you tell me in truth everything, whether [...] 6 [...] Tell me without lies whether this ... [...] 7 by the King of all Ages that you are speaking to me frankly and without lies [...] 8 Then Bitenosh, my wife, spoke to me very harshly, and ... [...] 9 and said: Oh my brother and lord! Remember my sexual pleasure ... [...] 10 in the heat of intercourse, and the gasping of my breath in my breast. I shall tell you everything accurately [...] 11 [...] ... very much my heart within me and I was still upset. Blank 12 When Bitenosh, my wife, realized that my countenance had altered ... [...] 13 then she suppressed her anger, speaking to me and saying to me: O my lord and brother! [Remember] 14 my sexual pleasure. I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of the hea[ven]s ... [...] 15 that this seed comes from you, that this pregnancy comes from you, that the planting of [this] fruit comes from you, [...] 16 and not from any foreigner nor from any of the watchers or sons of heav[en. Why is the expression] 17 of your face so changed and distorted, and your spirit so depressed? [... Behold I] 18 speak truthfully to you. Blank [...] 19 Then I, Lamech, /ran/ to my father, Methuselah, and to[ld] him everything, [... Enoch,] 20 his father and would know everything for certain from him, since he is the beloved and the favourite [of God, and with the holy ones] 21 his inheritance is found and they show him everything. Blank When Methusela[h] heard [these things] 22 [he ran] to Enoch, his father, in order to know everything reliably ... [...] 23 his will. And he left for the higher level, to Parvaim, and there he met Enoch, [his father ...] 24 He said to Enoch, his father: O my father and lord, to whom I have co[me ...] 25 [...] I say to you: Do not be annoyed with me because I came here to [...] you [...] 26 fear (?) before you ... [...] 27 ... [...]”

From Col. V of the same scroll from TDSS: “1 and he wrote ... [...] 2 Blank And to you Methuselah [my] s[on ...] of this boy. 3 Behold, when I, Enoch ... [... and] n[ot] from the sons of 4 heaven but from Lamech your son [...] 5 and he does not resemble [...] 6 ... [... ] 7 and Lamech your son is afraid of his appearance ... [...] 8 in veritable truth that ... Blank 9 Now I tell you my son, and I let you know ... [...] 10 Go, tell Lamech, your son ... [...] 11 his [...] on the earth, and every deed ... [...] 12 his face has lifted to me and his eyes shine like [the] s[un ...] 13 (of) this boy is a flame and he ... [...] 14-15 ... [...] 16 then they were confounded ... [...] 17 eternal they give ... [...] 18 using enormous violence, they will do until [...] 19 ... and all the paths of ... [...] 20 And now, I make known to you the mystery of ... [...] 21 your son make known this mystery ... [...] 22 ... [...] 23 Praise the Lord of all ... [...] 24 When Methuselah heard [...] 25 and with Lamech, his son he spoke in secret [...] 26 When I, Lamech ... [...] 27 ... which he brought out of me ... [...] 28 Blank 29 [...] book of the words of Noah [...] 30 [...] ... [...]”.

The fragments of the Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls agree to a great extent with Charles’ Book of Enoch which was translated from an entirely different source: texts found in Ethiopia which had been maintained there for many centuries. While they shall not all be cited here, representative of the Enoch literature relating to Genesis 6 events is 4Q202 (or 4QEn^b ar), 4QEnoch^b ar, Col. II, a text which corresponds to 1 Enoch 5:9-6:4 and 6:7-8:1, from TDSS: “1 [al]l the [d]ays [of their life ...] 2 It happened that wh[en in those days the sons of men increased,] 3 pretty and [attractive daughters were born to them. The Watchers, sons of the sky, saw them and lusted for them] 4 and sa[id to each other: « Let’s go and choose out women from among the daughters of men and sire for ourselves] 5 [sons ». However ...”. The reconstructions in this translation are corroborated from other scrolls, such as 4Q201 and 4Q204 et al. The offspring which resulted from these unions are later called bastards, for instance in 4Q204, “Exterminate all the spirits of the bastards and the sons of the Watchers”, which seems to have been speaking prophetically. That “Watchers” is a word used of certain angels is evident from the Biblical book of Daniel at 4:13, 17 and 23, where it is without doubt used of angels. The word also appears in a similar context in a very unlikely place (to the casual observer and to those unschooled in Israel Identity), in the Greek poet Hesiod’s Works And Days, lines 252-255: “For upon the bounteous earth Zeus has thrice ten thousand spirits, watchers of mortal men, and these keep watch on judgments and deeds of wrong as they roam, clothed in mist, all over the earth.”

The version of events relating to Gen. 6:1-4 which is being presented here is not contained in the Enochic and other apocryphal literature alone. In Brenton’s edition of The Septuagint with Apocrypha, a footnote at Gen. 6:3 (which is 6:4 in the A.V.), is found at the phrase “sons of God” which says: “Alex. angels of God”, and so we see that the Alexandrine text of the Greek Old Testament, in this one place, agrees with the apocryphal literature. Brenton chose to base his Septuagint edition primarily upon the Vaticanus text.

Examining the epistle of Jude found in our Bibles, it is readily evident that the apostle drew heavily from the Book of Enoch for this one short letter, even quoting it directly (cf. Jude 14; 1 Enoch 1:9), and from those same sections of the Book of Enoch cited here, where he discusses “the angels which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6). For instance, in 1 Enoch 15:1-3: “1. And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: ‘Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. 2. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: ‘You should intercede for men, and not men for you: 3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons ...’”

The word translated “giant” at Gen. 6:4, which also appears at Num. 13:33, is nephilim, a word derived from the verb naphal, “to fall” (Strong’s #5307), and is interpreted by many to mean in the plural fallen ones (although this is not Strong’s definition, for which see #5303). This word appears as a label for certain of the “sons of heaven” in the Genesis Apocryphon, Col. II v. 1, cited above. Yahshua Christ Himself tells us at Luke 10:18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and at 10:19 relates this “Satan”, or adversary, to “serpents and scorpions”. An illustration of this same thing is provided to us in the Revelation at 12:7-9: “⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ⁹ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” 1 Enoch 15:4-12, from where we left off while discussing Jude above, continues thusly: “‘... 4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also who do die and perish. 5. Therefore I have given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences, 12. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them ...’”

If we allow the testimony of the Book of Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint, and the NT passages of Luke 10:18-19, Rev. 12:7-9 and Jude, all together, to be in this one place an authority of greater weight than the versions of Gen. 6:1-4 found in the other Septuagint and in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament, which are known to contain errors and to have suffered emendations in other places, and so they are far from perfect, then we can allow ourselves to correct the phrase “sons of God” at Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 to instead read “sons of heaven”, referring to those rebellious angels described in the New Testament passages cited above.

With this in mind, it is now possible to understand how a “serpent”, a member of this fallen race, could have seduced Eve, as the account in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 relates. This race, called the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9, 17) in that account, which itself is a parable, was unmentioned in the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 simply because it was not a part of the creation here on this earth, which is the perspective of the creation story, itself a sort of prophetic vision of things past. The word translated “day” in these verses is more practicably rendered “age” in context, and therefore the earth may well have existed for four billion or so years before Adam, and many other races of people have been here before the appearance of modern White man, as the fossil record reveals. Yet no other race of men except Adamic White man can be accounted for as having been created by Yahweh, the God of the Bible. In the Enochic literature, in what is called The Book of Giants, the race of fallen angels is said to have perpetrated the corruption of species. From another edition of the Qumran scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6: “¹ [... two hundred] ² donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] ³ flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] ⁴ field from every animal, from every [bird ...] ⁵ [...] for miscegenation [...]”. And in the same source, 4Q531, fragment 2: “¹ [...] they defiled [...] ² [... they begot] giants and monsters [...] ³ [...] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted ...] ⁴ [...] with its blood and by the hand of [...] ⁵ [giants] which did not suffice for them and [...] ⁶ [...] and they were seeking to devour many [...]  ⁷ [...] ⁸ the monsters attacked it.” Again, 4Q532, Col. 2 fragments 1-6: “² [...] flesh [...] ³ al[l ...] monsters [...] will be [...] ⁴ [...] they would arise [...] lacking in true knowledge [...] because [...] ⁵ [...] the earth [grew corrupt ...] mighty [...] ⁶ [...] they were considering [...] ⁷ [...] from the angels upon [...] ⁸ [...] in the end it will perish and die [...] ⁹ [...] they caused great corruption in the [earth ...] ¹⁰ [... this did not] suffice to [...] ¹¹ they will be [...]”. While quite fragmentary, the general theme of these fragments from what is known as the Book of Giants is readily evident. A very similar version of what is related here is found in 1 Enoch, i.e. chapters 86 and 88. It is highly probable that accounts such as these were the inspiration for the ancient chimera myths of both Greek and Near East mythology.

