This is my one hundred twenty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. With this lesson, I’m going to demonstrate that Paul understood and taught the Two Seedline message. For documentation on this fact, I’ll cite Romans 16:20 where Paul wrote: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Master Yahshua Christ be with you ...”

Whether Paul received this in one of his revelations from Yahshua or understood it from the book of Daniel is uncertain. Whatever the case, Paul didn’t live quite long enough to see this prophecy fulfilled. Actually Paul was not the first to make this prediction. If Paul understood this from the book of Daniel it would have been Dan. 9:25-26: “²⁵ Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. ²⁶ And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

This passage is somewhat confusing inasmuch as most of it is speaking 400 plus years in Daniel’s future, while the remark “... the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times ...” is a short range prophecy. For our purpose here, we can overlook this remark for the time being. In these two verses we have mention of two different princes. Rightly so, the translators have capitalized the “Prince” in verse 25, while in verse 26 the “prince” is not capitalized. So we know that the Prince at verse 25 is no other than Yahshua the Messiah while the prince at verse 26 is someone else. Therefore it is speaking of two different princes rather than just one! Though the term “prince” has many variations of meaning, the princes spoken of in these passages are both non-reigning male members of a royal family. Not only that, but both of these princes represent princes in the royal family of the patriarch Judah!

Because Adam Clarke was a humble man and worked hard to master several languages, he has a better than average comment on Dan. 9:26, although he had many blind spots in other areas:

“Verse 26. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary] By the ‘prince’ Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and ‘the people of that prince’ are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, חקדש hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war.”

With this passage we now have a tie-in with Romans 16:20. As I have pointed out in my Scarlet-Thread series, the Romans were by-and-large of the tribe of Zerah-Judah. Also, while addressing Romans 16:20, my KJV center-reference takes me to Gen. 3:15 where it speaks of the “seed (children) of the serpent”. This KJV center reference system I am referring to was developed through the combined study of many contributing scholars and theologians. Most of the older Bibles have this same proper center reference system. I have a KJV published by The World Publishing Company during the mid-50’s which has this proper center reference system. I checked a World Bible recently at a Christian book store, and it had been changed from the one which I have. I also have a large Southwestern Bible which has the correct center reference system. I understand some of the Bibles printed by Dove Inc., Nashville, TN have the correct center reference also. Today you can purchase a KJV Zondervan Classic Reference Bible with the correct center reference system.

If you already have a KJV with a center-reference, you can check the following passages to see if you have the correct one: See (1) if Rev. 12:9 takes you to Gen. 3:1, 4; Rev. 20:2; Rev. 20:3; Rev. 9:1, (2) if Gen. 3:1 takes you to Rev. 12:9; 2 Cor. 11:3 or (3) if Jude 6 takes you to John 8:44; 2 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 20:10. If you find these center-references in your present KJV, chances are you have the correct center-reference system. Beware, though, of Nelson, Universal or Scofield. Some Bible center-references aren’t worth the powder to blow them up! It is interesting that the center-reference in the Scofield edition on Romans 16:20 will take you to Gen. 3:1 rather than Gen. 3:15. This is deceptive, as at Gen. 3:1 it speaks of the serpent (Satan) alone, but at Gen. 3:15 it speaks of the serpent (Satan) having children (descendants). In other words, devils walking around in shoeleather to bump elbows with.

If one wishes an even greater number of crossreferences, one can purchase the book The New Treasury Of Scripture Knowledge edited by Jerome H. Smith, and one will have a gold-mine of crossreferences at hand. I have found that about 90% of the crossreferences in this book are pertinent to the subject I have chosen when doing Biblical research. I have this book both in book form and in electronic data in the Libronix Digital Library on my computer. In the electronic data form, all one need do is place the cursor on a reference and the verse will automatically readout on the screen, saving a lot of time and effort looking up each one of the references up in a Bible. For instance, one will become amazed at how many times, Paul in his epistles, quotes passages from the Old Testament! It should be noted that The New Treasury Of Scripture Knowledge at Romans 16:20 also takes one to Gen. 3:15, so the “Satan” at Rom. 16:20 can be none other than the serpent’s seedline from Gen. 3:15! At this passage, Satan was to be “bruised”, therefore we need to know the definition of the Greek word #4937. From the electronic Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon we read:

“4937 συντρίβω [suntribo /soon·tree·bo/] verb. From 4862 and the base of 5147; ... Eight occurrences; AV translates as ‘bruise’ three times, ‘break’ twice, ‘broken to shivers’ once, ‘brokenhearted + 2588’ once, and ‘break in pieces’ once. 1 break, to break in pieces, shiver. 2 to tread down. 2a to put Satan under foot and (as a conqueror) trample on him. 2b to break down, crush. 2b1 to tear one’s body and shatter one’s strength.”

One can see from this that this was to be a literal physical bruising, not something merely “mental” or “spiritual” as some assert! Since the Canaanites claiming to be Judahites were responsible for Christ’s death by crucifixion, they too would receive death by crucifixion at the hand of the avenger of blood. To understand the Biblical principal behind the “avenger of blood”, I will quote from Insight On The Scriptures, vol. #1, pages 221-222:

“AVENGER OF BLOOD. In Hebrew this expression is go-’el´ had-dam´. The Hebrew word go-’el´ (which has been applied to a blood avenger) is a participle of ga-’al´, meaning ‘recover; reclaim; buy back; repurchase; redeem.’ (Exod. 15:13; Ps. 69:18; Lev. 25:25; Isa. 43:1; Jer. 31:11). In Hebrew law the term applied to the nearest male relative, who was under obligation to avenge the blood of one who had been killed (Num. 35:19). The term go-’el´ also designated a kinsman with the right to repurchase (or redeem). – Lev. 25:48, 49; Ruth 2:20 ...

“The avenging of blood is based on the mandate regarding the sanctity of blood and human life stated to Noah wherein Jehovah [sic Yahweh] said: ‘Your blood of your souls shall I ask back ... from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man’ (Gen. 9:5, 6). A deliberate murderer was to be put to death by ‘the avenger of blood,’ and no ransom was to be accepted for such a murderer. – Num. 35:19-21, 31.

“Jehovah [sic Yahweh] will see to it that the innocent blood of all his faithful servants is avenged in due time. – Deut. 32:43; Rev. 6:9-11.

“Jehovah’s [sic Yahweh’s] just laws made a clear distinction between willful and accidental killing. For the latter, cities of refuge were lovingly provided for the protection of accidental manslayers from avengers of blood (Num. 35:6-29; Deut. 19:2-13; Jos. 20:2-9). Also, legal courts were established to hear cases involving questions of bloodguilt. – Deut. 17:8, 9; 2 Chron. 19:10.”

What one must not overlook is the fact that, upon the death of Yahshua Christ, there was of necessity a next-of-kin to become the avenger of blood for Him! Normally the avenger of blood would have fallen upon Pharez-Judah (Christ’s closest next-of-kin), but they were all scattered abroad after their captivity in Assyria. That left only Zerah-Judah to become the avenger-of-blood, and the Romans were by-and-large of Zerah-Judah. Although Zerah-Judah were not aware that it was their duty to do so, by the Providence of Yahweh it fell to them. Josephus, in his Wars V xi, describes the bruising of Satan:

“HOW THE JEWS WERE CRUCIFIED BEFORE THE WALLS OF THE CITY. CONCERNING ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES; AND HOW THE JEWS OVERTHREW THE BANKS THAT HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ROMANS.

“1. So now Titus’s banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving relations to be slain by the robbers on their account: nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves, for fear of being punished; as, after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews [sic Canaanite-jews]; nay, some days they caught more; yet did it not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way; and to set a guard over so many, he saw would be to make such as guarded them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest; when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.”

A footnote on this passage states: “Reland notices here justly this judgment came upon the Jews, since they had brought it on themselves by the crucifixion of ... Messiah.” And I wholeheartedly agree with Reland!

Josephus tells us, in the wars which ended in the taking of Jerusalem, by famine and the sword, there perished 1,100,000 “Jews”, and 97,000 were carried into captivity, Josephus’ Wars 6:9:3:

“3. Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the citizens of Jerusalem], but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the very first, occasioned so great a traitness among them that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine, as destroyed them more suddenly. And that this city could contain so many people in it is manifest by that number of them which was taken under Cestius, who being desirous of informing Nero of the power of the city, who otherwise was disposed to contemn that nation, entreated the high priests, if the thing were possible, to take the number of their whole multitude. So these high priests, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company, found the number of sacrifices was two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred; which, upon the allowance of no more than ten that feast together, amounts to two million seven hundred thousand and two hundred persons that were pure and holy; for as to those that have the leprosy, or the gonorrhea, or women that have their monthly courses, or such as are otherwise polluted, it is not lawful for them to be partakers of this sacrifice; nor indeed for any foreigners either, who come hither to worship.”

Now I know that this is not the present-day interpretation of Romans 16:20. It is generally thought today that the Romans were “Gentiles” in a heathen sense, and that the Canaanite-Edomite-jews are “God’s chosen people”, which cannot be farther from the truth! Neither Paul, Peter, nor any of the apostles ever used the word gentile. Gentile was never used in any of the books of the Bible until they were translated into the Latin, and the definition of the Latin word gentilis didn’t have the meaning of “non-jew” when ethnos or ethnê was translated from Greek to Latin. At that time gentilis simply meant “of the same clan or race”! It was translated from the Greek ethnos or ethnê, usually meaning nation or nations. Only in a few minor cases does the context of ethnos or ethnê mean heathen. Simply put, the Roman empire was an Israel nation of Zerah-Judah, made up of ten provinces. That doesn’t mean that everyone who lived within Rome’s boundaries were of Zerah-Judah, but they were the dominant part of its population. And like Pharez-Judah was famous for its ability to fight, so too were the Romans of Zerah-Judah! The important thing to understand is that when Paul ministered to the Romans, he was ministering to an Israel nation! Once one comes to understand all of this, one will have an entirely different perspective on Rom. 9:1-8!

Paul, at Rom. 16:20, was not the first to prophesy that Jerusalem would be destroyed, hence this is simply a renewal of Old Testament prophecies. The baseless doctrines which have been concocted with the 24th chapter of Matthew are simply amazing. These fanciful reasonings result from failure to establish doctrines based upon the whole Word! Our objective here, once we have exhaustively examined this subject, is to never again have any misgivings concerning these and related Scriptures. The premise for the 24th chapter of Matthew is laid in the passages as follows:

Jeremiah 26:18: “Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.” (Covered with trees instead of houses.)

Micah 3:12: “Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.”

To show the significance of all of this, we need to do a thorough investigation on the subject. Before we get started though, we need to take under advisement three different views of prophecy: (1) Futurists, who project all prophecy into the future, (2) Praeterists, who claim all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 A.D., and, (3) Historicists, who see prophecy as a continuing unfolding historic panorama. Upon the first Bibles being circulated during the Reformation, the Roman Church was seen as anti-Christ. Upon the growing opposition, one Jesuit priest projected prophecy forward and another Jesuit priest projected it into the past. The “Futurists” hold that the last week of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy was never fulfilled; they chop it off from the other 69 weeks and propel the last week 2000 years into the future when they predict (1) a “rapture”, and then, (2) either a three and a half or seven year period of tribulation representing Daniel’s 70th week. We need to know all this because these various opinions affect the interpretations of Matthew 24 and other related passages.

For instance, Matthew 24:2 states: “And Yahshua said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

These are probably the last words spoken as He left the Temple. This part of Yahshua’s prediction was fulfilled in a most literal manner. Josephus says, Wars 7:1:1, “Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the whole city and temple, except the three towers, Phaselus, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and a part of the western wall, and these were spared; but, for all the rest of the wall, it was laid so completely even with the ground, by those who dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.”

Hence, so utterly destroyed was the Temple, Titus, the Roman emperor, taking Jerusalem (about forty years after Christ’s words at Matt. 24:2), commanded his soldiers to spare the Temple when they entered the city, but they in their rage burnt of it what was of a combustible nature; and Turnus Rufus, left general of his army when away, drew a plough over it, as Yahweh had said, Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 3:12, as quoted above, “Zion shall be ploughed like a field.” And when after this Alippius, by the command of Julian the apostate, attempted the rebuilding of it, with the help of the Canaanite-jews, it is reported by diverse sources, that balls or globes of fire rose up from the foundations, destroyed many of the workmen, and made the place inaccessible for any further such attempts. Titus tried unsuccessfully to save the Temple, but his soldiers put it to the torch, thus fulfilling Yahshua’s prophecy. When the fire melted the gold trim, the molten metal ran down between the stones. To get it, the soldiers had removed the stones one by one, just as our Messiah predicted. The judgment was executed in A.D. 70 when the Romans under Titus sacked Jerusalem. (To verify some of these gleaned comments from various sources, check The Treasury Of Scriptural Knowledge, edited by Jerome Smith on Jer. 26:18, p. 850, and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matt. 24:1-3, vol. 5, pp. 345-346.) According to John Lightfoot in his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica on Matt. 24:2, vol. 2, p. 309 indicates that Turnus Rufus is identical to “Terentius Rufus” of Josephus’ at Wars 7:2:1.

According to Josephus’ Wars 6:9:3, 1,100,000 bad-fig-jews perished, while 97,000 were carried into captivity. This was prophesied also at Isa. 65:15 which states: “And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for Yahweh God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name.” The center-reference in my KJV takes me to Acts 11:26 on this verse, which says: “... And it came to pass, that a whole year they gathered themselves with the assembly, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Here the “chosen” are the Christians rather than Canaanite-jews! Yahshua Himself prophesied about the Canaanite-jews thusly at Luke 21:23-24, where it states in part: “... for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations ...” This passage is not speaking of any true Israelites, for James 1:1 tells us that all twelve tribes of Israel had already been scattered abroad. Christ is speaking here of the half-breed Canaanite-Edomite-jews pretending to be Israelites, just as they do today!

There were, though, a smattering of true-blooded Israelites left in Judaea and Galilee, as evidenced at Luke 21:21: “Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.” There is a note attached to Luke 21:21 by The New Treasury Of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith which states: “21 flee. Accordingly, when Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem, and unexpectedly raised the siege, Josephus states, that many of the noble Jews [sic Judaeans] departed out of the city, as out of a sinking ship; and when Vespasian afterwards drew towards it, a great multitude fled to the mountains. And we learn from Eusebius, and Epiphanius, that at this juncture, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem, and removed to Pella, and other places beyond Jordan; and so escaped the general shipwreck of their country, that we do not read of one who perished in Jerusalem.”

From this it is evident that by-and-large most all that were left in Jerusalem were the bad-fig-Canaanite-Edomite-jews to be crushed under the feet of the Romans. Thus was fulfilled Paul’s prediction at Romans 16:20! But a few witnesses like Josephus were spared in order to witness that what had been predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament, Christ and Paul, had been fulfilled to the letter!

For more documentation on this phase of the story, we will turn to Eusebius’ The Church History translated by Paul L. Maier, pages 95-97:

“After Nero’s rule of thirteen years, that of Galba and Otho occupied a year and a half, and then Vespasian, who had distinguished himself in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed emperor while still in Judea, having been hailed as imperator by the armies there. He immediately set out forArial class= Rome, entrusting to his son Titus the war against the Jews.

“Now after our Savior’s ascension, the Jews followed their crime against him with numerous plots against the apostles. First they stoned Stephen to death. Next James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, was beheaded. And finally James, the first to be appointed Bishop of Jerusalem, died in the way described previously, while the other apostles were driven out of Judea by numerous deadly plots. But they traveled into every land, teaching their message in the power of Christ, who had told them, ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in my name’ [Matt. 28:19]. Meanwhile, before the war began, members of the Jerusalem church were ordered by an oracle given by revelation to those worthy of it to leave the city and settle in a city of Perea called Pella. Here they migrated from Jerusalem, as if, once holy men had deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judea, the judgment of God might finally fall on them for their crimes against Christ and his apostles, utterly blotting out all that wicked generation.

“Those who wish may trace precisely from Josephus’s history the disasters that overwhelmed the entire nation, especially how the residents of Judea were driven to the limits of suffering; how many thousands of men, women, and children died by the sword, famine, and countless other forms of death; how many famous Jewish cities endured horrors under siege; and in particular the terrors of those who fled for refuge to Jerusalem as an ‘impregnable fortress.’ They can study all the details of the entire war and how in the end the Abomination of Desolation, declared by the prophets, was set up in the very temple of God, celebrated of old, when it was utterly destroyed by fire. I must, however, point out how Josephus estimates that the people from all of Judea who at the time of the Passover thronged into Jerusalem, as if to a prison, numbered three million. It was indeed appropriate that in the very days on which they perpetrated the Savior’s passion they should be shut inside a prison, as it were, and receive the destruction meted out by divine justice ...”

Now Paul L. Maier doesn’t distinguish the difference between the good-fig-Judahites and the bad-fig-Canaanite-Edomite-jews. That very important detail is left to the reader to determine. The moral to the story is that the good-fig-Judahites fled to Pella and the Canaanite-jews stayed in Jerusalem, and as the apostle Paul stated it: “... the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly ...” Please take note here that Paul didn’t say that God would use His feet to bruise Satan, but use the feet of the Romans to bruise Satan. In other words the Roman soldier’s feet were God’s feet! The only way that the Roman soldier’s feet could be God’s feet is if the Roman people were under the covenants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

There are other prophecies in the Old Testament which also betoken this same incident. To show that, I will repeat a portion of my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #109 for May, 2007:

The futurists use Acts 1:9-12 and 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. 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 the 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.

Remember again that the Roman soldier’s feet were Christ’s feet. Christ had every right to use them to bruise the head of the serpent (His enemy), as they were of his brother’s tribe of Zerah. And the Romans, being near-of-kin, had every right – even an obligation – to be the avenger of blood for Christ, even if they were unaware that they were doing so. When I say “right” here, I mean Biblical right. So the action taken by the Romans against the Canaanite-jews at Jerusalem was administered right in line with Biblical law. I know that among the Roman hierarchy there was a lot left to be desired, but that is beside the point. A good example was Nero, who imagined himself as God.

Nero was born in Antium. His given and family names were Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, and his father Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, a nobleman. Agrippina the Younger was Nero’s mother, and the great-grand-daughter of Augustus Caesar. After Nero’s father died, he as a child was adopted by Claudius, who had married Nero’s mother, Agrippina. Claudius adopted Nero as his eldest son, naming him Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. Nero married Octavia, Claudius’ daughter by a previous marriage. Later Claudius died, some believing he was poisoned by Agrippina, so her son Nero could become emperor. Later Nero’s insanity came to the fore when he had Agrippina murdered. Nero then divorced Octavia and then had her killed, and then married the jewess Poppaea Sabina, whom he also had killed a few years later. Nero then took two male lovers, and treated one as his husband and the other as his wife. [Gleaned from The First Apostles & The Founding of the Churches in the West-France, Britain & Rome by John David McElhaney, Jr., p. 12.].

It should also be pointed out that it was Nero who was responsible for the decapitation of the apostle Paul’s head and throwing all of the known Christians, at his time, to be torn limb by limb, by the lions. It is apparent here that through his father and his mother, Nero had the blood of Zerah-Judah flowing through his veins. So it is evident that Nero was a disgrace to his heritage (the Trojans). Thus, it is now clear just how badly the Romans needed the Gospel, and it was Paul who was the instrument that took it to them! That is why we need to crown Yahshua Christ as our King, which is yet in the future!

This is my one hundred thirtieth monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. With this lesson, we’ll continue observing his life and ministry. We will pick up his story in the 9th chapter of Acts, which is an important turning point for the establishment of the Christian ekklesia. Paul never used the term “church”! Up until Acts 9, it was all about Peter and the other of Christ’s apostles, and worship was still being conducted at synagogues and the Temple. What many don’t seem to understand is the fact that prior to this, the Temple and the synagogues had been infiltrated by the Edomites. Eusebius speaks of this in his The Church History 1:6, and my translation is by Paul L. Maier, pages 34-35:

“When the line of Jewish [sic Judaean] rulers ceased, the orderly succession of high priests from generation to generation fell into instant confusion. The reliable Josephus reports that Herod, once made king by the Romans, no longer appointed high priests of the ancient line but obscure sorts instead, a practice followed by his son Archelaus and the Roman governors after him when they took over the government of the Jews. The same writer reports that Herod was the first to lock up the sacred vestment of the high priest and keep it under his own seal rather than priestly control, as did his successor Archelaus and the Romans after him.”