Furthermore, it is also now possible to understand how Paul of Tarsus could blame angels for the world’s false religions, as is apparent at Col. 2:18 and 1 Cor. 10:20. Col. 2:17-19 reads in part: “... Whereas the body is of the Anointed, ¹⁸ let no one find you unworthy of reward, being willing with humiliation even in worship of the Messengers [angels] ; stepping into things which one sees, heedlessly inflated by the mind of one’s flesh, ¹⁹ and not grasping the Head ...”, and the “worship of angels” can in context only refer to the pagan religions which t align=he Greek Colossians had at one time followed. 1 Cor. 10:18-20 reads thusly: “¹⁸ Behold Israel down through the flesh: are not those who are eating the sacrifices partners of the altar? ¹⁹ What then do I say? That that which is sacrificed to an idol is anything? Or that an idol is anything? ²⁰ Rather, that whatever the Nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to Yahweh. Now I do not wish for you to be partners with demons.” Parallel to this, from 1 Enoch 19:1: “1. And Uriel said to me: ‘Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they stand), till the day of the great judgement in which they shall be judged till they are made an end of’.” The Greek word rendered “demons” in 1 Cor. 10:20 is daimonion, a diminutive of daimon, Strong’s #1140, for which Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has: “2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men ... elsewhere in the Scripture used, without an adjunct, of evil spirits ...” Thayer’s says at daimon, #1142: “1. In Greek authors a god, a goddess; an inferior deity ... 2. In the N.T. an evil spirit ...” All of these ancient writings, together with so many passages of both the New Testament and the Old (i.e. Mic. 4:5; Mal. 2:11), create one consistent picture when the apocryphal literature is employed to help understand Genesis chapters 3 and 6. Otherwise, all of the Scriptures cited here seem to be nothing but a mishmash of mysterious statements which shall forever remain in obscurity, as organized religions surely would prefer it. This interpretation of Scripture also gives greater insight to another obscure passage, Luke 4:5-6, where a satan’s claim of sovereignty over all the world’s kingdoms is not disputed. That the serpent was the symbol of rulership in the ancient world is evident in both Assyria and Egypt, and the records of those nations tell us as much. See, for examples, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 263 and 276.

And now it behooves us to review certain of the Aramaic targums of Genesis 4:1 [we must remember that Aramaic paraphrases are sanctioned in Scripture at Nehemiah 8:7-8, where it says in part, “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” -CAE] From the targum called pseudo-Jonathan: “And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the Lord’.” While this interpretation of Gen. 4:1 may not be exactly as the original, which we may never have, it surely does reflect the belief of many of the common people of Judaea around the time of Christ, and they must have gotten their ideas from some Scripture which they had at one time possessed. Other early targums contain similar interpretations of Gen. 4:1, and the Hebrew text of that verse as we have it in the Masoretic Text is known by scholars to be corrupt (i.e. The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 517). Further examples of this are found in other apocryphal books. For instance, in Brenton’s Septuagint, at 4 Maccabees 18:7-8, we find a woman who is obviously being compared to Eve: “⁷ And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father’s house; but I took care of the built-up rib. ⁸ No destroyer of the desert, [or] ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful, snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” Likewise, in another ancient writing, The Protoevangelion, which gives an account of Joseph and Mary in the days leading up to the birth of Christ, in chapter 10, upon Joseph’s learning that Mary had become pregnant without his marriage to her having yet been consummated, he is portrayed as having exclaimed: “5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me ...” Other statements similar to these are found in other apocryphal writings, yet it should be quite evident that many of the people of Judaea believed that someone other than Adam had fathered Cain (as John the apostle also believed, for which see 1 John 3:12; and Yahshua Christ Himself, i.e. John 8:44), and that this someone was a “serpent”, one of those fallen angels of Rev. 12:7-9.

Indeed, there are many who shall scoff at this interpretation of Scripture and insist that the versions of Gen. 4:1 and 6:1-4 as they are found in the Septuagint and the A.V., and other versions which follow the Masoretic Text, must have another meaning. Yet only with the interpretation presented here, taken wholly from ancient “apocryphal” sources, are these Genesis passages reconciled to the rest of Scripture, and especially to the New Testament, in a manner which is devoid of all conflict. Context should be a primary judge over one’s investigation of the Scripture, rather than conclusions based upon one’s personal emotions. The scoffers shall always scoff, for “these are murmerers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaking great swelling words ...”, as Jude wrote speaking of these very same events discussed here (Jude 16; cf. Jude 1-18).

While not wanting to sound arrogant or pretentious, it must be said that this perspective of Biblical literature may well be a first step in the direction of properly reconciling the Bible with natural history and the archaeological record as we know it. For instance, as stated above, many races of human beings are found upon the earth, however the Bible relates to us the creation by Yahweh our God of Adamic White man alone, and it can certainly be demonstrated in archaeology and history that all of the Genesis 10 Adamic families were indeed originally White. Yet it is also evident from the archaeological records, and especially from many of the prehistoric megalithic monuments, that intelligent races were upon the earth long before Adamic history began. And, if brain size is an indication of intelligence, as scientists generally agree that it is, the so-called Neanderthal man, an older and distinct species from modern White man, had both a larger bone structure and a greater cranial capacity than we have. Yet other species which the evolutionary anthropologists claim to be human ancestors, such as Australopithecus afarensis (of which the famous “Lucy” is a specimen), have clearly been shown to be much more closely related to the small-brained apes of the wild (see for example, “The New Face of Evolution”, Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, Jan.-Feb. 2007, p. 27). The other races here presently have neither brains as large as the White man, nor do they have any semblance of cultural or technological achievement comparable to that of the White man. Today, anything of value which the non-white races do have, they obtained from the White man. These other races may have “evolved” (more likely they came to be through species hybridization) from the lesser apes and other such creatures, however such is not true – nor even remotely possible – of the White man. This interpretation of Scripture and science, which certainly deserves further study and discussion, is absolutely “politically incorrect” and shall be scoffed at by many. No credentialed academic would dare even consider it. Yet such a reconciliation between the Biblical texts, history and science is worthy of all due consideration: for there is no disparity between God’s Word and God’s creation.

All of this also holds serious implications for today, since being poisoned with the jewish doctrines of diversity, globalism and multiculturalism so many White Adamites are freely intermingling with those of the other races. When asked about the time of the end, Yahshua Christ responded: “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matt. 24:38-39). The Children of Adam had been partying and mating with devils then, and they are partying and mating with devils today. Examining other scriptures, it is the evil who shall be taken out of the world, and not the good, who shall forever be preserved. W.R.F.

This is my one hundred and fifteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. We are now in a series of lessons pertaining to Paul’s writings. We may digress to earlier scriptures in order to show how Paul addressed them, because before Paul many things that had been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Yahshua Christ Himself revealed many things that had been kept secret, and Paul continued the process. Sometimes these hidden secrets are revealed over a span of years. Peter, for instance, didn’t fully understand his sheet-vision for fourteen years, as explained in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #111. But it fell on Paul to reveal the Gospel (good news) and take it to the nations which the 12 tribes had formed. It is incredible, but many do not know of what the Gospel consists, and the fact that it couldn’t have been offered before the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Yahshua Christ. Thus, in the shortest definition possible, the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Yahshua Christ is the good news of the Gospel. The Gospel was hidden in veiled language in the Old Testament by the prophets, of which Paul often reminds us. That the Gospel was prophesied but kept hidden is disclosed by Paul at Eph. 3:5-6: “⁵ Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; ⁶ That the [lost Israel] nations should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” The KJV at this passage wrongly translates the Greek ethnê (meaning nations) as the Latin word Gentiles, which only muddies the water. It only makes sense that Israelites alone (lost or otherwise) could become “fellow heirs”. Once Israel was divorced, she lost her status of being heir to the Covenant, but with the Gospel, she was purchased back! If we don’t understand this fact, we really don’t know the purpose of the Gospel which the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Yahshua Christ put into effect. And before this was accomplished, the Gospel could not be proclaimed to the Israel nations. The term “Israel” here should not be confused with the Canaanite variety of bad-fig-jews, of which the pureblooded tribe of Judah was/is not a part!

The revealing of the veiled language of the prophets concerning the Gospel was not exclusively disclosed to Paul. If one will examine the book of Acts, one will find that the other apostles began to understand, but it wasn’t an immediate unveiling. Actually, the book of Acts is a book of transition from the Old Testament economy to the New, which took a period of approximately forty years to come to fruition. Neither does this mean that all of the prophetic mysteries were revealed to the apostles, for we can interpret nearly 2000 years of prophecy fulfilled by historical events since; even determining some prophecy formerly hidden being fulfilled in our own day. That is why Paul’s writings are all so important, for many of the mysteries were revealed to him which the other apostles didn’t receive. Inasmuch as the book of Revelation was not written until after Paul’s death, John’s revelation is an extension of the mysteries revealed by Yahshua and his disciples, which includes Paul. Therefore, it was never revealed to Paul the mysteries which John received. It is noteworthy that Yahshua Christ never proclaimed the Gospel before His death, as it would have been premature, for the price hadn’t yet been paid.

It should be made positively clear to every Israelite that before the time of Yahshua’s death on the cross there was absolutely no Redemption, and that that Redemption was for Israelites only! None of Yahshua’s disciples had any idea that He was going to die or that his death would bring Redemption. Luke 18:31-34 records: “³¹ Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. ³² For he shall be delivered unto the nations [ethnesin], and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: ³³ And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. ³⁴ And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.”

 With this passage, we have a problem where the translators used the Latin term “Gentiles” for the Greek word ethnesin, the Dative Plural of ethnos. But what I really wanted to show you is that Yahshua’s disciples “understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Secondly, to understand that “nations” would be a better rendering than the confusing Latin term “Gentiles” at verse 32, let’s go to Acts 4:26-27 for verification, where the Greek word ethnesin is also used: “²⁶ The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahweh, and against his Christ. ²⁷ For of a truth against thy holy child Yahshua, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles [sic nations, ethnesin], and the people of Israel, were gathered together ...”

Here the two rulers mentioned are Herod and Pontius Pilate, so we have to assume that the two ruled nations [ethnesin] represented are Judaea and Galilee, though Judaea ceased to exist as a separate district and was annexed to the Roman province of Syria at the banishment of Herod Archelaus in 6 A.D. While it is not difficult to identify the “rulers” mentioned, it is not as easy to identify the “people of Israel” here. Herod Antipas began as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea and was the Herod which ordered the execution of John the Baptist and later presided at Yahshua’s trial (Luke 23:6-12), so he has to be the same Herod of Acts 4:26-27. Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman prefect of Judaea (ruled 26 to 36 A.D.), who issued the official order sentencing Yahshua to His death by crucifixion at the insistence of the bad-fig-jews (Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18-19).

As I said, the identity of the “people of Israel” here may be a little more difficult as it may be a misnomer. As for Herod, his genetic background was Edomite; and as for Pontius Pilate, he may have been an Israelite of the Zerah branch of Judah, as were the Caesars of Rome. But if the term “Israel” at Acts 4:27 means pure Israelites at the time of Yahshua’s ministry, though there were a few, they would have been few and far between. I will repeat here what I said in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #111: At this point in time, there were not even ½ of one percent of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin or Levi represented in Judaea, and nearly 0% of the other tribes. And chances are that some of whom Peter was addressing were actually of Edomite or Canaanite extraction. So when Peter is recorded as saying “Ye men of Israel”, this misconception on his part must be taken in its proper context. At Acts 3:12, Peter commits the same miscue where he says: “And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel ...” I then quoted from The Complete Word Study New Testament, compiled and edited by Spiros Zodhiates, on the Greek word #2453 translated “Jews”, page 779, where Zodhiates explained how many in Judaea at that time started to use “Israelite” as being synonymous with “Judahite”. Ironically, most of the citizens of Judaea at that time were of Canaanite and Edomite extraction, so the term “Judahite” is also out-of-context in the early chapters of Acts.

While Zodhiates is not an entirely perfect source, it clearly demonstrates how the application of this term came into misuse. It also shows why there was a lack of discrimination concerning the identification of the citizens of Judaea: between those of true Judah and those of Edomite/Canaanite extraction, and how the mishandling the two separate terms “Judah” and “Israel” became errantly synonymous. (Read again WTL #111)

As I mentioned before, the book of Acts is a book of transition, and baptism was one of those things making a shift from the Old Testament economy to the New. And like the message of the Gospel, it took a while to change. To show you this we will go to two passages at Acts 18:24-25 and Acts 19:1-4: (1) “²⁴ And a certain [good-fig] Judahite named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. ²⁵ This man was instructed in the way of Yahweh; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of Yahweh, knowing only the baptism of John ...” and, (2) “¹ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, ² He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. ³ And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. ⁴ Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Yahshua.” From this it should be strikingly clear that John’s mode of baptism from the Old Testament economy was not the same as that of the New. New Testament baptism in Christ comes not with water at the hands of man, but with the Spirit upon hearing and understanding and accepting the Word. What else can a true Israelite accept and believe other than the Gospel?; that being Redemption through the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Yahshua Christ. Repeating: It is essential to notice from these two passages that John’s water baptism was not sufficient after Christ’s death, although it continued to be practiced for some time after that! And it took Paul to make a final judgment on the matter, but we will save that explanation for later!

To show you that baptism was a ritual from the Old Testament economy, all we need to do is go to Hebrews 9:6-12: “⁶ Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. ⁷ But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: ⁸ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: ⁹ Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; ¹⁰ Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. ¹¹ But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; ¹² Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” What we have here are most of the Old Testament ritual laws that ceased upon Christ’s sacrificial death!

I underlined the word “washings” here as it is the Greek word baptismois, Dative Plural of baptismos which is a noun and counterpart to the verb baptizo. It is explained in a footnote under the subtitle “Baptism” by Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church: “The ‘divers baptisms’ in Heb. 9:10 (in the Revision ‘washings’) probably include all the ceremonial purifications of the Jews [sic Israelites], whether by bathing (Lev. 11:25; 14:9; Num. 19:7), or washing (Num. 19:7; Mark 7: 8), or sprinkling (Lev. 14:7; Num. 19:19).” In other words, water baptism is an Old Testament ceremonial washing, and it had its place in the rituals of the Tabernacle. There are a lot of people who have no idea of the extensive use of baptism in Old Testament times. The Strong’s number for baptismos is 909 and says:

“909 βαπτισμός [baptismos /bap·tis·mos/] noun or neuter: masculine. From 907 ... Four occurrences; AV translates as ‘washing’ three times, and ‘baptism’ once. 1 a washing, purification effected by means of water. 1a of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:10) which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism.” It is noteworthy that #909 is from #907. In other words baptismos is from baptizo. Therefore, we should consult Strong’s on #907:

“907 βαπτίζω [baptizo /bap·tid·zo/] verb. From a derivative of 911 ... 80 occurrences; AV translates as ‘baptize’ 76 times, ‘wash’ twice, ‘baptist’ once, and ‘baptized + 2258’ once. 1 to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk). 2 to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe. 3 to overwhelm. Additional Information: (Not to be confused with 911, bapto.) The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words [bapto and baptizo]. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism ... Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.” I should point out that this quotation from Strong’s used Mark 16:16 as a reference, which I deleted with ellipses, as verses 9 through 20 are known to be forged, not being in the two oldest ancient manuscripts.