Not only this, but once Herod took power he attempted to destroy all of Israel’s genealogical records, ibid. 1:7, page 37:

“... So Herod, with no Israelite ancestry and pained by his base origins, burned the genealogical records, thinking he would appear of noble birth if no one were able to trace his bloodline from public documents. A few, however, carefully kept private records of their own, either remembering the names or finding them in copies, and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic birth ...”

Anyone who is unaware of this infiltration by the Edomites into the political and religious affairs of the Temple and the synagogues at that time simply cannot comprehend the environment in Judaea during the ministry of Christ and his disciples, nor during the early ekklesia period! All the term ekklesia means is a called-out assembly. Yet this same term is translated in various other ways. Remember that Stephen, at Acts 7:38, referred to “the church in the wilderness”, which was nothing more than an called-out [Israelite] assembly, or an ekklesia. Later, at Ephesus, when a mob got out of control because of Paul’s preaching the Gospel, with the pagans throwing away their idols, all of the silversmiths precipitated a riot and they ended up in the amphitheater. That too, was an ekklesia, although at Acts 19:41 the word is “assembly” in the KJV, yet there surely wasn’t anything Sacred about that group! Without knowing these things, how can anyone understand what was going on during the early ekklesia period? The book of Acts is a book of transition, which took several years to accomplish.

I would remind the reader that the Edomites were a Canaanite mixture with Esau the fornicator (which means race-mixer). This was the racial makeup of Judaea and the Temple during the time of Christ and the early ekklesia, in Acts, with His apostles. Hardly ever is this fact pointed out by nominal judeo-churchianity! That is why we need to study histories such as Josephus’ as well as the Bible. So while we are addressing the book of Acts, we should keep these things in mind. Whenever we have Edomites in the ekklesia, we are going to have problems, and that is exactly what Christ, Paul and the other disciples experienced!

Many will make the false claim that it was the Judahites, of the Tribe of Judah in Judaea, that crucified Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. If people would only study their Bible, they would know that David prophesied at Psalm ch. 22 that Christ would be crucified under “the power of the dog”, and the Canaanites were considered dogs. Therefore, it was rather the Canaanite-Edomite half-breed-jews who were responsible for the crucifixion of Yahshua Christ!

On the other hand, we are told that many of the Judahites of Judaea believed on Christ, but they were among the few in Judaea that hadn’t race-mixed with the Edomite-Canaanites, but were racially pure members of the tribe of Judah, as Christ also was racially pure from Adam. There wasn’t one drop of racially polluted blood flowing in Christ’s veins! As we study the book of Acts, it was the non-believing Canaanite-Edomite-jews who were causing all the problems. Therefore when Paul spoke at the various synagogues, he encountered both believing pure-blooded Judahites of the tribe of Judah and non-believing racially-mixed Edomite-jews and their followers. Here again, if one is not aware of these facts, one will arrive at many flawed conclusions!

We now pick up the story of Paul with the stoning of Stephen, where we find the first mention of him at Acts 7:57-60: “⁵⁷ Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, ⁵⁸ And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. ⁵⁹ And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Master Yahshua, receive my spirit. ⁶⁰ And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Master, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.”

Many might condemn Paul for condoning Stephen’s stoning, but at the time, Paul saw nothing wrong in this dastardly act in accordance with Lev. 24:16 & Deut. 13:9, which I will now cite:

Lev. 24:16: “And he that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, shall be put to death.”

Deut. 13:9: “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”

We can see from these two passages why Paul would not have had any immediate remorse over the stoning of Stephen, but later he would regretfully realize his error, though he only tended the clothes of those who carried out the execution! We have to remember that Paul, at that time, was highly influenced by the Canaanite-Edomite-jews who had infiltrated the Temple and synagogues under Herod.

Before making any more comment, it would be well to quote Luke’s record of Paul’s conversion, found in Acts 9:1-6:

“¹ And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of Yahshua, went unto the high priest, ² And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. ³ And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: ⁴ And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ⁵ And he said, Who art thou, Master? And Yahshua said, I am Yahshua whom thou persecutest ... ⁶ And he trembling and astonished said, Master, what wilt thou have me to do? And Yahshua said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

After Saul (or Paul) had played a supporting part in the stoning of Stephen, he performed a leading role in the persecution of the Nazarenes (later to be called “Christians”) in Jerusalem. In all of this, Paul thought he was doing the Almighty a favor! We will now analyze Acts 9:1-2 where it is stated:

“¹ And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of Yahshua, went unto the high priest, ² And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.”

It is clear from this passage that Paul was 100% against what he considered a heresy: the proclamation of the advent of Yahshua as the Messiah. Here we have Paul going to the highest authority that he knew in order to wipe out this new movement before it could get started. He was ready to kill anyone (man or woman) who would believe on Yahshua’s name. Paul was under the delusion that he had to stamp-out His name, His ministry and His miracles, never to be remembered! In the end, though, Paul came to embrace the so-called heresy that he was so adamant in destroying, for later, Paul would do a complete about-face and embrace this heresy, as he explained at Acts 24:14:

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

In other words, after Paul’s conversion, he then considered it a privilege to be called a heretic. This statement by Paul should remove all doubt that he was indeed called by Yahshua Christ to proclaim the Gospel. A false disciple would never have admitted to being a heretic in the sight of the Pharisees and Sadducees as Paul did! Paul is here confessing that he believed in “all things which are written in the law and in the prophets”, the very thing which Stephen had been stoned for! So it is clear that Paul the heretic joined Stephen the heretic! And if Paul and Stephen were heretics in their day, then too, all we Christians from Christ until today are also heretics, and we should be proud of the privilege! You will notice that Paul was never called a heretic when he was persecuting the followers of the Nazarene in Jerusalem!

To listen to some of the decadent television teachers and evangelists, they would have one believe that the book of Acts only speaks of “Jews” and “Gentiles”! It is regrettable, but most Bible “scholars” do not distinguish the difference between a half-breed Canaanite-Edomite-jew and a racially pure member of the tribe of Judah such as the racially pure Christ. Not only that, but Paul and the other disciples never used the Latin term Gentile. In most cases the Greek ethnos or ethnê should rather have been rendered “nation” or “nations”. It is important for the reader to understand this. Acts 9:2 tells us that Paul’s next move was to go to Damascus to put believing men and women in bonds and bring them to Jerusalem, and these must have been racially-pure members of the tribe of Judah, and not Canaanite-Edomite-jews.

At verse 3, we are told that as Paul and his companions were nearing Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven shone round about him, causing him to fall to the earth, and he heard a voice saying “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Paul answered the voice, “Who art thou Master?” The voice from heaven answered and said, “I am Yahshua whom you persecute!” We must understand that Paul was totally dedicated to his belief in the Old testament; he believed in the Law brought to Israel by Moses; he believed that the religion of Judaism had all the answers; he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees; his lineage was of the tribe of Benjamin. One might say that the pride of the Pharisee was then brought down to the dust and the fury of the persecutor restrained, and a new subdued Paul emerged to be taken by the hand. As a Pharisee, he absolutely hated with a passion this Yahshua from Nazareth, because he was convinced He was an impostor who was trying to destroy what was, to him, his whole purpose for living. Paul (Saul) simply didn’t understand that Yahshua Christ was the same Yahweh of the Old Testament, whom he so dearly loved, that had come in the flesh! Suddenly, Paul realized that the one he was attempting to stamp-out was the very same one that he worshiped! Paul’s surprise was that instead of following Yahweh, he was rather following Satan’s agenda! From that point forward, Paul would never look back to Judaism (which is actually Canaanitism) again! No wonder Paul was able to go through everything he had to suffer for the rest of his life, with his memory flashing back to the stoning of Stephen and the putting of his approval on a death warrant for Yahshua’s followers.

This matter of Paul at Acts 9:4, where he fell to the earth is not something new in Scripture, for at John 18:5-6 it is recorded:

“⁴ Yahshua therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? ⁵ They answered him, Yahshua of Nazareth. Yahshua saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. ⁶ As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”

For anyone who doubts Luke’s account of Acts 9:4 must also doubt John 18:6! After all, Luke’s contribution of the books of Luke and Acts is greater in volume than the epistles of Paul! In turn, those who discredit Luke’s writings for this reason must also discredit the writings of John the apostle! Hence, I would remind the reader that the Paul-bashers are continually discrediting Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion found in the 9th chapter of Acts. Will all of this nonsense never end? If we can’t trust Luke, we might as well throw our entire Bible into the nearest trash can! I would also remind the reader that many a scholar researching Luke’s writings have found them to be accurate in the minutest detail. I would suggest to all those who doubt Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion found in the 9th chapter of Acts, to take their Bible and physically remove all of Paul’s epistles, plus Luke’s writings along with those of John the apostle, and also Peter’s since he attests to Paul’s mission, and see how much of the New Testament they have left! And after having done this, then determine whether one is a believer or a non believer! “Atheist” might be a better definition!

At Acts 9:6, we are told by Luke that: “And he [Paul] trembling and astonished said, Master, what wilt thou have me to do? And [Yahshua] said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

This was no mere mental illusion which Paul had, but a very frightening in-the-body experience! There are many like experiences recorded in the Bible. Trembling is caused by the muscles working involuntarily like hiccups. In short, Paul was in shock mentally and physically. Not only that, but it is quite clear from this verse that Paul had a drastic attitude adjustment for the better! There are countless people today who need a similar attitude adjustment, especially all of the Paul-bashers! We are informed by Luke that even the men with Paul “stood speechless”, showing that they were also in shock, and their vocal cords were temporarily inoperative. It would take a substantial shock to freeze the vocal cords in place!

Another thing that should not be overlooked is the fact that Saul obtained letters from the high priest, who was more than likely a Canaanite-Edomite-jew, for his authority to arrest and bind the believing racially pure Judahites at Damascus. In other words, Saul became a government agent, and the men with him a SWAT team, comparable to the SWAT team at the incident of Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Had not Yahshua Christ intervened, those racially pure-blooded believing Judahites at Damascus were as good as dead!

Yahweh in the flesh, as Yahshua, had every right to treat Paul as he did, for two reasons: First, Paul was born under the Abrahamic covenant, and that gave Him a lawful right to whip Paul into line. When Abraham placed Isaac on the altar, all Israelites were lawfully bound in a similar manner. Second, since Yahweh had married the twelve tribes of Israel, we Israelites came under His authority until He divorced us. Then Yahweh, coming in the flesh as Yahshua died so He could purchase us back, and thus He now owns us again, and He can do whatever is necessary to whip us back into line with His authority, and that is what He was doing with Paul at Acts ch. 9.

The next thing we are told by Luke, at Acts 9:8-9, is the fact that Paul was stricken blind, which continued for three days:

“⁸ And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. ⁹ And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.”

From the wording of this passage we can determine several things. Evidently, Paul and the men with him were riding horses, and Paul’s fall to the ground would be greater than from a standing position, and losing his balance and collapsing to the ground. Also, evidently the men that were with Paul, after they had fallen to the ground and had gotten back on their feet, were standing nearby, speechless. All I can say is, if they didn’t have horses they weren’t much of a law enforcement party. They may have also had wagons or carriages, for how else could they have taken the believing Judahites bound back to Jerusalem?

We can also observe that of this law enforcement party only Paul was blinded, so the light from heaven must have been somewhat like a spotlight focused directly on Paul alone. It is recorded here that the other men heard, but they were not stricken blind by the light, so it is uncertain whether the light was as deeply felt on their part. Surely, had the light been as intense on them as Paul, they would have been struck blind also. We are not told that a third party came from Damascus to lead Paul by the hand, so it must have been one of the men of the law enforcement party that led Paul by the hand. However Paul made it to Damascus, he didn’t get there without assistance.

We should also consider this matter of Paul being struck blind for three days. Unless one has ever experienced total blindness, he will never know just how helpless Paul became for those three days. The only times I have experienced what total blindness might be like is when I visited two individual caves. Both times, the guide taking a group through the cave demonstrated just how dark it is when the lights were turned out. When the guide shut off the lights for a few minutes, one couldn’t see his hand when holding it before his face – it was absolute 100% total darkness – equivalent to the world of the blind! So following the initial shock of the light from heaven, Paul experienced absolute total darkness for the next three days.

We are further told by Luke, at verse 9, that for those three days Paul “neither did eat nor drink”. Some may read into this that Paul went on a fast for three days, but this is not the case. Rather with the shock from the heavenly light, followed by three days of total darkness, he totally lost his appetite. We are not told why, but it is reasonable to believe that his loss of appetite was due to his feeling of guilt for fighting against the Almighty, whom he loved. We are not told so, but it is reasonable to assume that for those three 24 hour days neither did he sleep from the mental anguish and guilt for his past. No doubt Paul had mental flashbacks of the stoning of Stephen for the rest of his life, and perhaps especially when Stephen cried out with his dying words, “lay not this sin to their charge”!

We are told in Scripture that Jonah had his three days in the belly of the whale, and that Yahshua had His three days in the grave, and here we have Paul with his three days in blindness. What it amounts to is, Paul was having his death, burial and resurrection in Christ. No doubt, much of Paul’s mental anguish during those three days was contemplating how many of the followers of Yahshua he would have destroyed had he not been stopped in his tracks. So, Paul was not only blaming himself for his past, but also for the future chaos which he might have committed. When it reached the point where Paul realized he was of no earthly good to anyone, the Almighty was making other plans for him. We pick up this story at Acts 9:10-15:

“¹⁰ And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said Yahshua in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Master. ¹¹ And Yahshua said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, ¹² And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. ¹³ Then Ananias answered, Yahshua, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: ¹⁴ And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. ¹⁵ But Yahshua said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the nations, and kings, and the children of Israel.”

Please notice here that Paul’s commission by Yahshua Christ was “to bear my name before the nations, and kings, and the children of Israel.” (All three entities being are one and the same.) Misled teachers and preachers in judeo-churchianity today continue to proclaim, “Peter was sent to the Jews and Paul was sent to the Gentiles.” Acts 9:15 above is very clear that Paul was rather sent to the lost Israel nations; to lost Israel’s kings; and to the general populous of the lost children of the twelve tribes of Israel, AND TO NO ONE ELSE!!!

For comparison’s sake, before we go any further, we need to go to the account of Paul’s Damascus experience, as recorded by Luke at Acts 22: 6-12:

“⁶ And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. ⁷ And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ⁸ And I answered, Who art thou, Master? And he said unto me, I am Yahshua of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. ⁹ And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ¹⁰ And I said, What shall I do, Master? And Yahshua said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. ¹¹ And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. ¹² And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Judahites which dwelt there.” It might appear contradictory here how much the men with Paul heard, but evidently they heard and understood not. Immediately it should be pointed out that verse 12 is not speaking of any Canaanite-Edomite-jews dwelling at Damascus, but rather pure-blooded believing Judahites of the tribe of Judah!

We see from this passage that Ananias “was a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Judahites which dwelt there” in Damascus. The KJV has “Jews”, which surely is confusing and causes about 99.99% of the people who read this passage to err in their reasoning. For an example of a passage in Acts where it is definitely speaking of the Canaanite-Edomite-jews, let’s go to Acts 17:5: “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.”

Adam Clarke, in his six volume commentary, says that many Greek manuscripts simply state, “But the Jews, moved with envy”, and nothing about “which believed not”, which I believe must have been added later as a note of some kind, and in time became part of the text, making it a gloss. I notice that William Finck also omits “which believed not” in his translation of this verse, as does Smith & Goodspeed. If it is a gloss, it is not completely out-of-order, since all we need to do is go to Christ’s own words at John 10:26-27, where He was directing His words toward the Canaanite-Edomite-jews thusly: “²⁶ But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. ²⁷ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Here, Christ was telling the Canaanite-Edomite-jews that they were not His Israelite sheep, and only His Israelite sheep hear His voice and would follow Him.

 It is important here to give a rundown of the events contained in Acts chapter 22, where Paul’s conversion is repeated by Luke:

At the close of the preceding chapter 21, Paul had been bound according to Agabus’ prophecy of the harsh treatment he should receive at the hand of the Canaanite-Edomite-jews at Jerusalem, yet his speech was set at liberty by permission of the chief captain to speak for himself, and so intent was Paul upon using that liberty of speaking for the honor of Christ and his duty to His cause, he ignores and makes no mention of his bonds. Rather, he speaks of the great things that Christ had done for him with much ease and cheerfulness as, if he were not even bound. We see that in Acts chapter 22: (1) Paul addresses his accusers (v.1-2); (2) He gives his lineage, tribe and citizenship (v. 3); (3) How he was miraculously converted over to the faith of Christ (v. 6-11); (4) How he was confirmed and baptized by the ministry of Ananias (v. 12-16); (5) How afterwards he was called by a warrant from heaven to be the apostle to the nations (v. 17-21); (6) The violent reaction of the rabbles accusing Paul (v. 22-23); (7) Paul’s second rescue out of the hands of the rabble by the chief captain (v. 24-25); (8) Paul’s pleading his privilege as a Roman citizen from the rabble’s inquisition (v. 26-29); (9) The chief captain’s removal of the dispute to the high priest’s court, and Paul’s appearance there (v. 30).

Luke again records the story of Paul’s conversion in the 26th chapter of Acts, verses 2 through 18 as follows:

“² I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the [Canaanite-]jews: ³ Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Judaeans: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. ⁴ My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Judaeans; ⁵ Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. ⁶ And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: ⁷ Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the [Canaanite-]jews. ⁸ Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? ⁹ I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Yahshua of Nazareth. ¹⁰ Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. ¹¹ And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. ¹² Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, ¹³ At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. ¹⁴ And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. ¹⁵ And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Yahshua whom thou persecutest. ¹⁶ But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; ¹⁷ Delivering thee from the people, and from the nations, unto whom now I send thee, ¹⁸ To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

Please note the words, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” are not at Acts 9:5 in the Greek, but are correctly at this passage. Evidently, someone along the line decided that if they were at Acts 22:14 they should also be at Acts 9:5. It isn’t anything to argue about, but I thought I would mention it for your information. Another thing to notice in the Acts chapter 22 version of Luke’s account is that Yahshua spoke to Paul in what is translated as the “Hebrew tongue”. Actually, by the time of Christ and His disciples along with Paul the Hebrew tongue was extinct, and most lexicons and commentaries agree that it was rather Aramaic which Paul spoke on this occasion. What startled Paul’s critics so was the fact that Paul could speak both Greek and Aramaic fluently showing he was a man of higher learning. We are informed at Acts 22:3 by Luke that Paul was trained by Gamaliel, where it states:

“I [Paul] am verily a man which am a Judaean, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” Therefore, it should surprise no one that Paul should be able to both read and speak in two languages! When Paul was being harassed and receiving harsh treatment at the hands of the Canaanite-Edomite-jews at Jerusalem, as recorded by Luke at Acts 22:2, Paul, in his own defense, spoke in the Aramaic tongue, they became quite startled and it quieted their uproar. And why wouldn’t it have? To have quieted that unruly mob, it would have taken something out of the ordinary. By doing this, Paul did get their undivided attention, that is, until he spoke of going to the “nations”.

Some reading this might be wondering why the Canaanite-Edomite-jews would be startled by the Aramaic that Paul spoke on this occasion. While the common language was Greek, and most business was conducted in that tongue, and the official language of the Roman government and armies was Latin, Aramaic was still spoken, if not perfectly, by many of the common people of Palestine – both of the Canaanites and Edomites and of the true Judahites. Yet these people were accustomed to the use of Greek and Latin in public, Aramaic being confined mostly to the home, the synagogues, and the temple. If the reader will remember, at the beginning of this teaching letter, I gave evidence from Eusebius’ The Church History how the Edomites had infiltrated the priesthood. At that time, the priesthood was given to the highest bidder, but it was necessary that, in purchasing the dignity, they too must read, write and speak Aramaic as well. I might add that the Bible repeats things for emphasis, and Luke repeats Paul’s conversion three times in the book of Acts! If Paul’s conversion is untrue, as all the Paul-bashers allege, then Luke LIED to us THREE TIMES!!!

This is my one hundred thirty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. With this lesson, we will look into Paul’s revealing of an important mystery at 1st Corinthians 15:51-58, which states according to the KJV:

“⁵¹ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ⁵² In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. ⁵⁵ O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? ⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁵⁸ Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.”

William Finck, in his translations of The Letters Of Paul renders this same passage at 1st Corinthians 15:51-58 thusly:

“⁵¹ Behold I tell you a mystery, we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. ⁵² In an instant, in a dart of an eye, with the last trumpet; for it shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ This decay wants to be clothed in incorruptibility, and this mortal to be clothed in immortality. ⁵⁴ And when this decay shall have put on incorruptibility, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then the word that has been written shall come to pass: ‘Death has been swallowed in victory.’ ⁵⁵ ‘Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?’ ⁵⁶ Now the sting of death is guilt, and the power of guilt is the law; ⁵⁷ but gratitude is to Yahweh, in whom we are being given the victory through our Prince, Yahshua Christ. ⁵⁸ Therefore, my beloved brethren, you become steadfast, immovable, at all times being abundant in the work of the Prince, knowing that your toil is not empty with the Prince.”