This pickle illustration is really a good example for understanding the meaning of baptism, by either water or fire. While water washes both our clothes and physical bodies clean, the fire baptism predicted by John the Baptist has an even greater cleansing effect. When high temperature heat is applied to metal, bringing it to a liquid state, the impurities (dross) will come to the top of the vessel holding the liquid metal where it can be skimmed off, leaving only pure metal of whatever kind it might be. Of course, we cannot have our bodies cast into a high temperature blast furnace and survive, but the fire baptism by the Holy Spirit will cleanse us from the false doctrines (dross) we have absorbed since our birth. And most of those false doctrines have come from the pulpits of nominal churchianity! Why is it that we can’t take John the Baptist at his word at Matt. 3:11: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ...”?

Or do we do like the Pharisees and clean the outside of the cup while leaving the inside (inner-man) contaminated? I am aware that when it is relating to the Pharisees it is referring to their corrupted genetics – while for pure Adam-man it would be his corrupted dogmas – but water baptism can only clean the outside of the body while fire can purge the inner man of his corrupted concepts. It would appear that water baptism has become the lazy man’s religion! In other words, one can be baptized in water in the corrupted name “Jesus”, which was, and still is Yahshua, and then proceed to do little-to-nothing for the building of the Kingdom! It was stated in part at verses 7 & 9 cited above, “... for the errors of the people ... that could not make him that did the service perfect”. These sundry rituals, including baptism, couldn’t make the man perfect back then, and still can’t today! How can anyone with a straight face proclaim that these Old Testament rituals will wash a man’s sins (errors) away? Of course, one can see how a few men with the inclinations of a tyrant or a dictator might wish to do so!

In stark contrast to these Old Testament rituals is the baptism spoken of at Eph. 5:26-27, 30: “²⁶ That he [Yahshua] might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, ²⁷ That he might present it to himself a glorious ekklesia, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish ... ³⁰ For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” It can’t get any cleaner than this, for verse 30 speaks of a pure race of people “of his body, and of his flesh, and of his bones” being washed (baptized) by “the washing of the water by the word”. Here “the washing of the water” is only symbolic of how we are washed by His spoken Word! So it’s a pure racial people cleansed by the fire of the Holy Spirit in the power of His spoken Word, a people with all of the dross (false concepts) skimmed away. In short, a pure people with pure perception! Do we really want to trade that for water baptism which can’t do the job? The Word is the cleansing vehicle, not water.

A good place to go next would be 1 Cor. 12:12-14: “¹² For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit are we [the 12 tribes of Israel] all baptized into one body, whether we be [of the tribe of] Judah or [the lost Israel] nations, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. ¹⁴ For the body is not one member, but many.” I took the prerogative of amplifying this passage so the reader might better comprehend what is being said, for the word “all” must be qualified as meaning exclusively Israelites. Therefore, as water baptism was exclusively for Old Testament Israelites, so too, is the Holy Spirit baptism by the washing of the water by Word for the New. Who else but Israel did you think it was talking about?

A couple more water baptisms are recorded at Acts. Let’s take a look at the one at 8:27, 34-36: “²⁷ And he [Philip] arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship ... ³⁴ And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? ³⁵ Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Yahshua. ³⁶ And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Now right away as soon as some read Ethiopian, they will erroneously assume black man. There is one thing we can be sure of, the Spirit would not have sent an angel to Philip directing him to Gaza had not this Ethiopian eunuch been a pureblooded Israelite of one of the twelve tribes! If the passage at 1 Cor. 12:12-14 was directed to Israelites, so too, with this passage concerning the Ethiopian eunuch! It is easy enough to understand that this “Ethiopian” must have been an Israelite dwelling in Ethiopia once one realizes that Philip met him as he was returning to Ethiopia from Jerusalem, where he had already been to worship. Death was the penalty for a foreigner attempting to enter the Temple, as Josephus attests in his histories, and for which see also Acts 21:28. Additionally, this “Ethiopian” was found reading Isaiah, and the quote recorded at Acts 8:32-33 is from the Greek Septuagint version of the prophet. Now there probably were a few blacks at that time in Ethiopia, but this eunuch was not one of them. The problem is, a few of the authors of various commentaries and Bible dictionaries will mislead the reader on this subject. Not only do these authors confuse the issue of what kind of people occupied Ethiopia at the time of this eunuch, but they will mistakenly claim that Moses married an Ethiopian woman – in their minds meaning a black woman! The Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by Merrill C. Tenney says in part on page 262, under the topic “Ethiopia”, “The Ethiopians had skin of different appearance (Jer. 13:23); the Greek name Aithíops, burnt-face, shows the color to have been dark. Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semitic, some Caucasian.” First of all, Mr. Tenney, Caucasians are Semitic, so what do you mean “some Semitic, some Caucasian”? Mr. Tenney, do you consider the racially mixed bad-fig-jews to be Semitic, or arabs as far as that goes? While some of what Mr. Tenney presents here is true, the reader can instinctively see he is attempting to make all Ethiopians black, or mixed with black! And it has been my experience, when speaking to people about the subject of Ethiopians, nearly all of them believe that when the Bible speaks of Ethiopians, that they are black, and that Moses married a black Ethiopian woman! The reason they believe this is because that is what they have heard from the pulpit of their church or in Sunday-school. I have found it is almost impossible to reason with such people!

One more topic should be addressed here, and that is the matter of Jeremiah 13:23 where he says: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” It should be pointed out that by the time of Jeremiah, Egypt had been overrun by negroids from central Africa. Also by Jeremiah’s time the Egyptians had started to use negroids to fight in their army, and like America today, it swiftly proceeded to become a mulatto nation. That is the main reason why Jeremiah solemnly warned the Judaeans not to go there. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that while Egypt was being overrun, so also was Ethiopia. That’s not saying that everyone in Egypt and Ethiopia became a mulatto, but many did. So Jeremiah wasn’t saying anything out of order when he asked, “... Can the Ethiopian change his skin ...?” And undoubtedly, in this isolated case, he meant black skin.

To cite another source which might clear up at least some of the confusion on this subject, I will go to the Tyndale Bible Dictionary with editors Walter A. Elwell and Philip W. Comfort on page 450, under the topic “Ethiopia” and subtopic “Location”: “... At that time it [the Egyptian loanword Cush] was used of [Ethiopia] a small area between the second and third cataracts of the Nile. Later on, during the [Egyptian] New Kingdom period (c. 1570-1160 BC), it was applied to a larger area that extended some distance to the south. This broader designation corresponds geographically to the modern lands of Nubia and northern Sudan. It is misleading to think that the Ethiopia of Scripture is the same territory as the Ethiopia of modern times, which in an earlier period was called Abyssinia. The name Ethiopia was of Greek origin, and according to some interpreters means ‘burnt-faced’ (cf. Acts 8:27). This tradition has been perpetuated by the Arabic name Beled es Sudan, or ‘land of the blacks,’ from which the designation Sudan comes.” While this explanation about Ethiopia may not be perfect in every respect, it surely makes a little sense. But to add to the confusion, there were two different countries named Cush (the one south of Egypt as described here, and Hindu Cush in the area today we know as Afghanistan. So from which of these two lands of Cush did Moses get his wife? The answer would be the one where the Midianites had settled, for Moses’ wife was a racial Midianite, a descendant of Abraham by Keturah. Another problem concerning Moses’ in-laws lies in the fact that they are also called Kenites. Actually, the Kenites were the descendants of Cain fathered by Satan, and surely Yahweh wouldn’t have smiled on that! The only other answer is that the Kenites had settled parts of the same land of Cush before the Midianites had arrived there. If that is correct, it would explain why, at Exodus 2:16-17, after some shepherds gave Reuel’s daughters a hard time while they were attempting to water their family’s flock that Moses had to fight them off. If Reuel and his daughters were living in an area named after the Kenites, it would account for why this Midianite family is referred to as Kenites, or called after the geographic designation. Here these shepherds were interfering with this Midianite family’s source of living, and isn’t that exactly what the Kenite-Cain children of Satan by Eve, whom we know as bad-fig-jews, are doing today to the White people?