Now, today’s inept clergy in judeo-churchianity use this passage, along with Paul’s 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18, in an attempt to teach a “secret rapture”, which is a doctrine which follows Satan’s agenda. I will explain this allegation as we go along. Wittingly or unwittingly, the greater part of churchianity today is parroting Satan’s program straight from the pits of hell. Let’s now take a look at 1 Thess. 4:13-18 from the KJV:

“¹³ But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. ¹⁴ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. ¹⁵ For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: ¹⁷ Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Wherefore comfort one another with these words.”

Let’s now compare the KJV with William Finck’s translation of The Letters Of Paul at 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18:

“¹³ Now we do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are falling asleep, in order that you would not be grieved, and just as the rest who have no expectation. ¹⁴ For if we believe that Yahshua had died and rose up, in this manner Yahweh also through Yahshua will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁵ For this we say to you by word of the Prince: that we, the living, those left remaining until the coming of the Prince, no way would come before those who have fallen asleep; ¹⁶ because the Prince Himself with a command, by a chief messenger’s voice and with a trumpet of Yahweh shall descend from heaven, and those dead among the number of the Anointed shall rise up first. ¹⁷ Then we, the living who are remaining, at once with them shall be carried off in clouds for a meeting with the Prince in air,₃₂ and in that manner always with the Prince we shall be. ¹⁸ So encourage one another with these words.”

For the serious Bible student who really has a desire to understand the Greek from which the translators rendered “air” at verse 17, William Finck supplies the following rather lengthy but concise note:

“32. ἐν νεφέλαις (νεφέλη, 3507) is literally ‘in clouds’ but may metaphorically mean ‘in throngs’ (compare Heb. 12:1) and so may not necessarily indicate any supernatural act here. εἰς ἀέρα (ἀήρ, 109) is most literally ‘into air’ and certainly does seem to suggest a supernatural act on the surface of the phrase. Note that to Greeks, whose literature Paul was well acquainted with (Titus 1:12; Acts 17:28, the note at I Cor. 15:33 et al.), the atmosphere was divided into three layers: ἀήρ was the lowest layer, the air around us, and was opposed to the αἰθήρ (‘ether’), the upper atmosphere or ‘sky’, above which was οὐρανός (3772), ‘heaven’, or more properly in our modern dialect, ‘space’. αἰθήρ does not appear in the N.T. ἀήρ is used by Paul elsewhere, at Eph. 2:2, and I Cor. 9:26 and 14:9. The word also appears at Acts 22:23, and Rev. 9:2 and 16:17. Eph. 2:2 offers the most, although scant, insight into Paul’s application of the word here: for it seems to connote the physical world, as opposed to the spiritual, both of them being equally real in Paul’s rather enlightened perspective: even if there are many doubters today. Here my comments have already exceeded the purposes of these notes.”

From Finck’s note here, it is quite evident that Paul had quite a different idea about the Greek term translated into the English as “air” than what is promoted today among the clergy of churchianity. I see it as simply being resurrected from the grave into the air which we can breathe. It is quite evident that after Christ was raised from the dead He was a breathing being as at John 20:21-22 it states:

“²¹ Then said Yahshua to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. ²² And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:” This is proof (not simply evidence) that Christ was a breathing being after His resurrection. If He weren’t, He couldn’t have spoken a single word. If you don’t believe it, just try holding your breath while saying something – it can’t be done! Not only did Christ breathe, He also ate broiled fish and honeycomb. It is simply inexplicable where the futurists get all their fantastic ideas! Our purpose, with this lesson, is to prove beyond all doubt that Paul never taught a “secret rapture”, or a non-secret rapture for that matter.

The greater part of Christianity believes in a Second Coming of Yahshua Christ in one sense or another. Rightfully so, if they believe and understand their Bibles. It is abundantly clear from the pages of Scripture that it was Christ’s main mission, at His first advent, to suffer and die for the redemption of His people, and that He is coming again in great power and glory to claim authority over His awaiting Kingdom here on earth, as described at Isa. 9:6-7. Barely had the prophet announced His first coming, when he immediately turned to the subject of His Second Coming. The throne of David has existed now for approximately 3000 years and awaits its rightful heir to possess it! It is clearly stated at Luke 1:32-33:

“³² He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and Yahweh shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ³³ And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Notice that Luke didn’t say anything about Christ ruling over any of the nonwhite races of the world! (cf. Amos 3:2; Mal. 3:6; Matt. 15:24.)

The Popular Unscriptural Theory

Regretfully, many have developed various and unsound conjectures which obscure the prophetic picture of Christ’s Second Coming and makes Yahweh’s Word ineffective. One such prevarication claims that the Second Coming will be in two stages: a rapturing away, and a return to rule over the Canaanite-jews. If one has attended many church services, one can substantiate that this is by-and-large what has been taught. Not only is it taught in the weekly church services, but it is taught in nearly every seminary to those preparing for the ministry. In the first scenario, the church is claimed to be caught up by Christ, and carried off to heaven. This belief is popularly known in futurist circles as the “rapture of the church”, although the term appears nowhere in the Bible. This is but a contrivance dreamed up by the mind of man. This is a device presented by a misguided clergy describing a hidden coming of Christ, when without warning the “born again” Christians are snatched up and carried off to heaven. Automobiles, airplanes, trains and ships will suddenly be left without drivers or pilots, throwing the world into chaotic confusion. This fantasy absolves today’s Christians of any responsibility for bringing this world into conformance with Kingdom principals.

This “catching up” of the saints is declared to mark the beginning of what they misidentify as the great “tribulation period”, at which time there is to appear a super-duper-pooper antichrist. Yes, there are “antichrists”, and they also misidentify who they are. They claim when this antichrist makes his appearance he will make a covenant with the Canaanite-jews, and will rule the world for 7 years. They also claim that after 3½ years of making the covenant with the Canaanite-jews, he will break it, and the Canaanite-jews will realize they had crucified the real Messiah, and 144,000 of them will be converted to Christ and evangelize the world. Then at the end of the 7 years of tribulation, Christ will return a third time with His church to set up His kingdom. Some try to imply that because Christ didn’t actually come to the earth at the time of the rapture, this third coming is actually His second coming. Evidently, His coming to rapture is only a “close encounter” in some people’s minds.

THE SATANIC HISTORY OF THIS FUTURIST DOCTRINE

I shall now endeavor to show you from whence all this false prophecy is coming. I will quote excerpts from a book entitled Israel In Bible Prophecy by John L. Bray. Bray didn’t understand Israel Identity and had several misconceptions as a result, and parroted some of the usual churchified dogma. But we have to give credit to the man, for he researched areas where others fail to go. I would rate him about 40% overall, but his treatment of futurism, which I am about to quote from him, he is right on target:

Page 30- “Where, then, did this teaching originate? Or more specifically, where did the emphasis on these teachings first begin?

“A number of authors credit J.N. Darby of the beginning Plymouth Brethren movement with the origin of this ‘futurism’ which has gained such a foothold in conservative circles during these last 150 years or so. However, little notice has been paid to the Catholic Jesuit priest Emmanuel Lacunza and his book, The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (published in English in 1827 in London) with its possible influence on Darby and the translator of the book from Spanish, Rev. Edward Irving. This book was published in 1812 in Spanish, and later translated by Rev. Edward Irving into English in 1826 and published in London, England, in 1827. It had been written by Lacunza under the assumed name of Rabbi Juan Josaphat Ben Ezra as a supposedly converted Jew. (I have Xeroxed copies of all 960 pages of this very rare book in my possession, including the long preface by Irving). The main emphasis of Lacunza in this book was the return of Christ to set up a millennial earthly kingdom (whether 1,000 or 100,000 years made no difference to Lacunza!) and the conversion of the Jews, etc., following the return of Christ to earth. It was in the days following the publication of this book that the system of a futuristic restoration of the Jews to Palestine and their national conversion at the second coming of Christ to the earth, began to be emphasized and spread abroad everywhere. I noted that Darby was well acquainted with this book as I read The Collected Writings of, J.N. Darby, Prophetic No. 1, vol. 2, as he discussed the viewpoint found in Lacunza’s book in his first section entitled, ‘Reflections Upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the Views Advanced by It.’ He specifically mentions Lacunza’s book with its views as the occasion for his own discussion of the subject. This section was written by Darby in Dublin, in 1829, just two years after publication of Lacunza’s book in English. ...”

Page 72- “Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Catholic priest, writing under an assumed name as a converted Jew in his The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (published 1812, in English 1827) about such, does not make it so. John Nelson Darby, following Lacunza’s lead, writing about such, does not make it so. And all the Scofield Reference Bible notes (which some people seem to think almost inspired) on this subject do not make it so! ...”

Page 28- “Some say that Zechariah’s prophecy of the restoration of the Jews [sic Judahites] from Egypt and Assyria and far countries was a prophecy made after the Jews [sic Judahites] were already back in the Land, and therefore had to apply to our future. And indeed, J.N. Darby said this same thing as he discussed Immanuel Lacunza’s teachings in the book, The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty, right in the beginning of his several books on prophecy. (Lacunza was the one who influenced many toward a revived belief in an earthly Jewish future kingdom following the second coming of Christ ... ) ...

“When I first read what Darby said, I realized that many Bible students must read things like that (by him and others) and accept them as gospel truth without ever doing any real investigation or further study on the matter themselves.”

This is far from exposing the entire plot of the origin of “futurism”, but it will have to suffice for this short essay. I will, though, state this: many of the catholic jesuit priests were indeed Canaanite-jews.

The next thing we must understand is the character of the man promoting all of this, Cyrus Scofield. The following information is from the website:

www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/scofield.htm

[Note: I should point out to the reader that I’m not in agreement with “The Greatest Hoax; A Study Of The Inconsistent Theology Of Modern Day Bible Prophecy” by Charles Samples, with his anti-Paul remarks found on this website, but on the subject of Cyrus Scofield and his satanic connections, they are right on target.]

“And Who Was Cyrus Scofield?

“As a young con-artist in Kansas after the Civil War, he met up with John J. Ingalls, an aging Jewish lawyer who had been sent to Atchison by the ‘Secret Six’ some thirty years before to work the Abolitionist cause. Pulling strings both in Kansas and with his compatriots back east, Ingalls assisted Scofield in gaining admission to the Bar, and procured his appointment as Federal Attorney for Kansas. Ingalls and Scofield became partners in a railroad scam which led to Cyrus serving time for criminal forgery.

“While he was in prison, Scofield began studying the philosophy of John Darby, pioneer of the Plymouth Brethren movement and the ‘any moment now’ rapture doctrine.

“Upon his release from prison, Scofield deserted his first wife, Leontine Carry Scofield, and his two daughters Abigail and Helen, and he took as his mistress a young girl from the St. Louis Flower Mission. He later abandoned her for Helen van Ward, whom he eventually married. Following his Illuminati connections to New York, he settled in at the Lotus Club, which he listed as his residence for the next twenty years. It was here that he presented his ideas for a new Christian Bible concordance, and was taken under the wing of Samuel Untermeyer, who later became chairman of the American Jewish Committee, president of the American League of Jewish Patriots, and chairman of the Non-sectarian Anti-Nazi League.

“Untermeyer introduced Scofield to numerous Zionist and socialist leaders, including Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, Abraham Straus, Bernard Baruch and Jacob Schiff. These were the people who financed Scofield’s research trips to Oxford and arranged the publication and distribution of his concordance.

“It is impossible to overstate the influence of Cyrus Scofield on twentieth-century Christian beliefs. The Scofield Bible is the standard reference work in virtually all Christian ministries and divinity schools ... And it is precisely because Christians persist in this belief that they remain blind to the reality of [false] Zion[ism].

“Scofield served as the agent by which the Zionists paralyzed Christianity, while they prepared America for our final conquest.

“‘Journal M, November Term, A.D. 1883, 8th day of December, 1883

“‘Leontine Scofield, Plaintiff, Vs C. I. Scofield, Defendant

“‘Now comes the plaintiff by her attorneys Tomlinson and Griffin and the defendant enters for appearance and files answer and makes no further appearance. And thereupon this cause came on for hearing upon the pleadings and testimony and was argued by counsel upon consideration whereof the Court does find that the defendant has been guilty of willfull abandonment of the plaintiff for more than one year prior to the commencement of this action.

“‘It is therefore adjudged and decreed by the Court here that the marriage relation heretofore existing between the said parties be and the same is hereby set aside and wholly annulled and the parties wholly released from the obligations of the same.

“‘It is further ordered and decreed that the custody, nurture, education and care of the said minor children Abigal Scofield and Helen Scofield, be and the same, is hereby given to the said plaintiff and the said defendant is hereby forever enjoined from interfering with or disturbing the said plaintiff in the custody, care, nurture and education of the said above named children until the further order of this Court.’

“Cyrus Scofield had several other incidents of a downright dishonest nature after he supposedly became saved. The fact that in 1892 he began calling himself ‘Doctor Scofield’ without producing any Doctorate degree from any Seminary or University is the least of his devious activities. Even the details he gave in his story of conversion are proven to be fabricated, including the time, place and other particularities, thereby placing doubt on the whole story.

“He was a self-promoter in every sense of the word, even lying about being able to comfort and calm the entire city of Belfast, Ireland with a sermon he delivered there the Sunday after the Titanic sunk [sic sank].

“His behind-the-scenes handlers [Untermeyer, Gompers, Baruch, Schiff, etc.] saw to it that his swindles and schemes were swept under the rug and that only a positive image of him was promoted, especially an exaggeration of his Biblical knowledge and wisdom. Men like 33rd degree freemason George Bannerman Dealey, owner of the Dallas Morning News and member of Scofield’s church contributed greatly to the cause.

“But occasionally, newspapers who weren’t loyal to his cause would put out damaging information on him. Here is an excerpt from the Topeka newspaper, The Daily Capital, dated August 27, 1881:

“‘CYRUS I. SCOFIELD IN THE ROLE OF

A CONGREGATIONAL MINISTER

“‘Cyrus I. Scofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past.

“‘The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada.

“‘For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money.

“‘Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months.

“‘Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest.

“‘After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one Charles Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious’ ...”

“Scofield’s work continues to be praised and utilized today by men with questionable motives. His closely guarded reputation remains intact and this information provided will only be useful to the truth-seekers, which represents a relatively small percentage of Christendom. At least two scriptures are applicable at this point:

“‘For there is no respecter of persons with God’, Romans 2:11.

“‘Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them’, Matthew 7:20.

“Scofield abandoned his wife and children and refused to support them. I Timothy 5:8 says ‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’ When his first wife Leontine originally filed for divorce in July 1881, she listed the following reasons:

“... ‘(he had) ... absented himself from his said wife and children, and had not been with them but abandoned them with the intention of not returning to them again ... has been guilty of gross neglect of duty and has failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home, or in any manner performed his duty in the support of said family although he was able to do so ...’

“Scofield began courting his future second wife Hettie van Wark before the divorce was finalized and they got married only three months after it was. His divorce was finalized at least four years after he became ‘born again’.” (Note: Scrutinize the preceding carefully!)

THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE RAPTURE THEORY

From the time of the early church fathers until the Reformation in the 15th century, the generally accepted view of Biblical prophecy was “linear historical”; that John’s Revelation was in the process of being fulfilled throughout the Christian era. But as the 16th century broke upon the scene, a new view of Bible prophecy was devised by a Jesuit priest to hinder the Reformers from advocating that the catholic church was none other than the “whore of Babylon” of Rev. 17:3-6.

It is an historical fact that many of the well known Protestant leaders over the past centuries have unhesitatingly and categorically denounced the Pope as being the “Antichrist”. These include Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. Some editions of old German publications of the Bible, circulated in the 15th century, went so far as to include illustrations showing the Pope amongst the devils in apocalyptic hell. Old Anabaptist church records include numerous other lesser known names which could be added to the list, persons whose testimony could not be silenced by oppression, persecution or even a martyr’s death.

In 1591, the Jesuit Ribera concocted his “futurist” device to entrap the Protestants. He made the claim that John’s Revelation would not take place until the end of the Christian era. Ribera cleverly taught a rebuilt Babylon, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and an end-time super-duper-pooper Antichrist. If all of this sounds familiar, it should, for these same prophetic views are parroted from the pulpits of the greater part of churchianity on a weekly basis, and loudly proclaimed over radio and television stations throughout the world.

But Ribera is only part of this divisive story. Later, in 1731, there was a Spanish family residing in Chile by the name of de Lacunza, who had a son named Manuel. After fifteen years at home, Manuel resolved to become a catholic priest, and boarded a ship destined for Spain. After thirty-six years, when the Jesuits were expelled from that country on account of their brutality, by then designated as “father”, Manuel de Lacunza Diaz had to relocate to Imola, Italy, where he resided for the rest of his life.

Upon locating in Imola, de Lacunza made the claim of being a converted Jew named Rabbi Juan Josaphat Ben-Ezra. Under this alias pen name, he wrote a 900 page book entitled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. Within its pages, Lacunza theorized that Christ’s church would be taken to be with the Lord forty-five days before Jesus’ final return to the earth, and during that forty-five days (with the church being in heaven), that God was going to pour out his wrath upon the wicked dwellers remaining on the earth. In order to conceal the book’s true origin, and presumably to make it more acceptable to Protestant readers, it was dishonestly attributed to the authorship of a fallacious “Rabbi Ben Ezra”, supposedly a learned Jew who had converted to Christianity. Finally, it was conveniently published in England, though still in the Spanish language, in 1816, a few years after Lacunza’s death. In a further tactic of duplicity, the book was placed on a list of forbidden works to catholics, guaranteeing a Protestant readership!

Later, in 1827, the Scottish minister Edward Irving published a complete English translation of Lacunza’s book, and the new dogma was well on its way into Protestantism. Irving founded the Catholic Apostolic Church, a forerunner in the Pentecostal movement. At this time Irving heard what he believed to be a voice from heaven commanding him to preach the secret rapture of the saints. His open-air meetings in 1828 in Scotland drew crowds of 10,000 people. His church in London seated 1000 and was filled week upon week with a congregation drawn from the most brilliant and influential circles of society.

From this point the plot thickens considerably. It was about this same time that an Irvingite evangelist by the name of Robert Norton met a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald who reportedly had a vision of the church being secretly raptured. Norton, on becoming aware of this vision, became so fascinated by the concept that he delivered many sermons about her “vision” everywhere in England.

It is said of Darby that he borrowed from Margaret MacDonald’s revelation, modified her views, and then taught them under his own name without giving her credit. Darby, however, wasn’t completely pleased with the rather simplified Lucunza-Irving 45-day tribulation concept, therefore he invented a more complex scheme. Preoccupied with the last week of Daniel’s 70-week vision (Dan. 9:24-27), he toyed with the idea that it might not, as yet, be fulfilled, so he conceived the idea that the 70th week might actually be a future seven year tribulation period that would take place at the end of the Christian era. Does that premise also sound familiar? To make this newly contrived idea fit world history, he devised a 2000-year gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks. All of this was guesswork theology at best. There you have it, the real origin of the seven-year period of tribulation, or “pre-trib rapture doctrine”! Or shall we rather call it “Darby’s folly”! It all began as a Roman Catholic invention. Thus, the Jesuit priest Ribera’s writings influenced the Jesuit priest Lacunza; Lacunza influenced Irving; Irving influenced Darby; Darby influenced Scofield; Scofield and Darby influenced D.L. Moody, and Moody influenced the Pentecostal Movement; and the Pentecostal Movement influenced the Charismatic Movement, and I don’t want to have the slightest part of this satanic plot dreamed-up, supported and perpetuated by Canaanite-jews.

It is absurd to attribute these manmade doctrines to the Apostle Paul’s writings, for this twists his words entirely out-of-context. These futurist doctrines are contrived, bought and paid for by the enemies of Christianity, the satanic-Canaanite-Edomite-jews – no less than the descendants of Cain! (see “Kenites”, Strong’s #’s H7014 & 7017)

This is my one hundred thirty-second monthly teaching letter and completes my eleventh year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. In lesson, #131, for March, 2009 it was clearly demonstrated that Paul never taught the “secret rapture” of the church (assembly) which is being strongly promoted today by nominal mainstream churchianity. In WTL #131 I quoted from Paul’s epistles, at 1st Corinthians 15:51-58 & 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and proceeded to demonstrate that the idea of a “rapture” followed by a “seven year period of tribulation” was purely a Roman Catholic invention in order to avoid the prophecy of the Pope being identified as the “Antichrist” by the Reformers. Summing up the last WTL, I stated: It all began as a Roman Catholic invention. Thus, the Jesuit priest Ribera’s writings influenced the Jesuit priest Lacunza; Lacunza influenced Irving; Irving influenced Darby; Darby influenced Scofield; Scofield and Darby influenced D.L. Moody, and Moody influenced the Pentecostal Movement; and the Pentecostal Movement influenced the Charismatic Movement, and I don’t want to have the slightest part in this satanic plot which is dreamed up and supported by Canaanite-jews. It should also be pointed out that the so-called Pentecostal movement turned out to be a tool of Satan to encourage multicultural race-mixing in America and throughout the world.

Again, in order to defend Paul from this monstrous, heretical plot of Satan and his children to corrupt Scripture, I will continue in this lesson to expose the errors of “futurism”. This will not be an exposé promoting praeterism, for that doctrine is just as erroneous as futurism, also invented by a Roman Catholic Jesuit. What we are going to deal with in this lesson is properly interpreting Daniel’s prophecies, which Paul surely would never have stated anything to the contrary. As I showed in the last lesson, it was Darby who theorized that there is a 2000 year gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks (a week being a week of years). So the question arises: Is Daniel’s 70th week past or yet future?

All Bible prophecy is declared to be the proof of Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Peter speaks of this at 2 Peter 1:19-21: “¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: ²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. ²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Thus, Darby’s gap theory is his own “private interpretation”! What a monstrous supposition, that there should be a 2000 year gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th weeks. But hang on to your hat; we ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Most all of the so-called preaching and teaching concerning Bible prophecy today has to do with a series of events which proponents inform us center around a seven-year span which they allege to be the “great tribulation period”! Some even go so far as to make the asinine suggestion that it is the time of “Jacob’s troubles” as spoken of at Jeremiah 30:7-9 which reads:

“⁷ Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. ⁸ For it shall come to pass in that day, saith Yahweh of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: ⁹ But they shall serve Yahweh their Elohim, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them. ¹⁰ Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith Yahweh; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.”

The big problem we have with this passage is the absolute fact that today’s jews are neither Israel nor Judah, for they are Canaanites passing themselves off as Israelites. They are more related to Esau and Cain than to Jacob. Actually, this passage is referring to the Anglo-Saxons and related peoples rather than Canaanite-jews! What’s more, this passage is a prophecy for we White, lost Israelites of today. Not only that, but “Jacob’s troubles” have lasted for “seven times” (a time being 360 years, or 2,520 calendar years). There is indeed a “great tribulation” period for Jacob, and it’s not seven calendar years but seven punishment periods of 360 calendar years. In plain language, in this world there is never going to be a seven calendar year tribulation with a super, duper, pooper antichrist!

And how do the futurists come up with a “tribulation period” of seven years? They do it by proclaiming that the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy was not fulfilled after the 69th, but they arbitrarily amputate it to await a future fulfillment at the close of this age. They loudly proclaim that this seven year period “begins with the rapture of the church”. They further declare that immediately thereafter some fast talking super, duper, pooper “antichrist” will appear on the world scene who will make a covenant with the Canaanite-jews, and at the end of 3½ years he will break that covenant, and turn against them with great, awful slaughter. Actually, most holding to the futurist position can’t make up their minds whether it will be a 7 or 3½ year period of tribulation, for they say the antichrist will be at peace with them for the first 3½ years.

Momentarily brushing all of the nonsense aside, on what occasion did Daniel receive this 70-week prophecy? Those familiar with Scripture are well aware that Daniel had been carried off captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, along with that remnant nation of Judah. I say “remnant nation of Judah” because the greater part of Judah had been carried away captive by king Sennacherib into Assyria some 100 years earlier than this. Those familiar with the archaeological record may recall the invasion and capture of all Judaea except Jerusalem, was addressed in the book An Outline History Of The Seventy Weeks Nation by the Rev. Alban Heath where he stated on page 13:

“Later, the Southern kingdom fell a victim to the ravages of heathen rulers. ‘Sennacherib king of Assyria (705-681 B.C.) did come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.’ While the Scriptures are silent on the subject of deportations at this time, Sennacherib himself has left the following record: ‘And Hezekiah king of Judah, who had not bowed down at my feet forty-six of his strong cities, his castles, and the smaller towns in their neighbourhood beyond number with warlike engines ... I attacked and captured 200,150 people small and great, male and female, horses, mares, asses, camels, oxen and sheep beyond number, from the midst of them I carried off and distributed them as a spoil. He himself, like a bird in a cage, inside Jerusalem his royal city I shut him up’.”

One might assert that when I cite archaeology that I am straying away from the Bible, but I am not, as I will demonstrate. All one need do is go to Jeremiah 16:16 where he states: “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.”

The “fishers” in this passage are none other than the disciples chosen by Yahshua Christ, and the hunters are none other than the archaeologists. Who else would hunt “out of the holes of the rocks”? If this is true, and it is, the hunters hold as much Biblical weight as the fishers, and that is quite important. In other words, take all of the words in the New Testament written by the “fishers of men”, and the “hunters” (the archaeologist’s findings) as equal in their significance.

Did Yahshua Christ Himself refer to this sort of thing when He made the following statement at Luke 19:40?:

“³⁹ And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. ⁴⁰ And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

The Smith & Goodspeed version has a somewhat better rendering, stating: “³⁹ Some Pharisees in the crowd said to him, ‘Master, reprove your disciples!’ ⁴⁰ And he answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silence, the stones will cry out!’” Notice that Smith & Goodspeed says nothing about it happening “immediately”. In other words, if the disciples of Christ (the fishers of men) kept quiet about the gospel of the Kingdom, the hunters (archaeologists) would cry out the evidence of to where the lost tribes of Israel migrated. To comprehend to whom Jeremiah was making reference at 16:16, we need to read Jer. 16:14-15, which says:

“14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that it shall no more be said, Yahweh liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; 15 But, Yahweh liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.”

Hence, this is evidence that all of Christ’s apostles (including Paul) were sent to the same Israelites whom Jeremiah prophesied concerning the fishers and hunters. Did Yahweh bring the children of Israel again into their land which Yahweh had given to the fathers? He certainly did!

This is only a later development of the account, for we need to go back to the year 1917 for a more important element of the story. Once we resolve the relevance of 1917 in this chain of events, we will see clearly how all this fits together. We must first take into consideration that all the tribes of Israel were given a “seven times” punishment period, or 2,520 years. As each tribe was taken into captivity at different dates, each individual tribe’s punishment ended in a corresponding manner at the end of its 2,520 years. Jerusalem was no exception. The starting date for Jerusalem’s 2,520 years of punishment was November/December 604 B.C., and is called “the times of the Gentiles” at Luke 21:24. If one will check the history of Jerusalem from 604 B.C., they will find Jerusalem was continually under foreign powers until 1917 A.D., for a total of 2,520 years, when Palestine became a British Mandate under King George VI, a bona fide descendant of David. 1917 was the year that General Allenby captured Palestine and entered Jerusalem with true Israelite soldiers from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and a few minor contingents of non-Israelites such as India, Egypt, Singapore, Hong Kong and the West Indies (As Birds Flying by Andrew Adams, page 42). King George VI lived until 1952, long enough to make a decree on Palestine which has never been countermanded by Queen Elizabeth II. Today, Palestine still belongs to Great Britain under Yahweh’s law. The Canaanite-jews are therefore trespassers in that land by the authority of an illegal satanic entity called the United Nations. Whether or not in the future Palestine will ever be occupied by any quantity of true Israelites is unclear.

Hence, Palestine in 1917 came under the rule of King George VI, a direct descendant of the line of David. While Palestine was ruled in the time of Christ by Israelite Roman rulers of the Zerah branch of Judah, they were not rulers from the line of David. The object of the story is, Judaea (now referred to as Palestine) hadn’t been ruled over by a descendant of David since the time of Zedekiah some 588 years before the time of Christ. All we need to do is add 588 and 1917 and we arrive at a total of 2,505 years (minus 18 months for conversion from B.C. to A.D.) or about 2,504 years since Palestine had a legitimate king from the line of David, upon which one arrives very close to the seven times punishment period of 2,520 years.

For documentation on King George VI’s decision concerning Palestine, I will now quote from the book Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls, chapter 1, by Harry Thomas Frank, page 8: “His Majesty’s Foreign Office had somewhat irresponsibly decided that since the problem of Palestine could not be solved by reason, they would withdraw, leaving the two sides to decide the issue by blood.” Ever since that proclamation by King George VI, one day one will hear or read in the news how the Palestinian-arabs have killed x-number of Israelis (actually Canaanite-jews), and the next day one will read how the Israelis have killed x-number of Palestinian-arabs. All this means is that Yahweh is honoring King George VI’s decision, a legitimate king of the line of David, and his heirs re-ruling over Palestine starting in 1917 A.D. The truth of the matter is, neither the Palestinian-arabs nor the Canaanite-jews are legitimate citizens of Palestine. My reason here for bringing all of this to the fore is to explain the context of what Jeremiah 30:7-9 and “Jacob’s troubles” are all about; that it is entirely misrepresented by today’s mainstream religious interpreters.

Now back to all of this “rapture” nonsense and its history; along with how it conflicts with Holy-writ. We were discussing what Daniel was doing when he was praying and fasting and seeking knowledge from Yahweh concerning when the 70-year prophecy of Judah’s captivity by Babylon, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, would end. The passage that Daniel was reading, which in turn led him to such an understanding was Jeremiah 25:11-12, which reads in the KJV:

“¹¹ And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. ¹² ¶ And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Yahweh, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” (Note that there is a paragraph mark “¶” in the A.V between these two verses, showing two separate declarations and thus two separate prophecies.) Hence, not only was the remnant nation of Judah punished for seventy years, but so was Babylon punished forever for taking Judah captive. Babylon’s punishment started suddenly in 539 B.C. when the city of Babylon fell in one night as recorded at Dan. 5:30-31: “³⁰ In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. ³¹ And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” Thus, Jeremiah’s original prophecy spoke not only of a seventy year period of punishment of desolation concerning Judaea, but also a punishment period of desolation for the land of the Chaldeans. Yahweh always punishes any nation that subjugates His people Israel! If these two desolation periods on Judaea and the Chaldeans are exact, so too must the 70-weeks of years later prophesied by Daniel be exact, with no gap between the 69th and 70th week of years.

We can observe that by Daniel’s prayerfully seeking the answer to his question of when the seventy weeks of desolation would end for Judah, that Yahweh sent the angel Gabriel to him in a vision, informing him that he had come forth to give him understanding. As one who believed and never questioned that Yahweh keeps all of His promises, Daniel was quite unconcerned whether Yahweh would act, but rather how and when He would do it. Daniel was aware that if he could establish the exact beginning of the seventy years that Judah was carried into Babylon, then he could by simple arithmetic also establish its termination. Daniel also knew by reading the words of Jeremiah that the beginning of the 70 year period of desolation for Judaea and Jerusalem was fixed somewhere in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Today, we can consult 2 Chron. 36:20-21, as a good marker on how long the 70 years of desolation for Judah would last which states:

“²⁰ And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: ²¹ To fulfil the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.”

It is pretty well agreed among many Bible scholars that the two books of Chronicles were written by Ezra sometime near the end of the exile. This is supported by the fact that Ezra’s purpose in coming to Jerusalem was to teach the people concerning Yahweh’s laws (Ezra 7:10, 25) and also by the emphasis of his book on the history of Israelitish worship, which also shows a similar style as the book of Ezra. As one can see, formerly Daniel didn’t have (or at least didn’t have all of) the book of 2 Chronicles to consult. The one thing we learn from this after-the-fact passage is that Ezra understood that the 70-year desolation period would come to an end under a Persian ruler.

While Daniel was praying concerning the timing for the ending of Jerusalem’s desolation period, Yahweh intervened, apparently not to answer his prayer, but to give him a completely new revelation concerning not one single period of 70 years, but seven such periods, making 490 years in all, which is recorded at Daniel 9:24-27:

“²⁴ Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. ²⁵ Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [Christ] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. ²⁶ And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Prince [the Romans under Titus] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. ²⁷ And he [Christ] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he [Christ] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

One can clearly see from this that the angel Gabriel then proceeded to inform Daniel that 70 weeks of years had been determined by Yahweh upon Daniel’s people (the remnant of Judah in Babylon), along with the city of Jerusalem. And in this 70 week period, 6 things were to be accomplished – every one of which were dependent upon the finished work of Christ with His death and resurrection. Read again the above passage at Dan. 9:24-27. If you have reread this passage very carefully, this passage is speaking of Christ and his finished work, and not some super, duper, pooper antichrist. Not only that, but when speaking of Christ’s finished work, there is absolutely no necessity to place a 2000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of years of the prophecy given to Daniel by Gabriel! You will notice that the above passage makes the statement: “and to make an end of sins”. Are we to believe that some super, duper, pooper “antichrist” is going to come on the scene “and to make an end of sins”? Yes, there are antichrists, but let’s keep them in their proper context! It is simply blasphemy to take this passage, which predicts Christ’s finished work, and assign it to some unknown antichrist as the futurists do. Paul never taught any doctrine that would support such a lie!

We still haven’t resolved just when Jeremiah’s original prophecy of a 70-year desolation on the remnant nation of Judah and Jerusalem would end, but Gabriel gave Daniel a clue, at 9:25, of when that might be, and we will use only the portion where that clue is given: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem ...”

There is a problem, though, with understanding this clue given to Daniel by Gabriel, as there were in fact four different decrees issued by the kings of Medo-Persia in regard to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, each of which we will consider in their turn.

(1) In the first year of Cyrus – 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:1-4 cf. 2 Chron. 36:22-23). Cyrus was the first Medo-Persian king and reigned from 539 to 529. His reign began after the fall of the city of Babylon in 539 and lasted until 529 B.C. It is thought that his first year began on the 1st of Nisan, 538 and continued until 537 B.C.

Ezra 1:1-4: “¹ Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, ² Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, Yahweh singular-Elohim of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. ³ Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of Yahweh singular-Elohim of Israel, (he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem. ⁴ And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”

(2) In the second year of Darius – 520 B.C., (Ezra 4:4-5, 24; 6:8)

Ezra 4:4-5, 24; 6:8: “4 ⁴ Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, ⁵ And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. ... ²⁴ Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. ... 6 ⁸ Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Judaeans for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered.”

(3) In the seventh year of Artaxerxes – 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:7-9): “⁷ And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king. ⁸ And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. ⁹ For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.”

(Please note: ñò As will be explained in a later WTL lesson, the “Artaxerxes” in the KJV versions of Ezra and Nehemiah is NOT the historical Artaxerxes!)

(4) In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes – 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 1:3; 2:1, 7-8). “1 ³ And they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. ... 2 ¹ And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him: and I took up the wine, and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetime sad in his presence. ... ⁷ Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah; ⁸ And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.” [Note: I have followed somewhat the general outline given in the book The Sabbatic 70 Years by Michael D. Bennett on these four different decrees, except I quoted each of the four cited passages related to the subject.]

Bennett continues on page 12 that the third listed date above is the correct one, or (3) In the seventh year of Artaxerxes – 458 B.C. On page 12, he makes a point to show that Ezra had left Babylon on this occasion on the first day of the first month (Nisan) 458, B.C., but didn’t arrive at Jerusalem until the fifth month to rebuild Jerusalem. On page 13, Bennett points out that Daniel may have shown Cyrus, from the scrolls of Jeremiah his prophecy concerning him. Further, the historian Josephus recorded such an event, but didn’t identify the person that showed him. (Again, see note on “Artaxerxes”)

We now come to a very problematic part of Daniel’s predicted seventy weeks, or 490 year prophecy. No matter how hard one tries to reconcile the mathematical time line from Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judaea until the time of Christ, it becomes quite impossible. Bennett is among a limited group of knowledgeable expositors on the subject. I will now follow his general outline in my own words using similar diagrams. First of all, Nebuchadnezzar made three different forays into Judaea thusly, and only one can fit Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy:

Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st visit + 70 years desolation:

                   604               70 Years                534

                     |<--------------------------------------->|      (all years B.C.)

Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd visit + 70 years desolation:

                    598               70 Years                528

                      |<--------------------------------------->|

Nebuchadnezzar’s 3rd visit + 70 years desolation:

                    588               70 Years                518

                      |<--------------------------------------->|

The reader should now comprehend some of the mathematical problems involved. The question is: Which one do we start counting from? Furthermore, there are other 70-year periods to consider during this general era of time. For instance, there is the 70-year period from the end of Assyria to the fall of Babylon, thusly (years B.C.):

                    End of Assyria                             Fall of Babylon

                           609               70 Years                539

                            |<--------------------------------------->|

The next one we should consider will show a possible missing 70-year period, mathematically speaking (years B.C.):

1st Temple destroyed      •      2nd Temple complete       •       Nehemiah builds walls

  586                70 Years               516                70 Years               446

|<--------------------------------------->|<--------------------------------------->|

140 Years

|<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->|

While this helps us to discover nearly 70 unaccounted for prophetic years, it is not exact. The reason it is not exact is because Jerusalem was captured in 598 B.C., but the temple wasn’t destroyed until 586 B.C., or 12 years later. Therefore, we need to add 140 years, starting at 598, to find when Daniel’s 70-week’s prophecy starts. Michael D. Bennett calls this extra 70 years a “double punishment” for Judah and quotes Jer. 16: 12-15, 18; 17:18; Job 11:5-6; Zech. 9:12; Isa. 40:1-2 & Rev. 18:5-6. Of these passages Isaiah, 40:1-2 might imply a “double punishment” for Judah, which states:

“¹ Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. ² Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of Yahweh’s hand double for all her sins.”

I would prefer to call this additional 70 years “troublous times”, as that is what Gabriel called the building of the wall and street, but both designations may apply. The following graph will be similar to how Michael D. Bennett has it drawn, (years B.C.):

Jerusalem                                                                 Ezra returns &          

captured                                                                 “rebuilding decree”

598                              140 Years                                   458

|<---------------------------------------------------------------------->|

                                 140 Years           Start of Daniel’s ò 70 weeks

|<---------------------------------------------------------------------->|ð------------------------

Now for a graph by me representing the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy: (a) = 458 B.C. or Ezra’s return; (b) = B.C. to A.D. conversion; (†) = 32 A.D. or Christ’s crucifixion; (c) = 3½ years after Christ’s crucifixion or near Stephen’s stoning:

  a                                                490 Years                               b       † c

|<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------->|

Note: These dates in these five graphs may not be perfectly on the dot, nor drawn to scale, but they are very close. One will notice that there are 3½ years left of Daniel’s 490 year prophecy after Christ’s crucifixion, and that is not to be projected 2000 years in the future either! Those 3½ years would take the end of Daniel’s prophecy very close to Stephen’s stoning.

From Ezra’s mission in 458 B.C., nothing more is fulfilled in the first 69 weeks. If one will turn to Dan. 9:24-27, and see what Gabriel had to say about this 70-week nation, one will discover that the entire prophecy is Messianic. The first 69 weeks of Daniel’s prophecy simply brought the nation to Christ, with His ministry directed to lost Israel only. Now don’t take anyone’s word for it, but check it out for yourself that Gabriel stated, “Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks” etc. Unless someone has changed it, 7 plus 62 still equals 69!

It was Christ, not some super, duper, pooper antichrist that is the object of Daniel’s 70th week! By-and-large the antichrist theorists pounce on Dan. 9:26 and make the “prince that shall come” to be their man, the “Antichrist”. And then they proceed to apply the Messianic prophecy of verse 27 to some imagined antichrist. On the basis of this verse, they maintain that the Antichrist will “make” a covenant with the Canaanite-jews for one week (meaning Daniel’s 70th week) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. In other words, supposedly this is where the Antichrist turns on the Canaanite-jews and the great tribulation begins. The “Prince” at verse 26 is rather Christ whose kin, the Roman army led by Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.

As fantastic as this fan-dangled novel concept is, we are supposed to believe that Paul taught such a distorted precept! Paul never even hinted at such an idea. As a matter of fact, these futurist teachings are supported by the same people who crucified Christ and today control the world’s monetary systems!

Here I have done a critical review on a booklet The Sabbatic Period Of 70 Years by Michael D. Bennett. In the next lesson, I plan a double witness to show that ALL of Daniel’s 70 weeks, or 490 years of prophecy, have been fulfilled!