By this time, one might be wondering what all this has to do with baptism. What is important here, when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, is that the baptized person was not a black or race-mixed person. It also shows that Philip hadn’t yet fully comprehended the changeover from the Old Testament water baptism to the New Testament Spirit baptism. That revelation would come later, through Paul’s ministry. Thus, the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by the Old Testament criterion rather than the New. That brings us to the decision we have to make since Paul made his final pronouncement on water baptism: Would we rather have John the Baptist’s Old Testament water baptism or Yahshua Christ’s New Testament Spirit baptism by the washing of the water by the Word? I would assure you that the Word of Yahweh is a much better cleansing agent than H₂O.

I have another baptism in Acts to mention besides that of the Ethiopian eunuch, and that would be the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, whom most know as Paul. Paul’s baptism can be found at both Acts 9:18 and 22:16. Actually, the passage at Acts 9 suggests two separate baptisms for Paul, so let’s read verses 17 & 18: “¹⁷ And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, Yahweh, even Yahshua, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. ¹⁸ And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.”

Here it appears that Paul first received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and then was baptized to wash away his sins. This is amazing, for in many denominations calling themselves “holiness churches”, they demand this happen in the reverse order. Also, it is worthy of note that Paul received two baptisms; (1) by the Holy Spirit, and (2) by Old Testament water baptism. To understand why these two baptisms happened we need to go to the other account of Paul’s conversion at Acts 22, and key in on verse 12: “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the [true] Judahites which dwelt there.” So we see here that Ananias was a devout man according to the law, and being so he wasn’t yet about to discontinue the Old Testament ritual of water baptism.

We have to remember that Paul himself was no dummy when it came to the law, for he was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, (Acts 22:3). Some might use this evidence that Paul was baptized twice to argue that every Christian should do likewise, but that brings up another problem for, John the Baptist indicated a change in the mode of baptism rather than two separate baptisms. You see, like the sacrificing of animals and birds couldn’t pay Israel’s sin debt, neither could water wash Israel’s sins away. Water baptism, and the other sacrificial rituals, are what was nailed to the cross.

Somewhere along the line, Paul began to realize, probably through the several revelations he was given, that water baptism was no longer needed. We have to remember that Paul, a student of the law, had himself practiced baptism several times in his ministry, and therefore it would be a very difficult decision for him to reverse his stance on the matter. But change his position he did, at 1 Cor. 1:17, saying: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” Since Paul was not sent by Christ to baptize (and surely he was referring to water baptism rather than Spirit baptism), neither is anyone else, since he made that “Holy Spirit-breathed” pronouncement. I say “Holy Spirit-breathed” because Paul’s writings are no less inspired than the other scriptures in our Bible. That is made clear by Peter at 2 Pet. 3:15-16: “¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Notice here that Peter compares Paul’s epistles, and places them in the same category with “the other scriptures”! Therefore, all Paul bashers take warning, for if one bashes Paul, one automatically bashes Peter. And if one condemns Peter, one automatically becomes guilty of condemning Yahshua Christ Himself, who called him to be a fisher of men. And if one indirectly condemns both Peter and Christ by bashing Paul, one also condemns the prophet Jeremiah, for Jeremiah said at 16:16: “Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith Yahweh, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.” Can you now see how far-reaching such a condemnation can go?

Paul’s decision to no longer baptize with water is part of Holy Writ. By comparison it is equivalent to a Supreme Court decision, only Paul’s decision was not made by nine fallible men, but by the Holy Spirit. In analogy, Supreme Court decisions are but tinker-toys. But to use our present way of expressing Paul’s decision, today we would call it a “landmark case”.

Actually, the Old Testament rituals were shadows of things to come. It’s like a man who wants to buy a beautiful shade tree to place in his front yard. So he goes to a nursery to shop for a half-grown tree, since he doesn’t want to wait for several years for it to mature. He then spies a tree that takes his fancy, and asks the salesman the price. Upon being informed of the price for all the binding of the roots, transportation and excavation, he exclaims “$1500.⁰⁰ seems a bit high to me”. The salesman then replies to his client, “Well, I could sell you the shadow for $25.⁰⁰”. So the moral to the story is: Would we settle for the shadow, or would we rather have the real thing?

But for what reason did Paul finally proclaim that he came not to baptize but rather preach the Gospel? If one will check verses 11 through 16 just before 1 Cor. 1:17, one will find that at Corinth there started to be division among the ekklesia regarding whom was baptized by whom. It was breaking up into splinter groups, and Paul had no choice but to take drastic action. Had he not taken the bull by the horns from the start, chances are we would not have 1st and 2nd Corinthians in our Bibles today! Water baptism still divides assemblies!

The same attitude prevails today as it did in Corinth at 1 Cor. ch. 1. Water baptism gives leverage for a preacher to become a tyrant or dictator among his members. Members will boast that they were baptized by a certain pastor, and if one was not baptized by that particular god-man, it wasn’t done right and is null and void. Church history is replete with arguments of just who can be baptized, or how water baptism should take place. There are the forward dunk advocates and the backward dunk advocates. There must be at least a thousand ideas concerning what some consider proper. Paul, seeing the folly of it all, pronounced it nonessential, as it had become a hindrance.

Paul said at 1 Cor. 1:14-15: “¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; ¹⁵ Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” After this, it is never recorded that Paul ever baptized again with water, showing the superiority of preaching, (the washing of the water by the Word, (oral or written))!

This is my one hundred and sixteenth monthly teaching letter and continues my tenth year of publication. In this letter, William Finck shall demonstrate how statements of Paul’s, such as those found at Acts 13:10; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; and 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:3 and 14, fit into the context of the third chapter of Genesis, as well as other Scripture, such as Rev. 2:9; 3:9 and 12:7-9. Especially interesting is the comment “... we would have come to you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us”, at 1 Thess. 2:18. Here “Satan” could only refer to the bad-fig-jews who prevented Paul from preaching in Thessalonica, as described in Acts chapter 17. It surely is strange, after checking these passages, how some can ignorantly claim that there is no Satan, or that Satan does not have children. It would have been criminal on the part of Paul to have referred to the bad-fig-jews as Satan if it were not true. And the only way they can be recognized as such is if they are literally the descendants of the “serpent”. The reason that many don’t understand this is because it is hidden in the Hebrew idioms which use otherwise common words such as “eat”, “touch”, “tree” etc. Actually the “tree of life” is an idiom for Yahshua Christ both in Genesis and Revelation. Therefore, to demand that the “tree of life” is nothing more than a wooden tree borders on blasphemy. (More on this with Finck below):