This is my one hundred thirty-third monthly teaching letter and begins my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. In the last two lessons in this series it has been clearly demonstrated that Paul never taught a “secret rapture” of the church. There is yet much to be said on this subject, so this will be a continuation of that same theme. It may seem to the reader that the name of Paul isn’t being mentioned very much in this series exposing the secret rapture fallacy, but all of this data needs to be presented in order to clear Paul of teaching such a preposterous farce. In the last lesson it was pretty well demonstrated that every year of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy (490 years) was fulfilled in its entirety, with nothing left over to project 2000 years into the future. A double witness will now be given by William Finck to confirm that thesis. This lesson will separate the serious student from the average surface reader:

William Finck’s (Nov. 2002) Notes Concerning I Esdras, Ezra (II Esdras) And Nehemiah:

Persian Kings of the period:

• Cyrus                                                         550-529 B.C.

• Cambyses                                                   529-522 B.C.

• Pseudo Smerdis (the magi)                            522-521 B.C.

• Darius (Hystaspis)                                        521-486 B.C.

• Xerxes                                                        486-465 B.C.

• Artaxerxes                                                   465-445 B.C.

To show that this period is well-recorded in history, all of these Persian kings up to Xerxes were discussed at length by Herodotus. Shortly after Artaxerxes, the Peloponnesian wars among the Greeks began (431-404 B.C.). Darius Nothos (“the bastard”) ruled Persia from 426, and Artaxerxes II from 407 B.C. The brother of Artaxerxes II, Cyrus the Younger, led a rebellion against him and lost his life in its failure. This was a subject of Xenophon’s “Anabasis”. All of the dates here concur with John Clark Ridpath’s chronologies.

Because the Septuagint Greek was translated from the Hebrew at a time very close in antiquity to the actual events discussed here, especially compared to the A.V. English (and because the LXX is, I am starting to believe, more reliable than the Masoretic Text in many cases) I have chosen to adhere to that version for this study, although at times I may refer to or quote the A.V.

Both Ezra (often referred to as II Esdras) 4:6 and Daniel 9:1 mention an Assuerus (Ahasuerus), who must have been a satrap of Babylon, and nothing more. Satraps were often conquered or subservient kings, or appointees considered petty kings, under the emperor or great king.

Ezra 4:7, 4:8, 4:11, 4:23 and 6:14 all mention an Ἀρθασασθὰ, only transliterated by Brenton, where the corresponding A.V. passages have written “Artaxerxes”. I Esdras (the “apocryphal” book) at 2:16, 2:17 and 2:30, corresponds with these passages, and reads Ἀρταξέρξης, “Artaxerxes”.

This king called Ἀρθασασθὰ, or Ἀρταξέρξης, here can not be the Artaxerxes who is so well known to us through the Greek histories (and whose given name, according to Josephus, Antiq. 11:6:1 (11:184), was actually Cyrus also), but can only be Cambyses. Josephus, at Antiquities 11:2:2, verifies this.

Part of the reason for confusion is that Ἀρθασασθὰ (and Artaxerxes) is a title and not a name. Strong verifies this: refer to his Hebrew lexicon entries at #’s 325, 783 and 8660. That “Arthasastha” is a title is evident in the LXX text at Ezra 2:63, Neh. 7:65 (in a statement referring to Zorobabel, for which see the corrupted “Attharias” at I Esdras 5:40) and at Neh. 5:14 and 10:1 where the label is applied to Nehemiah. (The word also appears at Neh. 2:1 and 13:6).

The Hebrew confusion over these terms is not unlike that of the Greek, which is often commented upon. Herodotus at 6:98 states: “... Darius may be rendered ‘worker,’ Xerxes ‘warrior,’ and Artaxerxes ‘Great Warrior’. And so might we call these kings in our own language with propriety.”

A walk through Ezra and Nehemiah with the proper chronology:

• I Esdras 1:57-58 mentions the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah concerning Jerusalem, found at Jer. 25:11-12 and 36:10 (or 29:10 in the A.V.). See Ezra 1:1.

• I Esdras 2:1 (Ezra 1:1) mentions the decree given in the first year of Cyrus, which was 550 B.C. (See Isaiah 44:28, 45:1 ff.) Note that Cyrus was the king when Daniel uttered his prophecy at Daniel 11:2.

• I Esdras 2:16 (Ezra 4:7): The Samaritans wrote to Cambyses complaining of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The text here helps to establish that the original decree included the rebuilding of the city also, and not only the temple. Herodotus portrays Cambyses as being exceptionally cruel, having even had his own brother, who the Greeks called Smerdis, slain for fear he would usurp the throne. According to Rawlinson, the inscriptions support this fact. (Rawlinson’s footnote at Herodotus 3:30). Cambyses is the first king of Daniel 11:2 (his successor, Pseudo-Smerdis, a magi and an impostor, was the second.).

• I Esdras 2:30 (Ezra 4:23): Cambyses ordered the rebuilding of Jerusalem to stop. The rebuilding of the temple was prevented until the second year of Darius the Persian, which year began in 520 B.C.

• I Esdras 4:43 ff., 5:4 ff.: Here the ‘apocryphal’ I Esdras differs significantly from Ezra. Where Ezra has the return of the group of 42,000-plus with Zorobabel upon the initial proclamation of Cyrus, I Esdras records that same group (with some minor variations in the list) as returning much later, upon the proclamation of Darius. I Esdras 2:8-15 does indicate a return of captives from Babylon to Judaea upon the proclamation of Cyrus, but gives no details, stating “... the chief of the families of Judah and of the tribe of Benjamin ... and the Levites ...”, which implies a separate and much earlier return of captives, of unknown number, preceding Zorobabel’s listed group. Nehemiah 12:22 seems to support I Esdras and the return of 42,000-plus in the reign of Darius, and not Cyrus. Josephus’ Antiquities seems to support both accounts, although Josephus certainly seems confused, compare 11:1:3 (11:18) with 11:3:10 (11:69). I Esdras 5:70-73 and 6:2 indicate that Zorobabel was present at the first return of captives (in the first year of Cyrus) and (30 years) later in the second year of Darius, as he began to finally build the temple (See Zech. 4:1-10).

• I Esdras 5:73 makes a statement which is certainly errant, and which is not repeated in the corresponding verse at Ezra 4:24. It states here that the Samaritans “... hindered the finishing of the building all the time that king Cyrus lived: so they were hindered from building for the space of two years, until the reign of Darius.” Darius here must be the Persian king (see vv. 3:1, 4:47, 5:2, 6:7 and 6:23) and no other, and since Cyrus followed by Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis all ruled for a total of 30 years before Darius, here I would expect to see that figure, or one close to it. In support of this long duration of time is the search of records necessary to find the proclamation of Cyrus concerning Jerusalem, related at I Esdras 6:21 ff. and Ezra 6:1 ff.

The error here is represented by three Greek words, where I Esdras reads: ἔτη δύο ἕως (Brenton’s “... for the space of two years, until ...”) Ezra has: ἕως δευτέρου ἔτους (“until the second year”), no other change being necessary, the three words in I Esdras 5:73 must be an error, and a reading of Ezra 4:24 correct. Note also I Esdras 2:30.

• I Esdras 6:21 ff. (Ezra 6:1 ff.): The second year of Darius, which would begin in 520 B.C., saw the resumption of the building of the temple (I Esdras 6:1-2). Darius is the third king of Daniel 11:2.

• I Esdras 7:5 (Ezra 6:15): The building of the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius, which would begin in 516 B.C. If as many calculate, the final destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians occurred in 586 B.C. (although Ridpath has 588) then this would mark off the end of Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of desolation.

Note that Josephus in Antiq. 11:4:7 (11:107) states that the temple was completed in the ninth year of Darius.

By this time, however, the city itself had not been rebuilt, although a command to do so surely existed, and work was at one time begun but had stopped (see I Esdras 2:16-18, 2:28, 4:43, 4:47, 4:53, Ezra 4:12 and Ezra 5:3-4).

I Esdras (and Ezra) are silent from the sixth year of Darius to the seventh year of Artaxerxes. It will be demonstrated that the Artaxerxes of I Esdras 8 (Ezra 7) is the historical king that we know as Artaxerxes I from Greek histories. This silence represents a space of roughly 58 years. As will also be demonstrated, it is here that events related in the Book of Nehemiah actually occurred. The entire Book of Nehemiah may be inserted between I Esdras 7 (Ezra 6) and I Esdras 8 (Ezra 7), and then will these books be in chronological order, and much better understood.

The latter years of the reign of Darius were consumed with wars, against the Scythians, Massagetae, Sakae, in India and in Greece (where one of his generals was defeated at Marathon in 490 B.C.), all of this recorded by Herodotus. Darius was also engaged for some time in a siege of Babylon, having to retake the city after it revolted, also recorded by Herodotus. The Battle of Marathon set the stage for his successor Xerxes, whose fate was to “rise up against all the kingdoms of the Greeks” (Daniel 11:2).

Darius must be the king of Persia, the z!D2"F"F2, mentioned by Nehemiah. Note that Cambyses reigned but 8 years, Xerxes for 21 and Artaxerxes 20, but Darius for 35 years. At Nehemiah 5:14, Nehemiah states that he ruled Judaea (as governor) “from the twentieth year to the thirty-second year of Arthasastha, twelve years”. As previously demonstrated Arthasastha is a title used for any ruler, whether the great king of Persia or a petty local ruler. Although at Neh. 13:6 the “thirty-second year of Arthasastha king of Babylon” is mentioned, this may be an error, or may well be an allusion to the fact that Darius had recently reconquered Babylon after a revolt (see Herodotus 3:150-160).

Nehemiah, Ezra and Zorobabel were all contemporaries. In all of the lists which record the return of the 42,000-plus from captivity, Zorobabel and Nehemiah are mentioned together: Ezra 2:2, Nehemiah 7:7 and I Esdras 5:8. Where Ezra appears not in his own lists, he does at Neh. 7:7. Nehemiah and Ezra are mentioned together throughout Neh. 8 and at 12:26, among other places Zorobabel was the Arthersastha, or governor, of Judaea (I Esdras 6:27-29) and [the] object of that title where it is used at Ezra 2:63 (compare Neh. 7:65 and I Esdras 5:40 where the text is corrupted to “Attharias”). At I Esdras 5:40 Zorobabel and Nehemiah are mentioned together. Nehemiah followed Zorobabel in that dignity stated at Neh. 12:47. See Nehemiah 5:14 and 10:1, where Nehemiah is clearly “Athersastha” or “Artasastha”, both variations of the same title.

Nehemiah recollects some of the events which were recorded in chapters 1 through 8 of I Esdras (1 through 7 of Ezra), but none of the events of chapter 9 of I Esdras (8 through 10 of Ezra), which had not yet transpired. Nehemiah was concerned with the rebuilding of the city and walls of Jerusalem, a great part of which was certainly accomplished during the 12 years of his governorship. The 20th year of Darius, 14 years after Zorobabel completed the temple, began in 502 B.C., and the 32nd year, when Nehemiah left Jerusalem, began in 490 B.C. The ‘apocryphal’ Ecclesiasticus (Σοφια Σειραχ) 49:13 credits Nehemiah with building the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 11:27), but the buildings expected to inhabit the city were not necessarily complete (Neh. 7:4, 11:1-2).

• Neh. 7: Nehemiah recollects the list of Israelites who returned to Jerusalem in, as has been discussed above, the second year of Darius.

• Neh. 8: Nehemiah and Ezra are contemporaries, mentioned together throughout this chapter. Ezra here is called “the scribe”, “the priest” or even by both titles (8:9).

• Neh. 11: Nehemiah lists the families dwelling in Jerusalem, and specifically the priests and Levites (11:12 ff.), who were “the priests in the reign of Darius the Persian” which is a firm witness of the chronology for the service of Nehemiah purported here. When Ezra returned to Jerusalem for the second time, after the time of Nehemiah (as will be discussed below) he brought with him many other priests and Levites from those among the captivity (I Esdras 8:28 ff., Ezra 8:1 ff.) and after their arrival, he found that many of those priests and Levites which had long been in Jerusalem (Neh. 11) had taken strange wives, and he listed these (I Esdras 9:18 ff., Ezra 10:18 ff.).

As stated, Nehemiah’s mission ended by 489 B.C. Xerxes ascended to the Persian throne in 486 B.C. The entire first half of Xerxes’ reign was consumed by the war against Greece, which he personally attended to. All of the resources of the empire were busy about this war, which many of the children of Israel and Judah took part in. Not only the Danaans and Dorians and other Israelite tribes on the side of the Greeks, but Scythians, Sakae, Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians (among others listed by Herodotus) on the Persian side. Xerxes led the Persian army to destroy Athens, and Salamis, the famed naval battle in which the Greeks destroyed the entire Persian fleet, was witnessed by Xerxes from Grecian shores in 480 B.C. After Salamis, Xerxes retreated, but left a good part of his army behind with a general to fight the Greeks on land. The Greeks defeated this army at Plataea and at Mycalé, both in 479 B.C., effectively ending any hopes by the Persians of conquering the west. It is likely that Xerxes’ long journey back to Susa kept him occupied until 478 or maybe even 477 B.C. It is absolutely unlikely that Xerxes is the “artaxerxes” of I Esdras 8, the “Arthasastha” of Ezra 7, since he began the seventh year of his reign, which started 480 B.C., sitting on the shores of Attica watching his greatest pride, his navy, sink to the bottom of the sea. Surely the good king of I Esdras 8 (Ezra 7) is Artaxerxes, who ascended the Persian throne in 465 B.C.

Before proceeding, it must be noted that Josephus made the fatal error of accepting the Esther story as a historical fact. He dated the Esther affair to the reign of Artaxerxes, Xerxes’ successor. See Antiquities 11:6 (11:184-296). The reasons for rejecting Esther as a fable are many, but it is outside of the purpose here to list them. Josephus’ acceptance of Esther caused him to artificially extend the length of the Xerxes’ reign far beyond what it actually was, attributing to Xerxes many events which are rightfully attributed to Artaxerxes his successor, or even Darius his predecessor.

• Josephus’ Antiquities 11:5:2 (11:135): Here Josephus states that Nehemiah “Was cupbearer to king Xerxes”, where it has been demonstrated that Nehemiah was in the employ of Darius.

• Josephus’ Antiquities 11:5:7 (11:168): Nehemiah “came to Jerusalem in the twenty and fifth year of the reign of Xerxes”.

• Josephus’ Antiquities 11:5:8 (11:179): “... And this trouble, he underwent for two years and four months; for in so long a time was the wall built in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of Xerxes, in the ninth month.”

It is difficult to say how Josephus arrived at these conclusions, or from where he obtained his data, for these statements can not be corroborated by or reconciled with our Scriptures. One aspect of these statements does stand out, for the twenty-eighth year of Xerxes, who reigned but 21 years, would actually be the seventh year of Artaxerxes, the year which Ezra began to prepare for his second return to Jerusalem.

• I Esdras 8:1 (Ezra 7:1): Ezra received a commission from Artaxerxes, in his seventh year, to return to Jerusalem with a large contingent of priests, Levites and others of the captivity. Ezra is given much authority, “that they may look unto the affairs of Judaea and Jerusalem” (I Esdras 8:12) and “thou, Esdras, according to the wisdom of God ordain judges and justices, that they may judge in all Syria and Phenice ...” I Esdras 8:23). If Ezra was not actually appointed governor (there is a vague statement at I Esdras 9:49), as Zorobabel and Nehemiah were before him, he certainly was given authority which exceeded even theirs. (See Ezra 7:25-28). This return took Ezra over seven months to prepare for and complete, surely extending into (or at least approaching) the eighth year of Artaxerxes, which began in 457 B.C. (or 458 B.C.?)

• Daniel 9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks ...”

From 457 B.C., 69 weeks, or 483 years later, was 26 A.D. [The year that Yahshua Christ stood in the river Jordan to be baptized by John was, by the certainly accurate account in Luke, 28 A.D.], thus beginning His three and one-half year ministry in the flesh, the first half of Daniel’s 70th week (9:27).

[With all of this data, I haven’t even covered in detail Jeremiah’s 70 years of desolation mentioned in Dan. 9:2: v. Jer. 25:12 & 29:10.]

Here the phrase “going forth” must be examined:

• Hebrew: Strong’s #4161: “4161 מוצא môwtsâ’, mo-tsaw´; or מצא môtsâ’, mo-tsaw´; from 3318; a going forth, i.e. (the act) an egress, or strong•font-family: (the place) an exit; hence a source or product; specifically dawn, the rising of the sun (the East), exportation, utterance, a gate, a fountain, a mine, a meadow (as producing grass):– brought out, bud, that which came out, east, going forth, going out, that which (thing that) is gone out, outgoing, proceeded out, spring, vein, [water-] course [springs].”

For our purpose “môwtsâ’ or môtsâ’, ... a going forth, i.e. (the act) an egress, or (the place) an exit; hence a source or product ... dawn ... rising ... utterance ...”

• Septuagint Greek: ἔξοδος (Strong’s #1841); Liddell & Scott: “a going out ... 2. a marching out, military expedition ... 3. a solemn procession ... II. a way out, outlet ... III. an end, close ... the end or issue of an argument ...”

With Ezra’s return in 457 B.C., the “end”, “close” or better, the “product” of the command to build and restore the city of Jerusalem [may be perceived as having been completed. Yet if the time to actually do the building should also be counted, we can easily estimate that and arrive at 455 B.C., 483 years prior to the baptism of Yahshua Christ in 28 A.D.] With the chronology presented here, not only is the history of Jerusalem properly aligned with the utterance of the prophets, also Scripture is fully reconciled with the secular history of Persia which has come down to us. No longer do we have the difficulty which the many errant “mainstream” commentators leave themselves with when attempting to explain these books. No generally accepted dates from secular history must be distorted to meet the chronological requirements of the books discussed here, and no accusations are leveled at Scripture, for all of the problems discussed have been easily resolved. Surely there are some minor items left unmentioned in these few short hand-written pages, but all of the important statements in the books discussed, as pertaining to the chronology presented here, have been addressed, and I must conclude that the Word is surer than the understanding of men.

Resulting Chronology:

• 550 B.C.      Cyrus king of Persia, first return of captives to Judaea.

• 529 B.C.      Cambyses became king, some time before 522 he ordered the reconstruction of Jerusalem to stop.

• 522 B.C.      Pseudo-Smerdis, the magi, usurped the Persian throne.

• 521 B.C.      Darius Hystaspis became king.

• 520 B.C.      Rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem commenced.

• 516 B.C.      The temple completed in the sixth year of Darius. Jeremiah’s 70 years of desolation ended during this year.

• 502 B.C.      Nehemiah commissioned by Darius. The rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem began during this period.

• 490 B.C.      Nehemiah’s mission in Jerusalem ended. The city’s walls are complete and dedicated. Building construction within the city was under way. Persians defeated by Greeks at Marathon.

• 486 B.C.      Xerxes became king, began preparations for the invasion of Greece.

• 480 B.C.      Persian fleet lost at Salamis, Xerxes began his retreat home.

• 479 B.C.      Partial Persian armies defeated simultaneously by Greek armies at Plataea and Mycené.

• 465 B.C.      Artaxerxes became king.

• 458 B.C.      Ezra commissioned for his final return to Jerusalem.

• 457 B.C.      Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy began around this time. [Need 455 B.C. for 32 A.D. crucifixion, and the building by Ezra may not have been completed until then.]

                   William Finck, 3rd November, 2002

Thank you William Finck for sharing the notes you put together 7 years ago on this portion of history, positioning the events during Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy. William substantiates his claim that the crucifixion took place in 32 A.D. in the notes of his translations of Luke, showing the beginning of Christ’s ministry to be in 28 A.D. William’s four notes on this at chapters 2 & 3 of Luke contain 1232 words and are too long to include here. When these translations are finally published, one will need to get a copy of them. William’s original notes appeared to have a discrepancy of two years, the difference between starting Daniel’s prophecy at 457 or 455 B.C. However there may not actually be a discrepancy at all, depending upon the interpretation of the Hebrew and Greek words defined above. Therefore the portions in brackets found above are recent amendments to the original notes.

It should also be noted that Howard B. Rand in his Study In Daniel also places the beginning of Christ’s ministry at 28 A.D., stating in part on page 232: “... (28 A.D.), when John the Baptist baptized Jesus and He was anointed by the Holy Spirit at that time for His mission.” There are two problems with Rand though. He uses the errant archbishop Ussher’s A.M. (After Man) chronology from the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint, and he allows only a little over one year for Christ’s ministry, putting the crucifixion at 30 A.D. rather than 32 .

If you will remember, in the last WTL lesson #132, I presented a timeline on Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy (490 years) from Michael D. Bennett’s The Sabbatic 70 Years. The object here is to compare William Finck’s observations on the history of that period with those of Michael D. Bennett’s. In order to do that, it will be necessary to reproduce some of the charts that I made after the design that Bennett had produced in his exposé on the subject. Here they are again:

The next one we should consider will show a possible missing 70-year period, mathematically speaking (years B.C.):

 1st Temple destroyed       •       2nd Temple complete       •       Nehemiah builds walls

     586                70 Years               516                70 Years              446

|<--------------------------------------->|<--------------------------------------->|

140 Years

|<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->|

Then it was explained that there were nearly 70 unaccounted for prophetic years. I would prefer to call this additional 70 years “troublous times”, as that is what Gabriel called the building of the wall and street, but both designations may apply. The following graph will be similar to how Michael D. Bennett has it drawn, (years B.C.):

     Jerusalem                                                                         Ezra returns &          

      captured                                                                       “rebuilding decree”

   598                             140 Years                                           458

|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->|

                                       140 Years                Start of Daniel’s   ò 70 weeks

|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->|ð--------------------------

Now for a graph by me representing the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy: (a) = 458 B.C. or Ezra’s return; (b) = B.C. to A.D. conversion; (†) = 32 A.D. or Christ’s crucifixion; (c) = 3½ years after Christ’s crucifixion or near Stephen’s stoning:

 a                                           490 Years                                     b        † c

|<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------->|

After I had compared some of the dates to Michael D. Bennett’s book, I noticed that both he and Finck place the completion of the rebuilding of the temple at 516 B.C. Therefore, I have to believe that Bennett is correct from the time the temple was destroyed until its rebuilding was complete. I see also that Bennett and Finck nearly agree on the beginning of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy at 458 B.C. Finck has it beginning at 457 [to 455] B.C. and Bennett has it “458/57”. In the chart of which I made a likeness, for lack of room and simplicity, I just made it “458”. I noticed Finck started his chronology notes at 550 B.C. with Cyrus king of Persia returning captives while Bennett started at 604 B.C. with Nebuchadnezzar’s first visit to Jerusalem deporting Daniel to Babylon. Therefore, I believe that both Finck and Bennett are in the ballpark, but coming from a different angle.

Another thing I should mention is that both Finck’s and Bennett’s dating show that there has to be a period of unaccounted for non-prophetic time between the completion of the rebuilding of the temple and the beginning of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy, and figuring from both of their dates, it comes to 59 years, except Bennett figures 140 years after the capture of Jerusalem in 598/97 by Nebuchadnezzar. Also, both Bennett and Finck agree that the completion of the rebuilding of the temple was 516 B.C. I should also inform the reader that Bennett and Finck were totally unaware of the other’s work in this area of endeavor.

The vision recorded at Daniel 9:24-27 has long been a mystery to many, and various errant theologies have been built upon it! Verse 27 says in part: “And he [Yahshua Christ] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ...” Anyone who tries to make this someone other than our savior is a liar! And anyone who proclaims that Christ died sometime other than the middle of Daniel’s 70th week of years is not correct for Daniel 9:27 states otherwise! A pastor, J.S. Brooks, wrote a small brochure entitled The Seventy Weeks Prophecy and promoted the idea that Daniel’s 70th week ended with Christ’s crucifixion. Evidently he didn’t read verse 27, or had some perverted idea of what he thought it meant! It can’t be both ways. It either has to be in the “midst” of the 70th week or at the end, and Daniel 9:27 definitely says “in the midst of the week”.

In the book Charting The Times by Tim Lahaye & Thomas Ice, on page 90 they show what they supposedly believe is the timeline for “The 70 Weeks of Daniel”. First of all, they have a date of 444 B.C. for the decree of Artaxerxes for rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls and they start their countdown for the first 69 weeks of Daniel’s 70 weeks, or 490 years. As you can see, Michael D. Bennett has the decree for the rebuilding of the walls at 458 B.C. If one will add 444 + 33 years (33 A.D. being their crucifixion date) one would arrive at a total of 477 years, or 13 years short of Daniel’s 490 years. According to these futurists, there are supposed to be only 7 years left over from Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy which they insist will be projected 2000 years into the future! What are they going to do with the other 4 years of their calculations (or as they figure it, 6 years)? Is it, according to their figures, going to be 13 years of tribulation instead? Come on now, let’s get real!

Daniel’s 70-weeks are broken down into 7 weeks + 62 weeks + ½ week + ½ week = 70 weeks. (Here 7 weeks = 49 years; 62 weeks = 434 years; and ½ week = 3½ years.) Now Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice don’t even follow their mentor Cyrus I. Scofield, as a note in his Bible on Daniel 9:27 reads: “The years reckon, of course, from the end of the seven weeks, so that the whole time from ‘the going forth of the commandment to restore’ etc., ‘unto the Messiah’ is sixty-nine weeks of years, or 483 years.” What Scofield doesn’t say is that it was another 3½ years after the 483 years until the crucifixion! At this point it should be clear that there is no mathematical way there could be seven years left over of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy to project 2000 years into the future! But some might claim that that still leaves 3½ to project into the future, but we must remember that Christ didn’t ascend immediately after His resurrection into heaven! The First Advent didn’t stop at the crucifixion!

What it all boils down to is, the position of the futurist doctrine rests primarily upon one major lie and several lesser lies. The major lie adopted by the futurists is that the people calling themselves “Jews” today are Israelites! On the other hand, history declares they are neither of the house of Israel nor of the house of Judah, but are rather Canaanites infused with the blood of Esau and Cain. Scripture indicates, though, that a few Judahites did mix their blood with the Canaanites at Jer. 2:21-22, but the majority of Judah remained racially pure! One of the other lies is that the temple will be rebuilt! The truth is, we don’t need a temple anymore, as Christ’s risen body became our Temple (Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 1:19; 2:20). Furthermore, at Jer. 19: 8-11 it is prophesied that the temple and city, once destroyed by the Romans, would never be rebuilt again! The futurists insist on a literal interpretation of prophecy, so why don’t they have a literal interpretation of the genetic makeup of the Canaanite- jews which is a literal fact?

The truth of the matter is the fact that the doctrine of futurism and the misnamed doctrine of pentecostalism were hatched in hell and bought and paid for by the Christ-killing Canaanite-jews. There was a true Pentecost, but today’s pentecostalism is a counterfeit. Paul never taught either of these doctrines! With the next lesson we’ll go into greater detail on these two corrupting, satanic doctrines!

This is my one hundred thirty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. In the last three lessons of this series it has been clearly demonstrated that Paul never taught a “secret rapture” of the church. To suggest such a thing is to accuse Paul of following Satan’s agenda! It has been well-demonstrated with the secret rapture lie, along with its Siamese twin “classic pentecostalism” (which is not the Pentecostalism of Acts chapter 2), that the history of these teachings have their source from among the very enemies of the Body of Christ. I used to believe in the secret rapture, and pentecostalism to a somewhat lesser degree than the pentecostal churches. And although the Evangelical and Nazarene churches to which I belonged didn’t get involved in the tongues business, I have seen almost everything else the pentecostals promote. I spell it with a small “p” as it has nothing to do with Biblical Pentecostalism!

This is what I stated in WTL #131 concerning the doctrine of futurism: “Thus, the Jesuit priest Ribera’s writings influenced the Jesuit priest Lacunza; Lacunza influenced Irving; Irving influenced Darby; Darby influenced Scofield; Scofield and Darby influenced D.L. Moody, and Moody influenced the Pentecostal Movement; and the Pentecostal Movement influenced the Charismatic Movement, and I don’t want to have the slightest part of this satanic plot dreamed-up, supported and perpetuated by Canaanite-jews.”

I shall first address “classical pentecostalism”: Classical pentecostalism began in the Midwest in 1901 at the Bethel Bible College, Topeka, Kansas, where Charles Fox Parham and his students in attendance came to the conclusion that the baptism by the Spirit was subsequent to sanctification with the accompanying tangible evidence of tongues. This teaching was in the Apostolic Faith Church and it was earlier called the “Latter Rain Movement” and spread in the Midwest on the wings of other apostolic gifts, particularly healing. It branched out to Houston, Texas where William J. Seymour was attracted to Parham’s Bible school and became an advocate of a “third blessing”.

From Houston, the focal point of the movement shifted to Los Angeles with national headlines, through the labor of the negro William J. Seymour. It is the story of the so-called “revival” in Los Angeles on Azusa Street that captures our attention in this case. The principal character is, of course, William J. Seymour, and the location is the multicultural industrial area of Los Angeles, Bonnie Brae street and Azusa street. Let us begin by saying something of William J. Seymour, and the focus of the time will certainly be upon the three year international beginning of classical pentecostalism in the so-called Azusa revivals in Los Angeles from 1906 through 1909. Let us not merely talk about the Azusa Street revival with William J. Seymour, and the international beginnings of the movement, but reflect a bit upon the doctrines in a more precise way, and give a clear definition to the expression “classical pentecostalism”. This expression is a form of the charismatic movement. First, William J. Seymour, as previously indicated, the soon-to-be “apostle” of Azusa Street was the Louisiana born black preacher in Houston, Texas. He was attracted to the “holiness movement”. From the holiness concept, he was encouraged by Parham to attend his Houston Bible school where he came to believe in three works of grace, although admittedly he hadn’t experienced it personally. In fact, William J. Seymour will not claim the experience of Acts 2:4 until he goes to Los Angeles. While he was still a student at the Houston school, Miss Neely Terry from California, who befriended Seymour, the way became open for his initial contact with Los Angeles. Miss Terry belonged to a small negro holiness mission in Los Angeles that broke from the 2nd Baptist church and affiliated with the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene. Miss Terry suggested that Seymour be invited to pastor the group.

Seymour’s work with women ministers continued. He was invited by Neely Terry, a negro holiness woman from Los Angeles, to pastor a holiness congregation in California which had been founded by Julia W. Hutchins. Seymour traveled to Los Angeles bearing the message that speaking in tongues was the necessary evidence of the pentecostal experience, but Hutchins rejected his preaching and locked him out. He found refuge in the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry on Bonnie Brae street, where he conducted several weeks of prayer meetings. There, on April 9, 1906, Seymour finally manifested the tongue-speaking experience he had promoted in his preaching. A revival broke out and crowds began to gather at the Bonnie Brae street residence and in the streets. He leased a vacant building at 312 Azusa street in Los Angeles from the Stevens African Methodist Episcopal Church (where several persons worshipping with him had formerly been members), a two story wooden structure located in a poor black neighborhood in Los Angeles, near some stables and a lumberyard. Within a few days, more than a thousand people were trying to enter the small mission building, and the Azusa street revival was underway. The core group consisted primarily of black female domestic workers, but over a period of three years, from 1906 to 1909, the revival drew people of every race, nationality, and culture. In Seymour’s own words, “the work began among the colored people. God baptized several sanctified was women with the Holy Ghost, who have been much used of Him.” [sic Seymour’s grammar]

Seymour interpreted the invitation to Los Angeles as a call of God, but which god? Seymour stated further, “It was the divine call that brought me from Houston, Texas to Los Angeles, the lord put it on the hearts of one of the saints in Los Angeles to write to me, and she felt the lord would have me come there, and I felt it was the leading of the lord.” So he made his way from Parham and the Houston Bible Institute to Los Angeles. At that time, Los Angeles was a spreading, expanding city, tripling its population from 1900, having 100,000 people, to 1910 when it became a large city of 320,000. Half of the city were fresh immigrants, mostly from southern and eastern Europe.

Filling in more details concerning Seymour: The story of the 1906 Azusa Street Revival, which marks the beginning of pentecostalism as an international movement, offers a model of cooperative ministry and empowerment among the sexes, where authority and recognition are granted to either sex based upon the exercise of spiritual gifts. The early pentecostal movement was led by William J. Seymour, a man whose own life’s story reflects practically all major facets of the denominational racism experienced by black Christians in the United States. Born in Louisiana in 1878, Seymour was raised as a Baptist, as a young man joined a local black congregation of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Indianapolis, Indiana, and next was drawn to the Evening Light Saints, a name widely used at the time for the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana).

Other bits and pieces: Despite the work of various Wesleyan groups such as Parham’s and D.L. Moody’s revivals, the beginning of the widespread pentecostal movement in the United States is generally considered to have begun with Seymour’s Azusa Street revival. Thus, we are beginning to see how D.L. Moody fits into the equation.

More pieces of the story: It should be noted that what happened in Topeka was by no means the first incident of speaking in tongues in America. Numerous other groups regularly practiced glossolalia. What made Parham’s group unique was their insistence that tongues were the necessary evidence of Spirit-baptism. One of the more prominent outbreaks of tongues occurred in services conducted by Edward Irving at the Presbyterian Church on Regent’s Square in London, 1831. Apparently tongues broke out in a meeting conducted by D.L. Moody in 1875, although he himself never experienced the gift. Tongues were also present sporadically in the Welsh revival. Note: This is the same Rev. Edward Irving, if you will remember, that translated Emmanuel Lacunza’s book The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (published in English in 1827 in London), the hand book for futurism. So we are beginning to see that the false tongues of classical pentecostalism and the secret rapture of futurism go hand in hand!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal on the Internet:

“Today’s Pentecostal movement traces its community’s growth to a prayer meeting at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas on January 1, 1901. Here, many came to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was the biblical sign of the Holy Spirit’s baptism. Charles Parham, the founder of this school, would later move to Houston, Texas. In spite of segregation in Houston, William J. Seymour, a (literally) one-eyed African-American preacher, was allowed to attend Parham’s Bible classes there. Seymour traveled to Los Angeles, where his preaching sparked the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Despite the work of various Wesleyan groups such as Parham’s and D.L. Moody’s revivals, the beginning of the widespread Pentecostal movement in the United States is generally considered to have begun with Seymour’s Azusa Street Revival.

“The Azuza [sic] revival was the first Pentecostal revival to receive significant attention, and many people from around the world became drawn to it. The Los Angeles Press gave close attention to Seymour’s revival, which helped fuel its growth. A number of new, smaller groups started up, inspired by the events of this revival. International visitors and Pentecostal missionaries would eventually bring these teachings to other nations, so that practically all classic Pentecostal denominations today trace their historical roots to the Azusa Street Revival.

“... Early Pentecostals were fueled by their understanding that all of God’s people would prophesy in the last days before Christ’s second coming. They looked to the biblical passages concerning Pentecost in the second chapter of Acts, in which Peter cited the prophecy contained in Joel 2, ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.’ (NIV) Thus, as the experience of speaking in tongues spread among the men and women of Azusa Street, a sense of immediacy took hold, as they began to look toward the Second Coming of Christ. Early Pentecostals saw themselves as outsiders from mainstream society, dedicated solely to preparing the way for Christ’s return.

“Pentecostalism, like any major movement, has given birth to a large number of organizations with political, social and theological differences. The early movement was countercultural: African-Americans and women were important leaders in the Azusa Revival, and helped spread the Pentecostal message far beyond Los Angeles. As the Azusa Revival began to wane, however, doctrinal differences began to surface as pressure from social, cultural and political developments from that time began to affect the church. As a result, major divisions, isolationism, sectarianism and even the increase of extremism were apparent. ...”

From “History Of Charismatic Movement” by Brian Hughes from the Internet:

“In the 1830s, a Presbyterian congregation in Scotland under the leadership of Edward Irving began to experience manifestations of tongues and prophecy. Certain men were appointed as apostles, until their number reached twelve. After Irving’s death, the movement developed into what would be called the Catholic Apostolic Church, a name adopted from the Nicene Creed. Henry Drummond was perhaps the most influential man in this movement at its beginning. He was sympathetic to the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the movement took on a highly liturgical flair, including influences from Eastern Orthodox liturgy. The movement grew to several hundred thousand in England, Germany, and some other parts of Europe. This sect ultimately disappeared, though a splinter group in Germany did appoint new apostles and continued on. The last apostle from Drummond’s Group, Francis Woodhouse of the Catholic Apostolic Church, died in 1901 – just a few months after Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues in the United States. ...

“During the 1870s, there were Christians known as ‘Gift People’ or ‘Gift Adventists’ numbering in the thousands, who were known for spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues. One preacher from the Gift People influenced A.J. Tomlinson, who would later lead the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Though some have considered the 1896 Shearer Schoolhouse Revival in Cherokee County, North Carolina as the beginning of the modern Pentecostal Movement, the remoteness of the region very likely kept it as a localized event, thereby limiting any possibility it may have had to impact the movement that grew out of Azusa Street. ...

“Despite the fact that there were indeed Pentecostal churches before 1901, this should not detract from the fact that it was Charles Francis Parham who is the one individual who is almost universally acknowledged to be the founder of modern ‘Pentecostalism’ and the individual most instrumental in publicizing the idea of ‘glossocentric pneumabaptism’, or the idea that the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ is evidenced by speaking in tongues. The modern Pentecostal movement is generally recognized to have begun at the Topeka Kansas Bible College on January 1st, 1901, when Parham, a former Methodist minister and holiness preacher, invoked the Holy Spirit over his congregation, and a certain Agnes Ozman, one of Parham’s students began, according to eyewitnesses, to speak in ‘Mandarin Chinese’ ...

“The Azuza [sic] revival was the first Pentecostal revival to receive significant attention, and many people from around the world became drawn to it. The Los Angeles Press gave close attention to Seymour’s revival, which helped fuel its growth. A number of new, smaller, groups started up, inspired by the events of this revival. International visitors and Pentecostal missionaries would eventually bring these teachings to other nations, so that practically all classic Pentecostal denominations today trace their historical roots to the Azusa Street Revival. ...

“The Azusa Street Revival, as it is popularly known, propelled the Pentecostal movement from relative obscurity to worldwide notoriety. It is one of the lesser known but well documented facts that Charles Parham’s greatest pupil was, because of his race, not allowed by the ‘spiritual father’ of the Pentecostal movement to enter his classroom, but was obliged to listen to Parham’s lectures in the hall.

“William Seymour, a black holiness preacher, received his ‘Pentecostal experience’, or ‘Baptism in the Spirit’ in Los Angeles, and is credited with beginning the Azusa Street revival. This ‘revival’, by its very nature, was not likely to avoid becoming controversial, as evidenced by an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 18, 1906:

“‘… Breathing strange utterances, and mouthing a creed which it would seem no mortal could understand, the newest religious sect has started in Los Angeles … devotees of the weird doctrine practice the most fanatical rites, preach the wildest theories, and work themselves into a state of mad excitement … night is made hideous in the neighborhood by the howlings of the worshippers who spend hours swaying back and forth in a nerve racking attitude of prayer and supplication. They claim to have the ‘gift of tongues’ and [to] be able to comprehend the babel …”

A better description couldn’t be given of the negro’s style of worship. Anyone who has ever watched a negro’s so-called “worship service” on television has to admit that this is exactly how they conduct themselves; like the jungle-savages they are. Not only that, but those Whites practicing classical pentecostalism act the same way, and who are referred to as “holy rollers”. There is one thing of which we can be very sure, Yahweh doesn’t want us to worship Him in the same manner as the jungle-savages worship their god. Yes, on the true day of Pentecost, they were accused of being drunk with wine, but they surely weren’t acting like a bunch of jungle savages as described above!

Another account is given by Dan Gayman in his 1906-2006 The Centennial Celebration Of Pentecostalism, What Is Its Fruit? on pages 5-6, under the heading “Was God Or The Devil At Work In 1906?”:

“... Parham opened up the Bethel Bible College in Houston, Texas, and an African student there, William Seymour, at the urging of other black Pentecostals in Houston, decided to export the new faith to California, where the climate for interracial mixing was more conducive to evangelization. Bethel Bible College had operated segregated classes, but began to integrate all of God’s children into one multiracial church. Upon arriving in California, Seymour was able to possess an old wood-framed building that had previously served as a Methodist meeting house, and the rest is history.

“Gathering at 312 Azusa street in the industrial section of Los Angeles, William Seymour gathered blacks, whites, American Indians, and every other race he could find, including newly arrived immigrants, and glossolalia broke out with a fury. Speaking in tongues, healing, miracles, prophecy, revelations for the end of the world, and wonders broke out. The word quickly spread, causing the meetings to grow larger. People flocked to 312 Azusa street, the Pentecostal mecca of the world. The religious fire that blazed on Azusa Street would soon make it the major revival center on earth. Soon the Azusa Street converts were fanning out to every corner of the U.S. and abroad to Europe, Africa, Latin America, and every corner of the world. ...”