SHEMITIC IDIOMS AND GENESIS CHAPTER THREE, by William Finck (© 2007): The Bible, a collection of very ancient books written in languages which have not been spoken in their original forms for many, many centuries, contains many enigmas for the average reader of modern times. This is especially true since many parts of the Bible – and it is the Old Testament being discussed here as well as the New – were written in parables and in the poetic language of prophetic vision. While it is certainly a sound practice to interpret Scripture in the context of Scripture, with the idea in mind that the Word of Yahweh our God clarifies and explains itself, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or 72 for the Catholics, or even 80 for the original King James Version compilers of 1611, are not by themselves a complete revelation of the history of White Man (Adam-kind). Neither should one be so arrogant as to believe that these books which we now have were the only inspired Scriptures transmitted in antiquity: for not all of the books excluded from canon by early churchmen deserved such a fate, and not all of the books of antiquity survived until the Christian era. Neither can these books be completely understood all by themselves in any language, because of their incomplete state and the antiquity of the languages they were written in. Yet with sound, thorough studies in history and archaeology, many facets of the Bible are much better understood. Not only the historical books of the Bible, but the utterances of the prophets also come to life with studies in these fields, and the certainty of the Word of Yahweh our God is surely made manifest. Furthermore, with studies of the ancient languages which the Bible was first written in, a surer understanding of that Word is acquired. Yet unless one looks outside of the Bible, to other ancient writings produced by kindred cultures during the Biblical age, a proper understanding of many of the metaphors and idioms of Biblical languages shall never be acquired, and the intended meaning of many Biblical passages shall forever remain concealed. Here we shall look at part of an ancient Mesopotamian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that it helps us understand certain obscure, oftdebated passages found in the third chapter of Genesis.

The version of The Epic of Gilgamesh cited here, and some of the information concerning the poem, is from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (hereinafter ANET), edited by James B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 72-99. Here an Akkadian version of the poem is found, which was based upon a much older Sumerian version, and most of the Akkadian tablets containing the epic were uncovered by archaeologists who excavated the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. The Assyrians were Shemites, cousins of the Israelites, who had descended from that Asshur mentioned at Gen. 10:22. Their language, Akkadian, was the lingua franca (the language of commerce and diplomacy) throughout the ancient world for a thousand years up to the Persian period, where after the sixth century B.C. it was eclipsed by Aramaic. Other fragments of this Akkadian version of the epic have been found elsewhere, some of which are dated to the first half of the second millennium B.C., and it is clearly evident that the poem existed in Akkadian even before Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The poem is known to have existed in Sumerian even before the time of Abraham. It is in Sumer, in the Chaldaean city of Ur, where Abraham is first introduced to us in Scripture (Gen. 11:27 ff.).

The creation of epic poetry as a method of communicating myth and history was a pastime of Adamic cultures throughout ancient times. Unknown to many, the Exodus account as it was written in Hebrew was originally an epic poem, and there are other shorter examples of the genre in Scripture. Reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, the poem surely seems to set the precedent for the later Greek epics about Odysseus, Heracles and Jason: for they are all tales of mighty men performing heroic deeds coupled with long travels to strange places. The character Gilgamesh, like so many early Greek heroes, was said to have been formed by the gods, and to be himself two-thirds god and one-third human (ANET, p.73). If this brings Genesis chapter 6 to mind, it is surely not an accident. Gilgamesh is also mentioned several times in the Book of Giants found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, for which see the scrolls designated 4Q530 and 4Q531. The Book of Giants is an elaboration of the Genesis 6 account associated with the “apocryphal” Enoch literature, a collection of ancient Hebrew stories and prophecies which should not be ignored by serious Bible scholars. If nothing else, this certainly shows us that the Hebrews of Biblical times did not exist in a vacuum: that elements of literary tradition, myth, culture and language were indeed shared with their kindred, neighboring nations.

In this Akkadian epic, Gilgamesh is a mighty man “endowed with super-human size” (ANET, p. 73), who rules as king over the Mesopotamian city Uruk, which is the Erech mentioned at Gen. 10:10 in the Bible. Gilgamesh is portrayed as a greedy, rapacious character, and a harsh ruler who cannot be challenged, having neither rival nor equal. Therefore the people of the land appealed to the god Anu for assistance. With this, the goddess Aruru is beckoned to create another mighty giant, and she complies, creating Enkidu to be a rival to Gilgamesh. Enkidu, created in the wilderness of the steppe, out of the way of civilization and any contact with humans, becomes a great friend and protector of wildlife: a sort of Tarzan-cum-Dr. Doolittle of the ancient world. Soon Enkidu puts animal hunters and trappers in fear, protecting the animals from them and putting them out of their means of living. Seeking relief, a hunter then goes to Uruk, and appeals to Gilgamesh to lend assistance against the mighty savage Enkidu (ANET, pp. 73-74).

Rather than leave the city to confront Enkidu, Gilgamesh advises the hunter to subdue the savage giant by quite another method. From Tablet I, part iii, lines 40-45 of the epic (ANET, p. 75):

“Go, my hunter, take with thee a harlot-lass.

When he waters the beasts at the watering-place,

She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness.

As soon as he sees her, he will draw near to her.

Reject him will his beasts that grew up on his steppe!”

The hunter does as Gilgamesh instructs him to do, and by carrying out the plot he is quite successful. From part iv, lines 16-39 of the same tablet (ANET, p.75):

“The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,

And he possessed her ripeness.

She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor.

She laid aside her cloth and he rested upon her.

She treated him, the savage, to a woman’s task,

As his love was drawn unto her.

For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth,

Mating with the lass.

After he had (his) fill of her charms,

He set his face toward his wild beasts.

On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off,

The wild beasts of the steppe drew away from his body.

Startled was Enkidu, as his body became taut,

His knees were motionless – for his wild beasts had gone.

Enkidu had to slacken his pace – it was not as before;

But now he had [wi]sdom, [br]oader understanding.

Returning, he sits at the feet of the harlot.

He looks up at the face of the harlot,

His ears attentive, as the harlot speaks;

[The harlot] says to him, to Enkidu:

‘Thou art [wi]se, Enkidu, art become like a god!

Why with the wild creatures dost thou roam over the

steppe?

Come, let me lead thee [to] ramparted Uruk,

To the holy temple, abode of Anu and Ishtar,

Where lives Gilgamesh, accomplished in strength,

And like a wild ox lords it over the folk.’”

Enkidu then goes on to confront and challenge Gilgamesh but loses the struggle, after which he instead becomes his close companion and fellow adventurer in later exploits.

Notice in the pericope supplied above that lines 29 and 34 (of the original) have been emphasized with bold type (which is not in the original). In ANET, on p. 75, a footnote at line 29 reads: “The general parallel to Gen. 3:7 is highly suggestive.” This parallel is, in fact, more than merely “highly suggestive”, and there is no similar note in ANET for line 34, which is certainly comparable to Gen. 3:5.

Now indeed, to the rational mind, it should be perfectly evident that the ancient Assyrians reading The Epic of Gilgamesh related one’s sexual awakening with the attainment of wisdom and understanding (line 29 above, cf. Gen. 3:6-7), and that by attaining such understanding, one was perceived as becoming like a god (line 34 above, cf. Gen. 3:5). For Enkidu surely had no knowledge of sex before meeting the harlot, and it cannot be assumed that Eve had any knowledge of sex before meeting the serpent. This Akkadian story was being copied and recited during the very time when Moses was writing the Pentateuch, and therefore the idioms of the language are clearly contemporary with Moses, and were used by a kindred people speaking a closely related Shemitic dialect!

Is the Genesis chapter 3 account also about sexual seduction and awakening? Of course it is, and so “... the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). At “aprons”, a footnote in The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, ©1988, says “girding coverings”. Adam and Eve, ashamed of themselves after their sexual awakening, attempted to conceal their nudity by covering their bodies, specifically their loins – as that type of garment alone is sufficient enough to inform us – thereby hiding the “scene of the crime”, and the source of their feelings of guilt! Note that Adam and Eve were naked before their seduction, “and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). The Genesis chapter 3 account is all about sexual seduction, written in a parable containing ancient Shemitic idioms, which the Shemitic Epic of Gilgamesh certainly helps us to understand. Now the next questions to be answered must be: Who is the serpent? Or did Adam and Eve have sex with a snake? Or a tree?