Then under the heading, “The Fruits Of Pentecostalism”, Gayman states on pages 6-7:

“First among the fruits of Pentecostalism was the open display of racial integration that flowered among the pioneering blacks and whites who fathered the movement in the early 1900s. At a time when most of America remained racially segregated with clear lines of distinction drawn between black and whites and no church or societal approval of interracial mixing and marriage, the Pentecostals were busy filling their gatherings with both races – in the pulpits and the pews.

“This was over one full generation before Harry Truman by presidential order integrated the American army in 1946, before the integration of our public schools by Supreme Court decree in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka (1954), and before Billy Graham clamored for the integration of his evangelistic crusades in the 1950s. The Pentecostal movement opened the door to religious integration, thus paving the way for interracial marriage.”

Again, on page 7, Gayman states: “... The seeds of multiculturalism were sown in the fertile soil of Pentecostalism during the early 1900s. These seeds germinated in Texas and throughout the South; William Seymour, a black evangelist, carried them to California in 1906. One of the first demonstrations of overt multiculturalism in America occurred inside the great? (? [by Gayman]) revival center at Azusa street in 1906. From there, the mixing of every racial type in California, part of Pentecostal fever, was carried into every corner of the United States and beyond to Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Pentecostalism was a multi-cultural movement from the get go. This ‘spirit-filled’ movement crossed racial, religious, and political lines that had never been breached in the history of the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples of the earth.”

Dan Gayman asked an excellent question with his heading, “Was God Or The Devil At Work In 1906?”, for if it wasn’t of Yahweh, it was of Satan. I titled one of my brochures: Yahweh The God Of Segregation, vs. Satan The god Of Integration. Today nearly everyone is following the god of integration! Therefore, it is very clear that classic pentecostalism, with its program of integration, is following Satan’s agenda. Today, Satan’s agenda is styled as being “politically correct”. In short, there’s nothing Christian about classical pentecostalism! In fact, I fail to see anything “classical” about false pentecostalism! After all, the definition for the term “classical” means “serving as a standard of excellence.” There is another thing about these so-called pentecostals, they never refer to the importance of observing the feast of Pentecost as described in the Old Testament. The Pentecost of the Old Testament was for Israelites only, not negros, hispanics, Canaanite-jews or any other unclean sewer-creatures! The New Testament maintained this distinction!

PRESENT-DAY SO-CALLED “PENTECOSTAL” AGENDA

From AG.org News & Information from the Internet [“AG” means Assembly Of God]: “AG multicultural churches show fast, large growth Mon, 09 May 2005 - 6:04 PM CST.

“The thinking among many U.S. church leaders in recent years is that the key to church growth lies in focusing on specific cultures, whether it be Hispanic, Slavic, Korean, Hmong, Tongan or 55 other groups that have formed their own distinct ethnic categories within the Fellowship.

“Scott Temple, director of Intercultural Ministries for the AG, sees another hope for the future. ‘The integrated model – where there is no dominant ethnic group – features many of the fastest-growing churches in the Assemblies of God,’ Temple says. ‘We need to stress planting and growing intercultural churches, not only churches for specific ethnic groups’.

“Temple says there are 472 congregations in the AG where no race makes up a majority, compared to only 226 multiracial churches in 1992.

“Such churches also are among the AG churches with largest average attendance. The 472 ‘no single majority’ congregations have an average Sunday morning attendance of 253, a growth of 101 since 1992. That compares to 145 average attendees in white churches, 137 in black churches and 111 for Hispanic churches. There are 51 multiethnic churches with more than 500 attendees, and 22 topping 1,000.

“One of the largest is Mis[s]ion Ebenezer in Carson, California, which started as a Hispanic church and didn’t have an English-language service until 1993. Now the two largest Sunday services are in English, although many of the attendees are natives of a dozen Spanish-speaking countries, including Cuba, Spain and Chile. ‘My concern is if we didn’t have anything in English to encourage them to stay, they would leave,’ Pastor Isaac J. Canales says:

“‘Multiculturalism is a demographic reality in Southern California, but Canales has made a point of making diversity a priority. Mis[s]ion Ebenezer today has 720 white adherents, 630 Hispanics, 180 blacks, 180 Asians and 90 Native Americans. The church includes brown, white and black pastors, staff members, choir members, musicians and lay leaders. Canales’ wife, Ritha, is white’.” Now we know more about the Assemblies of God!

HOW SO-CALLED “PENTECOSTALS” THINK:

From the Internet: “United by Faith, The Multiracial Congregation As An Answer to the Problem of Race.” Reviewed by Rev. Randy Lee:

“Four major sections and their conclusions Biblical Antecedents for Multiracial churches Jesus’ inclusive table fellowship and vision of a house of prayer for all nations was a precursor to multiracial congregations. Jesus had a life and ministry with Jews and Gentiles (Galilee of the nations).

“Gospels were written after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed. The symbol of exclusive worship was gone. Houses of prayer included people from all nations.

“All early congregations were multicultural and multi-class: in Jerusalem, pan-Jewish; elsewhere Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles from Antioch to Rome and beyond. This way Christianity permeated the entire society, miracle of reconciliation via conversion from ethnocentrism to Jesus’ vision, intention, and practice.

“Multiracial US churches 1600-1940:

“Earliest African Americans worshipped in multiracial churches. Few blacks in church until awakenings. Some reconciliation via spiritual awakenings (Wakefield, camp meetings, Azusa St. 1906), always eventually apart by racism. Institution of slavery [driven by free plantation labor] and racism permeated US society and it outweighed ‘all are equal in God’s sight’ theology.

“A rationale for slavery was opportunity to evangelize, but some may have come as Christians, British mandate for colonial religious training of blacks often ignored, oppressor’s god mindset. Biracial churches had separate, inferior seating for blacks. African churches with multi-denominational black national associations and denominations (AME, AMEZ) started. Before the Civil War, northern and southern denominations split. Roman Catholic laity could not accept black (mediator) priests sent by Bishops.

“Institutional racism became legalized in US by 1850:

“Slavery was wrong theologically and would bring God’s condemnation, hence Civil War, but multiethnic worship was socially unacceptable practice. W.E.B. DuBois, regarding the American church, ‘No other institution in America is built so thoroughly or more absolutely on the color line.’

1940-2000: In 1950s 0.1% Protestant African Americans worshipped in multiracial churches. Multiracial churches are still rare; only 5.5% have <80% one racial group. Civil Rights activism did not work in churches: Ed King in Alabama, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Methodist and Episcopalian bishops. Large multiracial churches are newsworthy. Often Pentecostal or Church of God. ‘A movement toward more multiracial congregations must be the cutting edge for ministry and growth in this century.’

“Four Multiethnic Churches: Riverside Church, NYC - interdenominational (Am. Bap./UCC), liberal, multiracial. John D. Rockefeller vision, pastors Harry Fosdick, Robert McCracken, James Forbes (black). Reach higher learning with Gospel. Mainly white & black. 75% rule: enjoy 75% of worship, 25% is for others’ expression for integration; expressive (black, charismatic or Pentecostal) ‘Amens’ in worship.

“Mosaic Church, LA - So. Baptist multiracial to evangelize urban areas and arts and entertainment districts. Mostly white in East LA until Tom Wolf came 1971 and became 70-80% Hispanic with international missions emphasis. In 1996, Hispanic Erwin McManus of El Salvador introduced multiracial lay leadership and it became 30% white, 30% Hispanic/Latino, 30% Asian. Ministry philosophy: evangelism, cultural relevancy, artistic creativity. ‘Urban’ ‘nightclub’. Now 1,200. Interracial friends, marriages formed. Commonality with philosophy of ministry.

“St.Pius X RCA, Beaumont, TX Started in 1954 mainly Native American and Cajun. Integrated for 40 years with 50% black, 45% white, 5% Hispanic and Filipino with avant-garde Father Nick Perusina. Near Louisiana, which has largest black Catholic population in US. All races teach classes, everyone is welcomed, sit in any pew. Interracial friendships. Park Ave. UMC, Minneapolis, MN. Started 1894. In 1960s demographics and church changed under C. Philip Hinerman, committed to racial inclusiveness. Now 60% whites, 35% blacks, 5% Latinos and others. Youth Pastor Arthur Erickson ‘Soul Liberation’ music and preaching festival 20 years. Robert Stamps next pastor, integrated high liturgy reflection and Pentecostal emotion; Tom Fitch to bridge black gospel and classical anthems. Hired and shared pulpit with Keith Johnson, an African American. Current pastor Mark Horst encourages talk about and welcome racial differences. Many interracial couples and adopted. Multiracial black, Latino and white pastoral staff; sneak preview heaven.

“Rationales and Responses for Segregation of Congregations:

“Pragmatic - Separation is easier - Church Growth Homogeneous Unit Principle proponents McGavran, Wagner. Many US immigrants non-Christians. Stay in culture to become Christian. Ethnic draw. RESPONSE - Racial separation in US is socially constructed. Power of HS to reconcile racism into unity. Christianity ought not perpetuate racism sin. Excuse for no missions? Notion of superiority? Pragmatic v. Right, e.g., youth and homeless ministries don’t pay. ‘Some congregations can provide ways to meet particular needs of [new immigrant language and culture] groups.’

“Theological - Church is where people are affirmed:

“Long history of racism v. black, native American, Hispanic, and Asian beyond repair. Incompatible ethnic versions of Christianity, e.g., Mexican picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, black conservative theology and social activism mix, Hispanic expression in worship. RESPONSE - Authentic multiracial churches involve a process. Places to live out God’s call to unity and accountable without a dominant position over another group. Must develop rich multicultural theology and worship; integrate cultural perspectives.

“Activism - Hispanic liberation theology against racism and injustice: Black social and political leadership development: MLK, Fannie Lou Hamer. RES[P]ONSE - Multiracial congregations must duplicate uniethnic church role by impacting society for inclusion with accountability for racial injustice.

“Cultural - Unique faith traditions and worship styles. RESPONSE - Cultures are always changing. Learn most about culture in multiracial, egalitarian church. Hispanic expression, mestizaje, hybrid mixture of human groups. Synthesis of best. Other-centered, a goal for Christians. Integration (honoring culture), not assimilation (losing culture) is the goal. Fundamental shift in understanding and practice.

“Sociological - Parallel communities anchored by their congregations: A Refuge and community development one day each week. RESPONSE - multiethnic church can find refuge from racially polarizing community. Multiracial congregations can also be centers of entrepreneurial activity. Form ‘Church within a Church’ model with special fellowship smaller language or culture groups including language-specific worships and also benefit with multiracial congregation.”

Conclusion: It is very clear from all of this that what they call “pentecostalism” today has a very questionable history, and is surely not Christian! I have to confess that the two churches to which I once belonged, though not speaking tongues, had pentecostal leanings, and the best thing that ever happened to my wife and I was to resign from them with no regrets. I can also personally testify that some of the goings on at these churches were similar to Azusa Street, and often reprehensible. I have personally observed White people acting like jungle-savages, which they attributed to the Holy Spirit.

This is my one hundred thirty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul. With this lesson we’ll see neither Paul, nor any of the other apostles, ever taught the deplorable emotional demonstrations that pervade what is falsely identified as “pentecostalism” today. It will be demonstrated that today’s brand of “pentecostalism” is nothing more than a man-devised system of false religion. I will be using several excerpts from various websites to expose these corrupt perversions of Biblical interpretation. After you’ve read the following evidence, you’ll wonder why anyone would have followed such charlatans! My first reference on the charismatic movement will be from Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement>:

“The term Charismatic Movement describes the adoption (circa 1960 onwards for Protestants, 1967 onwards for Roman Catholics) of certain beliefs typical of those held by Pentecostal Christians by those within the historic denominations. The term ‘charismatic’ was first coined by Harald Bredesen, a Lutheran minister, in 1962, to describe what was happening at that time in the older churches. Confronted with the term ‘neo-Pentecostal,’ he said ‘We prefer the title ‘the charismatic renewal in the historic churches’.’ The genesis of the Charismatic Movement however is variously attributed to Father Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest, in 1960. His book Nine O’Clock in the Morning gives a personal account of this period. ....

“The term ‘Charismatic Movement’ is sometimes confused with the term ‘charismatic.’ The word ‘charismatic’ is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian church (see e.g. the book of Acts ), such as miracles, prophecy, and glossolalia (speaking in other tongues or languages), are available to contemporary Christians and may be experienced and practiced today. ...

“Pentecostals and Charismatics are characterized by their practice of speaking in other tongues and operating the gifts of the Spirit. A Pentecostal believer in an ecstatic religious experience may vocalize fluent unintelligible utterances (glossolalia) or articulate an alleged natural language previously unknown to the speaker (xenoglossy). ...

“The Charismatic Movement has a relationship with Pentecostalism, in that it shares a commitment to the use of spiritual gifts. However, within the Charismatic Movement this commitment is embedded within the full variety of historic denominations, and so in each context theology, culture and acceptance can vary enormously. The term ‘Pentecostal’ refers to that set of denominations that arose out of the 1906 Azusa Street Revival, whereas the Charismatic Movement refers to a different era, context and theological content. The term ‘neo-Pentecostal’ is sometimes used to describe non-Pentecostal charismatics, who are either part of the Charismatic Movement, or neo-Charismatics. ...

“An important characteristic of the Charismatic Movement was a willingness for the believer, after discovering the importance of spiritual gifts, to remain within their original denomination. From the late 1950s many charismatic Christians went on to form separate churches and denominations, for which the appropriate term is neocharismatic. Examples of this include the Vineyard Movement in the US (and elsewhere) and the British New Church Movement. ...

“In 2000 the Charismatic Movement numbered 176 million, neocharismatics 295 million and Pentecostals 66 million. This means that charismatics are the second largest branch of Christianity after the Roman Catholic Church. They are 27 percent of all Christians. Charismatics are growing at the rate of 9 million per year making the total adherents around 618 million by 2009. ...

“Pentecostals, the Charismatic Movement and Neocharismatics share major narratives. Among these are a common belief in the way God works in revival, and the power and presence of God evidenced in the daily life of the Christian believer. Charismatics and Pentecostals have a shared heritage in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. ...

“Many churches influenced by the Charismatic Movement deliberately distanced themselves from Pentecostalism, however, for cultural and theological reasons. Foremost among theological reasons is the tendency of many Pentecostals to insist that speaking in tongues (as initial physical evidence) is necessary for Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals are also distinguished from the Charismatic Movement on the basis of style. Additionally, many in the Charismatic Movement employ contemporary styles of worship and methods of outreach which differ from traditional Pentecostal practice. ...

“Dennis Bennett, an American Episcopalian, is often cited as the Charismatic Movement’s seminal influence. Bennett was the Rector at St Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California when he announced to the congregation in 1960 that he had received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Soon after this he was ministering in Vancouver where he ran many workshops and seminars about the work of the Holy Spirit. This influenced tens of thousands of Anglicans worldwide and also began a renewal movement within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. ...

“In the United Kingdom, Colin Urquhart, Michael Harper, David Watson and others were in the vanguard of similar developments.

“The Massey conference in New Zealand, 1964 was attended by several Anglicans including, the Rev. Ray Muller who went on to invite Dennis Bennett to New Zealand in 1966, and played a leading role in developing and promoting the Life in the Spirit seminars. ...

“Larry Christenson, Lutheran Charismatic theologian based in San Pedro, California, did much, in the 1960s and 1970’s, to interpret the Charismatic Movement for Lutherans. A very large annual conference was held in Minneapolis during those years. Charismatic Lutheran congregations in Minnesota became especially large and influential; especially Hosanna! in Lakeville, and North Heights in St. Paul. The next generation of Lutheran Charismatics cluster around the Alliance of Renewal Churches. There is currently considerable Charismatic activity among young Lutheran leaders in California centered around an annual gathering at Robinwood Church in Huntington Beach. Most Lutheran congregations in the developing world would be considered ‘Charismatic’ in their piety. ...

“The Charismatic Movement in the Eastern Orthodox Church never exerted the influence that it did in other mainstream churches. Individual priests, such as Fr. James Tavralides, Fr. Constantine Monios and Fr. David Buss, Fr. Athanasius Emmert of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, Fr. Eusebius Stephanou of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, founder of the Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian and editor of ‘The Logos’, and Fr. Boris Zabrodsky of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, founder of the Service Committee for Orthodox Spiritual Renewal (SCOSR) which published ‘Theosis’ Newsletter, were some of the more prominent leaders of the charismatic renewal in Orthodoxy. ...

“A more recent trend is the inclusion of Charismatic elements in more traditionally Calvinist or Reformed Theology. Reformed Charismatics, on the whole, reject the ‘prosperity gospel’ and distance themselves from movements that display over-emotional tendencies such as Word of Faith, Toronto Blessing, Brownsville Revival and Todd Bentley revivals.

“Reformed Charismatics, though convinced believers in the modern practice of all of the gifts of the Spirit, attempt to keep the primary focus on the cross of Christ, and the gospel. ...

“Since 1967 the Charismatic Movement has been active within the Roman Catholic Church. In the USA the Catholic Charismatic Renewal was focused in individuals like Kevin Ranaghan and others at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. The Roman Catholic Duquesne University in Pittsburgh began hosting charismatic revivals in 1977. ...

“Pope John Paul II was reputed to have had a charismatic priest as his personal pastor although there is little evidence that the Pope himself was ‘charismatic’ or spoke in tongues. On many occasions he was reported as saying ‘long life to the charismatics’.

“Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has added his voice to Pope John Paul II in acknowledging the good occurring in the Charismatic Renewal and providing some cautions.

“In a forward to a 1983 book by Léon Joseph Cardinal Suenens, at that time the Pope’s delegate to the Charismatic Renewal, the Prefect comments on the Post-Conciliar period stating,

“‘At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly burst forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the Charisms - which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit - is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.’ and ‘to those responsible for the ecclesiastical ministry - from parish priests to bishops - not to let the Renewal pass them by but to welcome it fully; and on the other (hand) ... to the members of the Renewal to cherish and maintain their link with the whole Church and with the Charisms of their pastors.’

“In the Roman Catholic church, the movement became particularly popular in the Filipino and Hispanic communities of the United States, in the Philippines itself, and in Latin America, mainly Brazil. Travelling priests and lay people associated with the movement often visit parishes and sing what are known as charismatic masses. It is thought to be the second largest distinct sub-movement within Roman Catholicism (some 120 million members), along with Traditional Catholicism. It presents a difficult situation for many Church authorities, who, as always, must be careful to admit innovation only where it is clear the innovation is consistent with the Bible and the teachings of the Church.

“A further difficulty is the tendency for many charismatic Catholics to take on what others in their church might consider sacramental language and assertions of the necessity of ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit,’ as a universal act. This causes difficulty as there is little to distinguish the ‘Baptism’ from the sacrament of confirmation. In this regard, a Study seminar organized jointly in Sao Paulo by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Bishops Conference of Brazil raised these issues. Technically, among Catholics, the ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’ is neither the highest nor fullest manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It is one experience among many (as are the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit in the lives of the saints, notably St. Francis of Assisi and St. Teresa of Avila, who levitated). Thus ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ is one experience among many within Christianity, and thus less dogmatically held by Catholic charismatics (than by Pentecostals). ...”

Still with Wikipedia at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal>:

“Within classical Pentecostalism there are three major groups: Wesleyan Holiness, Higher Life, and Oneness. Examples of Wesleyan-Holiness denominations include the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC). The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel is of the Higher Life branch. The Assemblies of God (AG) were influenced by both groups. Some Oneness churches include the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW). Many Pentecostal sects are affiliated with the Pentecostal World Conference. Pentecostalism claims more than 250 million adherents worldwide. When Charismatics are added with Pentecostals the number increases to nearly a quarter of the world’s 2 billion Christians.

 “The great majority of Pentecostals are to be found in developing countries although much of their international leadership is still in North America. The movement is enjoying its greatest surge today in the global South, which includes Africa, Latin America, and most of Asia. One reason for this growth is Pentecostalism’s appeal to the poor. According to a United Nations report, the movement has ‘been the most successful at recruiting its members from the poorest of the poor.’ ...

“In 1998, there were about 11,000 different Pentecostal or Charismatic denominations worldwide. The largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, the Assemblies of God, claims approximately 57 million adherents worldwide. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) has a membership of over 6 million, the Church of God in Christ has a membership of 5.5 million, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel has 5 million members, the United Pentecostal Church International has a membership of over 4 million, and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church has over 3 million members. ...