The “serpent” is introduced to us at Genesis 3:1: “Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made ...” Many scoffers assert that this statement somehow proves that the serpent was part of the original creation (Gen. 1:20-25; 2:19-20), and must be a literal snake. Yet this statement is merely comparing the serpent to the beasts of that original creation. Examine a similar statement: “Now the Jaguar was more luxurious than any automobile Chevrolet had made.” The Jaguar is, of course, not manufactured by Chevrolet. One may protest that Yahweh God had created all things, as Scripture reminds us in so many places, and of course it is true that He did. Yet while the Genesis 3 serpent may have been created by Yahweh, or it may have been a corruption of Yahweh’s original creation – which we witness men doing today in many places – it was not necessarily a part of the original creation here on earth, described in the first two chapters of Genesis.

The Genesis account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book is neither a technically scientific nor a historically complete record. Rather, it is a prophetic vision of the stages of creation given from an earth-bound perspective. For that reason it is quite geocentric, and the sun, moon and stars are described as mere lights in the sky, when now through scientific observation we know with certainty that they are much more than that. The “days” of Genesis chapter 1 are better understood to be “ages”, a meaning which the original Hebrew word used there surely bears. As our own science tells us, the planet is certainly much older than 6000 or so years. Once these Genesis chapters are properly understood, it is realized that there is no conflict between the Bible and science (true science, not evolution, which is in fact a godless religion). The earth is surely many ages, or millions – even billions – of years old, and many things happened here before the beginning of history as it is recorded by our White Adamic race. The fossil and geological records offer much proof of this, in spite of the insane objections presented by evangelical fundamentalists.

With all of this being said, the foundation is now laid for an understanding of the origin of the serpent, with the idea in mind that, once the language is understood, the Word of Yahweh our God clarifies and explains itself. At Rev. 12:7-9 we find: “⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ⁹ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” At Rev. 20:2, in another prophecy, we again see “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan”, where it is certainly evident that the “serpent” is an enduring entity, and not just some snake in the grass. These are “the angels which kept not their first estate” described by the apostle Jude in his epistle (v. 6). We also find at Luke 10:18, that Yahshua Christ exclaims: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and here this Satan is again associated with “serpents and scorpions” – surely figurative human “serpents” and figurative human “scorpions” – in the accompanying remarks at 10:19. Bear in mind that Yahshua Christ, being one with the Father from the beginning (i.e. John 1:1-5, 14), surely witnessed the things which happened before He was born on earth as a man. So it is evident that the serpent – and the phrase “that old serpent” surely must refer to the serpent of Genesis – is one with Satan, the Devil, and other epithets given to him and his kindred throughout Scripture. The “serpent” of Genesis 3 is a member of that race of angels which revolted from Yahweh God, and were cast out into the earth, as described in Revelation chapter 12. We are not told when this happened, but can only imagine that it happened some time before Adam, but during the latter ages of creation. The fossil record shows that there were many races of humans here before Adam, the first Aryan White man, such as Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, etc., any one of which may have been of that race of angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear as men, and are often even indistinguishable from men (i.e. Gen 18:1-33; 19:1-14).

If the serpent was a man (though not an Adamic man), what is the “tree which is in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 3:3) which Adam and Eve ate from in the temptation? Genesis 2:9 says: “And out of the ground made Yahweh God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” do not grow out of the ground, nor are they good for food, but they are “in the midst of the garden”. Genesis chapter 2 is not an historic record. Rather, it is a prophetic vision representing past events, written in the form of a parable. The “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” are not literal, but figurative trees. Literal trees have knowledge only in fairy tales and in Hollywood.

In Proverbs, at 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; and 15:4, the phrase “tree of life” appears as an idiom, where it indeed seems to signify a means of sustenance or a way of salvation or preservation. At Gen. 3:22 it is seen that Adam must “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”, thereby recovering from his fall into disgrace. At Rev. 22:14 we find the “tree of life” mentioned again, and it is reserved for those who shall be permitted entry into the new Jerusalem, the city which descends from heaven. In John 15:1-7 Yahshua Christ tells us that He is the “true vine”, and He explains that those who abide in Him are the branches. In John 6:31-51 Yahshua explains that He is the “bread of life”, and that those who eat such bread shall live forever. The only viable conclusion is that Yahshua Christ is the figurative tree of life, and that those descendants of Adam who abide in and keep the ways of Yahshua are given to remain a part of that figurative tree, thereby bringing forth righteous fruit (John 15:5-8). The purpose of fruit is to produce more trees of the same kind! Even today, families are seen as “trees”, and as they grow (or “branch out”) their various elements are called “roots”, “stems”, “branches”, etc. Obeying the Biblical commandments to remain a separate people, and not to commit fornication (race-mixing), “righteous fruit” can only be pureblooded, Adamic offspring of the children of Israel! strong. At Gen. 3:22 it is seen that Adam must “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”, thereby recovering from his fall into disgrace. At Rev. 22:14 we find the “tree of life” mentioned again, and it is reserved for those who shall be permitted entry into the new Jerusalem, the city which descends from heaven. In John 15:1-7 Yahshua Christ tells us that He is the “true vine”, and He explains that those who abide in Him are the branches. In John 6:31-51 Yahshua explains that He is the “bread of life”, and that those who eat such bread shall live forever. The only viable conclusion is that Yahshua Christ is the figurative tree of life, and that those descendants of Adam who abide in and keep the ways of Yahshua are given to remain a part of that figurative tree, thereby bringing forth righteous fruit (John 15:5-8). The purpose of fruit is to produce more trees of the same kind! Even today, families are seen as “trees”, and as they grow (or “branch out”) their various elements are called “roots”, “stems”, “branches”, etc. Obeying the Biblical commandments to remain a separate people, and not to commit fornication (race-mixing), “righteous fruit” can only be pureblooded, Adamic offspring of the children of Israel!

The “tree of life” being a figurative tree, it only makes sense that the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is also a figurative tree. Men are often portrayed as trees in the Bible, for instance in Ezekiel chapter 31, and at Matt. 3:10; 7:17-19; 12:33; and Luke 3:9 and 6:43-44. If the children of Yahweh can be branches upon the “true vine”, the tree of life, then those angels who rebelled against Yahweh and who were cast out into the earth, or their descendants, can surely be the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which Adam and Eve ate from. That the act of eating can be an idiom for sexual relations, see Proverbs 9:17 and 30:20. Also notice in the pericopes from Gilgamesh supplied above that the harlot was twice described with a noun usually used to describe fruit: “ripeness”.

Verification for this interpretation is found in the parable of the wheat and the tares and its explanation, in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew. From Matt. 13:24-25: “²⁴... The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: ²⁵ But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” And from Matt. 13:37-39: “³⁷... He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; ³⁸ The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; ³⁹ The enemy that sowed them is the devil ...”. When could Satan – the Adversary – have sowed tares in among the wheat? Genesis chapter 3 is not a historical record. Rather, it is a parable representing events which occurred early in the history of the Adamic race. By seducing Eve, the enemies of Yahweh were able to sow tares among the wheat. There have been many other women – and men – like Eve down to this very day. After the seduction of Eve, she was warned that “... in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ...” (Gen. 3:16), a natural result of her sexual foray, and “... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (ibid.), in spite of her incontinence and desire for the “fruit” which the serpent offered her (Gen. 3:6). Genesis chapter 3 is indeed a parable about sexual seduction, and an understanding of Shemitic idioms as they appear elsewhere in the Bible, and also in contemporary writings such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, surely helps us to comprehend as much. Another result of Eve’s seduction was that her “seed”, or offspring, would have perpetual enmity with the “seed”, or offspring, of the serpent, who are also the Adversary, or Satan (Gen. 3:15). Once these two parties, or groups of people or races, are properly identified, it is wholly evident that there has indeed been perpetual enmity between them. This enmity has manifested itself at many intervals throughout history and is recorded not only in the Old and New Testaments, but in the annals of history down to this very day.

As it stands in Hebrew, Genesis 4:1 is a demonstrably corrupt verse, and so it cannot be relied upon as a Scriptural authority. Scholarly sources have attested that the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1 is corrupted, and so it can hardly be properly translated. See, for example, The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 517. Cain was certainly not the son of Adam, and this can be discerned in several other places. First, the genealogies provided at Gen. 4:16-24 and 5:1 ff. do not associate Cain with Adam. Secondly, statements found in the New Testament show that Cain was the son of the serpent, the devil, or Satan, such as those found at Luke 11:46-51; John 8:31-47; and 1 John 3:12. 1 John 3:12 plainly states that Cain was “of that wicked one”, although there is no Biblical evidence that Cain ever spoke to the “serpent”, who was in reality his natural father – as the Aramaic targums state in their versions of Genesis 4:1. Note that there is no word for “half-brother” in Hebrew or Greek, and the term never appears in the Bible, although many half-brothers and half-sisters appear elsewhere in Scripture.

John 8:44 states that certain Judaeans were of their father the devil. These Judaeans claimed to be Abraham’s seed, but denied ever being in bondage (8:33). In Romans 9:1-13, Paul explained that not all Judaeans were Israelites: some descended from Jacob, and some from Esau. The Edomites, the descendants of Esau, could indeed claim to be Abraham’s seed. And the Edomites were never in bondage, while the Israelites had been in bondage in Egypt, and later in Assyria and Babylon. The Edomites had become a part of the kingdom of Judaea and converted to Judaism about 130 years before the birth of Christ. This event is mentioned by the Greek geographer Strabo, writing circa 25 A.D., and explained in detail by the Judaean historian, Flavius Josephus, writing circa 70 A.D. Because Esau married Canaanite women (Genesis 36), and the Canaanites had previously intermixed with the Kenites, who were the descendants of Cain (see Strong’s #’s 7014 & 7017), along with the Rephaim, who were descendants from the “giants” of the Genesis 6 account, and with several other non-Adamic peoples (i.e. Genesis 15:19-21), the descendants of Esau were also descendants of Cain. Because we are told that those who belong to Yahshua Christ hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), it can be safely inferred that the disbelieving Judaeans who contended with Him were not Israelites, but were Edomites, and Yahshua told them that they were not His sheep, which is why they did not believe Him (John 10:26). These are those who claimed to be Judaeans, but were truly of the synagogue (assembly) of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), along with their lineal descendants today.

Seeing that the disbelieving Judaeans were descended from Cain – and so ultimately from the serpent (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12; Matt. 13:39) – it is then understandable how Yahshua could hold them responsible for the blood of all the prophets beginning with Abel, whom Cain slew, as recorded at Luke 11:47-51. It would have been criminal on the part of Christ to have made such a charge had it not been literally true. The Greek word which the A.V. renders “generation” in this passage is properly and much more appropriately translated “race”, speaking of fathers and sons both near and remote. Both Kenites (i.e. 1 Chron. 2:55) and Canaanites (i.e. the descendants of Judah’s son Shelah, Gen. 38:1-5; 1 Chron. 4:21-23) also infiltrated ancient Israel – and especially the tribe of Judah – in the earliest times, perpetrating much evil. One recorded example of a descendant of Cain slaying the priests of Yahweh is found in the story of Saul and the murderous Doeg the Edomite, at 1 Sam. 21:7; 22:6-19. It is those disbelieving Judaeans, the Edomites and other Kenites and Canaanites who long ago adopted Judaism, who caused all the trouble for the followers of Christ in the early centuries of the Christian era, and who are at it again today, with the support of derelict clergymen and ignorant, dishonest politicians.

After the return to Jerusalem from Babylon in the late 6th century B.C., the original Hebrew dialect fell into disuse among the Judaeans in favor of the closely related Aramaic, which was the common language of trade and diplomacy throughout the Persian Empire at that time. Therefore, in order for people to properly understand the Scriptures at sabbath services, religious leaders had to translate them from the Hebrew into Aramaic. That this practice was indeed extant can be determined in the text of Neh. 8:7-8, where it is described. Although Greek became widely known and commonly used throughout the east after the 4th century B.C., supplanting Aramaic as the lingua franca of the region, Aramaic continued to be spoken locally by many of the native peoples. It is actually Aramaic which is called “Hebrew” in the New Testament. While it is certain that many quotes from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament were taken directly from the Septuagint (which is the Greek translation of Scripture), it is just as certain that Aramaic translations of Scripture were also in use at the time in which the gospels were written. Ephesians 4:8 is one quote from the Old Testament which agrees with an Aramaic version of Scripture, but with neither the Masoretic nor Septuagint texts. Without the Aramaic targums, one may be inadvertently led to believe that Paul had misquoted Scripture at Eph. 4:8!

The Aramaic targum called pseudo-Jonathan says at Gen. 4:1: “And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the Lord’.” Another, the Palestinian Targum, says it differently: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...”. While it is evident that neither of these targums may perfectly represent whatever it was that the original text of Genesis 4:1 may have said, it is also evident that something is missing from the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1 which we have today, and subsequently from the Greek translation of it found in the Septuagint. It is further evident that early Aramaic interpretations of Scripture attempted to compensate for what they believed was missing from Genesis 4:1. Surely it is obvious that those who wrote the targums didn’t see a snake and apple story in the text of Genesis 3! Aside from the Aramaic targums and the passages from the New Testament discussed above, other “apocryphal” Hebrew writings support the assertion that the Genesis 3 account represents sexual seduction, such as 4 Maccabees 18:7-8 and the Protoevangelion chapter 10, among others. These writings do not have their source in the Talmud of Judaism. Rather, like most of the Hebrew Scriptures, they were later taken in, expounded upon, and perverted by the Talmudists.

A proper understanding of Genesis chapter 3 is of great importance in acquiring a proper understanding of not only all the rest of the Bible, but of history also. In the context of the Bible, childish tales about snakes and apples are outright deceptions, and are the very reason why the White Adamic race is in such trouble today. For at this very moment, the jews, arabs and their kin are leading the world down a path of destruction. These people are indeed descended from the ancient Canaanites, Edomites, Kenites and related tribes, and so they are the descendants of the serpent, the devil, the Satan of Genesis 3 and Revelation 12, “which deceiveth the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). They ARE the antichrist (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7)! They are currently gathering with others of the heathen nations for battle, hoping to finally destroy the White Adamic race, the remnant which are indeed, for the most part, the true descendants of the Old Testament children of Israel (cf. Rev. 16:13-16; 20:7-9; Ezek. 38:1-39:29). Those who insist upon promoting snake and apple stories are themselves among the number of the deceivers.

From the A.V., Rev. 20:1-3 reads thusly: “¹ And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. ² And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, ³ And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” And Rev. 20:7-8: “⁷ And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, ⁸ And shall go out to deceive the nations ...”. There are several periods with which this thousand years has been identified. One is from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to the admission of the jews into Britain after the Norman conquest of 1066. One more likely is from the time that the jews began to be publicly excoriated and separated from Society. This began under the emperor Constantinus, a son of Constantine “the Great”, who ruled in the 4th century, and lasted until the feudal system was replaced with jewish capitalism in the 15th century. It is jewish capitalism which has been the power behind all of our wars of the past few centuries, and is the power behind globalism, multiculturalism, and the dangers we face today. There are no ghosts or goblins who have the world deceived today, and neither can a single man survive a thousand years and do such things. However a race of people certainly can do as much, and indeed they have! W.R.F.

Here William Finck has shown the importance of understanding Hebrew idioms. Without having such a perception, one will inevitably literalize the idiomatic (“an expression peculiar to a language, not readily understandable from its grammatical construction or from the meaning of its component parts ...”, The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary). Look “idiom” up in your own dictionary!