Today’s Pentecostal movement traces its community’s growth to a prayer meeting at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas on January 1, 1901. Here, many came to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was the biblical sign of the Holy Spirit’s baptism. Charles Parham, the founder of this school, would later move to Houston, Texas. In spite of segregation in Houston, William J. Seymour, a (literally) one-eyed African-American preacher, was allowed to attend Parham’s Bible classes there. Seymour traveled to Los Angeles, where his preaching sparked the Azusa Street Revival in 1906. Despite the work of various Wesleyan groups such as Parham’s and D.L. Moody’s revivals, the beginning of the widespread Pentecostal movement in the United States is generally considered to have begun with Seymour’s Azusa Street Revival. ...

“Some Christian leaders who were not a part of the early Pentecostal movement remained highly respected by Pentecostal leaders. Albert Benjamin Simpson became closely involved with the growing Pentecostal revival. It was common for Pentecostal pastors and missionaries to receive their training at the Missionary Training Institute that Simpson founded. Because of this, Simpson and the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), which Simpson also founded, had a great influence on Pentecostalism – in particular the Assemblies of God and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. This influence included evangelistic emphasis, C&MA doctrine, Simpson’s hymns and books, and the use of the term ‘Gospel Tabernacle’, which evolved into Pentecostal churches being known as ‘Full Gospel Tabernacles’. Charles Price Jones, an African-American Holiness leader and founder of the Church of Christ, is another example. His hymns are widely sung at National Conventions of the Church of God in Christ and many other Pentecostal churches. ... African-Americans played an important role in the early Pentecostal movement. The first decade of Pentecostalism was marked by interracial assemblies, ... ‘Whites and blacks mix in a religious frenzy,’ noted a local newspaper account, at a time when government facilities were racially separate and Jim Crow laws were about to be codified. ...”

We find at the website <http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/37-history-of-the-pentecostal-charismatic-movements/> the following:

“History of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements, Sam Storms Nov 8, 2006, Series: Historical Theology: A. The Roots of Modern Pentecostalism:

“The theological foundations of modern pentecostalism can be traced primarily to Methodism and the thinking of John Wesley. Vinson Synan refers to Wesley as ‘the spiritual and intellectual father of modern holiness and pentecostal movements’ (The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States [Eerdmans, 1971], 13). Another scholar has stated that ‘pentecostals are children of Wesley.’ F.D. Bruner writes:

“‘Methodism is the most important of the modern traditions for the student of Pentecostal origins to understand, for 18th century Methodism is the mother of the 19th century American holiness movement, which, in turn, bore 20th century Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism is primitive Methodism’s extended incarnation’ (A Theology of the Holy Spirit [Eerdmans, 1971], 37).

“1. The Influence of John Wesley and Methodism - Wesley was born (1703; died 1791) into an Anglican home with a Puritan influence. He was educated at Oxford and taught there for some years. His brother Charles and some friends organized the Holy Club and were dubbed Methodists for their emphasis on methodical Bible study and the pursuit of holiness. It was Wesley’s views on sanctification that contributed most to the later emergence of pentecostal doctrine.

“Wesley divided sanctification into several stages, each of which represented a different and higher level of salvation through which a believer passes.

“• The first stage is that of prevenient [?] grace which is but the beginning of a deliverance from a blind and unfeeling heart. This was also called assisting grace.

“• The second stage is that of convincing grace which is properly the first real move to salvation. The evidence of convincing grace is repentance.

“• The third stage is that of entire sanctification. This is a gift of God whereby one is cleansed from sin instantaneously. This sanctification, however, is not absolute, for perfection pertains only to God. Nor does it make men infallible, for the body is still subject to decay and death. It consists rather in perfect love and pertains primarily to one’s motives. It is not constitutional. It may be increased and improved upon, but may be lost if diligence diminishes. Involuntary transgressions due to the imperfections of the body are traceable to the mortality and limitations of being a creature and are not properly regarded as sin. Christian perfection, then, consists in the purification of one’s motives; mistakes and acts of ignorance are not regarded as inconsistent with a state of perfection.

“• The fourth stage is that of progressive entire sanctification in which one experiences a continuation of perfection, i.e., a deeper development of it. This is growth in maturity, until one reaches the final stage.

“• The fifth stage is final glorification.

“2. The Cane Ridge Revival of 1800-01 - The meetings that eventually led to revival were begun in June of 1800 by three Presbyterian ministers: James McGready, William Hodges, and John Rankin. By August of 1801 crowds of up to 25,000 gathered in the Kentucky countryside for revival meetings. Most meetings were characterized by much the same sort of ‘motor phenomena’ (as they were called back then) or ‘physical manifestations’ as we see today in certain charismatic renewal meetings.

“3. The Influence of Charles Finney (1792-1876) and American Revivalism - Finney’s contribution was two-fold: (1) His personal testimony to having experienced a post-conversion baptism of the Holy Spirit. In his Memoirs he discussed the confusion of one of his earlier teachers (Rev. Gale, a Presbyterian minister) on this issue:

“‘There was another defect in brother Gale’s education, which I regarded as fundamental. If he had ever been converted to Christ, he had failed to receive that divine anointing of the Holy Ghost that would make him a power in the pulpit and in society, for the conversion of souls. He had fallen short of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which is indispensable to ministerial success. ... I have often been surprised and pained that to this day so little stress is laid upon this qualification for preaching Christ to a sinful world.’

“(2) Equally important was Finney’s evangelistic methodology. Finney justified his deliberate attempts to arouse the emotions of his hearers by arguing ‘that God has found it necessary to take advantage of the excitability there is in mankind to produce powerful excitements among them before he can lead them to obey. Men are so sluggish, there are so many things to lead their minds off from religion and to oppose the influence of the gospel that it is necessary to raise an excitement among them till the tide rises so high as to sweep away the opposing obstacles’, (Lectures on Revivals, 9).

“This has led one author to conclude that ‘Finney’s influence on subsequent Pentecostalism may be said to have been, in fact, more in the realm of form and temperature than in the realm of content and ideas’ (Bruner, 41).

“4. The National Holiness Movement - Bruner provides this helpful overview:

“‘From Methodism through American revivalism and the person and work of Charles Finney ... the line is a straight one that leads through the holiness movement directly into Pentecostalism. The holiness movement seems to have arisen from a variety of causes, principal of which were the demoralizing after-effects of the American Civil War, the dissatisfaction of many within Methodist churches with the ‘holiness,’ or the adherence to Wesleyan perfectionist doctrine of the Methodist Church, and a corresponding concern for the advance of modern liberal views in theology and of wealth and worldliness in the church as a whole. The theological center of the holiness movement, true to its name and its Wesleyan heritage, was a second experience, specifically a conversion into Scripture holiness, sanctification, or as it was often called, perfect love. This center assured the subsequent experience an importance it was later to assume in Pentecostalism. It was directly from the holiness movement, for instance, that Pentecostalism adopted the use of the expression the baptism in the Holy Spirit for its second (or third) Christi /p class=an experience.’

“The movement was itself birthed within the Methodist church in 1867. The first camp meeting was arranged by 13 Methodist ministers in Vineland, New Jersey, July 17-26th. Writes Synan: ‘Little did these men realize that this meeting would eventually result in the formation of over a hundred denominations around the world and indirectly bring to birth a ‘Third Force’ in Christendom, the pentecostal movement’. Some of the influential leaders and authors in this movement were William Boardman (The Higher Christian Life, 1859), Robert Smith, and Hannah Smith (The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, 1875).

“There were three major contributions the NHM made to the atmosphere in which modern pentecostalism would eventually arise: 1) an emphasis on a spiritual crisis experience, subsequent to initial conversion; 2) the identification of this experience with the baptism in the Holy Spirit; and 3) popularization of speaking in tongues.

“Note well: until now, this so-called second work of grace as taught by Wesley and the Methodists was viewed as that by which one is cleansed from sin; henceforth it came to be viewed as an enduement with power for ministry.

“The NHM also profited from the influence of several prominent evangelical figures who themselves experienced some form of this second blessing. Included among them were A.J. Gordon, F.B. Meyer, A.B. Simpson (who founded the Christian and Missionary Alliance in 1887 and eventually [1907] separated from what he regarded as the fanaticism of early Pentecostalism, especially its teaching on tongues), Andrew Murray, and especially R.A. Torrey (then president of Moody Bible Institute). Torrey once wrote:

“‘The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is an operation of the Holy Spirit distinct from and subsequent and additional to His regenerating work. A man may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit. In regeneration there is an impartation of life, and the one who receives it is fitted for service. Every true believer has the Holy Spirit. But not every believer has the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, though every believer ... may have.’

“The ‘holiness’ of the NHM was not always what we would call a grace-empowered desire or passion to be like Jesus. It all too often degenerated into a hideous form of legalism in which one’s maturity was measured by the number of activities from which one abstained. Whereas many in the holiness movement were godly and yearned for Christ-like righteousness, others defined holiness as abstinence. On their list of taboos: the theater, ball games, playing cards, dancing, lipstick, tobacco, alcohol, all forms of female makeup, the curling or coloring of one’s hair, neckties for men, Coca Cola, chewing gum, rings, bracelets, or any form of worldly ‘ornamentation,’ etc. One was prohibited from attending a county fair, lodge meetings, or being involved in political parties or labor unions. Life insurance was seen as a lack of faith in God and medicine was generally viewed as poison.

“B. The Emergence of Modern Pentecostalism:

“Pentecostalism has its roots in three sources: 1) the theology of John Wesley; 2) the revivalism of Charles Finney; and 3) the emergence of the National Holiness Movement, which was an attempt to preserve historic Wesleyanism. The move from the NHM into pentecostalism per se began in Topeka, Kansas, with a man named Charles Parham.

“1. Classical Pentecostalism:

“a. Benjamin Hardin Irwin and the ‘Fire-Baptized Holiness Church’ - Irwin was originally a holiness minister who gained fame by advocating multiple spiritual ‘baptisms’, the most important of which was the ‘baptism of fire’ and its accompanying physical manifestations (chief of which was the physical sensation of being on fire). Finding that even this was not enough, Irwin began to teach that there were additional baptisms of fire. These he named the baptisms of ‘dynamite,’ ‘lyddite,’ and ‘oxidite.’ The movement lost its momentum when Irwin confessed to moral failure. His primary significance is that Parham learned from him the doctrine of a separate spiritual baptism following sanctification.

“b. The Welsh Revival (1904 - )

“c. Charles Parham (1873-1929), the Bethel Bible Institute, and Agnes N. Ozman - Converted at the age of 13, Parham claims to have been healed while in college, thus preparing him for ministry. He was initially involved in the NHM and travelled as an independent evangelist/healer until he arrived in Topeka in 1898. He founded the Divine Healing Mission there which was later re-named the Apostolic Congregation and Divine Healing Home (1900).

“Parham had a terrible reputation for sexual immorality and was eventually excluded from the movement. Many believed him to have been a homosexual, a charge he vigorously denied all his life.

“In 1900 he established the Bethel Bible Institute where he taught his students that the inevitable result of Spirit-baptism was speaking in tongues. Till now, though, none had experienced it for themselves (although Parham had seen it in others during a trip to New York).

“At 7:00 p.m. on New Years Day, 1901, Agnes N. Ozman, one of Parham’s students, spoke in tongues. This event marks the beginning of the classical pentecostal movement. Parham relates what happened:

“‘I laid my hands upon her and prayed. I had scarcely repeated three dozen sentences when a glory fell upon her, a halo seemed to surround her head and face, and she began speaking in the Chinese language and was unable to speak English for three days. When she tried to write in English to tell us of her experience she wrote Chinese copies of which we still have in newspapers printed at that time.’

“In a short time news spread of what had happened. Reporters and language experts soon converged on the tiny school to investigate this new phenomenon. Cities throughout Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas also began to experience similar occurrences. The most important development came in Houston, Texas.

“It should be noted that what happened in Topeka was by no means the first incident of speaking in tongues in America. Numerous other groups regularly practiced glossolalia. What made Parham’s group unique was their insistence that tongues were the necessary evidence of Spirit-baptism. One of the more prominent outbreaks of tongues occurred in services conducted by Edward Irving at the Presbyterian Church on Regent’s Square in London, 1831. Apparently tongues broke out in a meeting conducted by D.L. Moody in 1875, although he himself never experienced the gift. Tongues were also present sporadically in the Welsh revival. ...

“An interesting note: B.H. Irwin of the Fire-Baptized Churches showed up [at] Azusa in 1906. He repudiated his doctrine of baptisms of fire, dynamite, lyddite, and oxidite and affirmed that the ‘tongues’ baptism was the correct one he had been seeking all along.

“The Spread of Pentecostalism - Florence Crawford took the message into the northwest. William Durham established the movement in the midwest and Chicago. From Durham’s church the movement spread into Canada. Elder Sturdevant took the work to New York City. T B. Barratt, a Methodist Norwegian pastor on tour of the U.S. at the time, took the movement to Europe. ‘From 1906 till his death in 1940, Barratt served as a veritable prophet of Pentecost in Northern Europe. He is credited with beginning the Pentecostal movements in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and England’ (Synan, 104-05).

“• One of Barratt’s most notable converts was Alexander Boddy, the Anglican vicar of All Saints’ Parish in Sunderland, England. It was Boddy who in turn brought the movement to his country.

“• Things did not proceed as well in Germany. Another Barratt convert was Jonathan Paul, who returned from Oslo to start pentecostal meetings in the city of Kassel, the result of which was formation of a German pentecostal denomination known as the Muhlheim Association. The wildly emotional meetings in Kassel prompted a group of German evangelicals to issue the highly critical Berlin Declaration in 1909 that condemned the pentecostal experience. The movement in Germany never fully recovered from this setback.

“• Pentecostalism came to Russia through the influence of a Baptist pastor, Ivan Voronaev, who was eventually sent to the Gulag and was martyred there in 1943.” [End of quotes from articles.]

The aforesaid data provides a concise history of pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. The two churches to which I formerly belonged were the Evangelical and Nazarene churches and they were both contaminated with these doctrines, although I never witnessed anyone speaking in tongues. I can’t overemphasize how refreshing it was when I finally learned the Israel Identity Truth! Looking back on my churchgoing days, I can only state that I am ashamed of the beliefs which once I held to be the truth. True sanctification is the setting apart of the racially-pure Holy people of Israel!

This is my one hundred thirty-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul, and we’ll address what Paul meant by the term “beast” at Hebrews 12:20 where he stated: “For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart.” In order to cover the term “beast”, when used as an idiom throughout Scripture, we will start with a much misunderstood passage found at Jeremiah 31:27 which is rendered thusly by the KJV (except for the name “Yahweh”):

“Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man(120), and with the seed of beast(929).”

In order to grasp the importance of what is being said in this verse, one must take into consideration the entire 30th and 31st chapters of Jeremiah, plus much of Ezekiel chapter 18. This verse is prophecy, and one must determine at what period of time it was, or will be fulfilled. It is only when we survey all of the 30th and 31st chapters of Jeremiah that we can discover the time element for such a fulfillment. The following is a verse-by-verse, general topical outline of chapters 30 and 31 found in Adam Clarke’s Commentary. We must remember, though, during his lifetime, Clarke was not aware that the present-day people calling themselves “Jews” were and are not Israelites of the tribe of Judah, but nevertheless, some of his comments are worthy of note. Before continuing with this subject, I would highly recommend that each reader take the time to read and study Jeremiah chapters 30 & 31 using the following outline by Clarke:

“CHAPTER XXX: This and the following chapter [XXXI] must relate to a still future restoration of the posterity of Jacob from their several dispersions, as no deliverance hitherto afforded them comes up to the terms of it; for, after the return from Babylon, they were again enslaved by the Greeks and Romans, contrary to the prediction in the eighth verse [of chapter XXX] ... so that this prophecy remains to be fulfilled in the reign of David, i.e., the Messiah; the type, according to the general structure of the prophetical writings, being put for the antitype. The prophecy opens by an easy transition from the temporal deliverance spoken of before, and describes the mighty revolutions that shall precede the restoration of the descendants of Israel, 1-9, who are encouraged to trust in the promises of God, 10, 11. They are, however, to expect corrections; which shall have a happy issue in a future period, 12-17. The great blessings of Messiah’s reign are enumerated, 18-22; and the wicked and impenitent declared to have no share in them, 23, 24.

“CHAPTER XXXI: This chapter continues the subject of the preceding in a beautiful vision represented at a distant period. God is introduced expressing his continual regard for Israel, and promising to restore them to their land and liberty, 1-5. Immediately heralds appear, proclaiming on Mount Ephraim the arrival of the great year of jubilee, and summoning the people to gather unto Zion, 6. Upon which God resumes the speech; and makes such gracious promises both of leading them tenderly by the way, and making them happy in their own land, that all the nations of the world are called upon to consider with deep attention this great salvation, 7-14. The scene is then diversified by a very happy invention. Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is represented as risen from her tomb, in a city of Benjamin near Jerusalem, looking about, for her children, and bitterly lamenting their fate, as none of them are to be seen in the land of their fathers, 15. But she is consoled with the assurance that they are not lost, and that they shall in due time be restored, 16, 17. To this another tender and beautiful scene immediately succeeds. Ephraim, (often put for the TEN tribes,) comes in view. He laments his past errors, and expresses the most earnest desires of reconciliation; upon which God, as a tender parent, immediately forgives him, 18-20. The virgin of Israel is then directed to prepare for returning home, 21, 22; and the vision closes with a promise of abundant peace and security to Israel and Judah in the latter days, 23-26. The blessed condition of Israel under the Messiah’s reign is then beautifully contrasted with their afflicted state during the general dispersion, 27, 28. In the remaining part of the chapter the promises to the posterity of Jacob of the impartial administration of justice, increasing peace and prosperity, the universal diffusion of righteousness, and stability in their own land after a general restoration in Gospel times, are repeated, enlarged on, and illustrated by a variety of beautiful figures, 29-40.”

You will note that Clarke did quite well by pointing out that Jeremiah 30:8 had not yet been fulfilled during his lifetime, nor has it been fulfilled as yet in 2009 A.D. That verse reads:

“For it shall come to pass in that day, saith Yahweh of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy [Israel’s] neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him.”

Never before in all of history has the “stranger” (Canaanite-jews, negroids, mongolians, hispanics and arabs) been pilfering and defrauding the White man out of his just dues. In other words, the days of food-stamps and other freebies for the so-called “underprivileged” will be a thing of the past!

Another prophecy pointed out by Clarke in this outline is Rachel, the mother of Benjamin, “weeping for her children” at Jer. 31:15, which was fulfilled when Herod killed many of the Benjamite children in an attempt to kill Christ. Clarke misunderstands and disbelieves that Matt. 2:17-18 was correct about this. For Jeremiah chapter 31, Clarke quotes from a Dr. Blayney who makes some positive, although not entirely accurate observations thusly:

“NOTES ON CHAP. XXXI

“Dr. Blayney has introduced this and the preceding chapter with the following excellent observations:

“‘There are many prophecies,’ says he, ‘in various parts of the Old Testament, which announce the future restoration of Israel to their own land, and the complete re-establishment of both their civil and religious constitution in the latter days, meaning the times of the Gospel dispensation. These two chapters contain a prophecy of this kind; which must necessarily be referred to these times, because it points out circumstances which certainly were not fulfilled at the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, nor have hitherto had their completion. For the people who returned from Babylon were the people of Judah only, who had been carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar; but here it is foretold, that not only should the captivity of Judah be restored, but the captivity of Israel also, meaning those ten tribes which were carried away before, by Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and who still remain in their several dispersions, having never returned, in a national capacity at least, to their own land, whatever some few individuals have done. But the terms of the prophecy entitle us to expect, not an obscure and partial, but a complete and universal, restoration; when God will manifest himself, as formerly, the God and Patron of all the families of Israel, and not of a few only. Again it is promised that, after this restoration, they should no more fall under the dominion of foreigners, but be governed by princes and magistrates of their own nation, independently of any but God, and David their king. But this was not the case with the Jews [sic Judahites] who returned from Babylon. They then indeed had a leader, Zerubbabel, one of their own nation, and also of the family of David; but both the nation and their leader continued still in a state of vassalage, and the most servile dependence upon the Persian monarchy. And when the Grecian monarchy succeeded, they changed their masters only, but not their condition; till at length under the Asmonean [Hasmonean] princes they had for a while an independent government of their own, but without any title to the name of David. At last they fell under the Roman yoke; since which time their situation has been such as not to afford the least ground to pretend that the promised restoration has yet taken place. It remains therefore to be brought about in the future under the reign of the Messiah, emphatically distinguished by the name of David; when every particular circumstance predicted concerning it will no doubt be verified by a distinct and unequivocal accomplishment. There is no particular date annexed to this prophecy, whereby to ascertain the precise time of its delivery.

“But it may not unreasonably be presumed to have followed immediately after the preceding one, in which the restoration of the people from their Babylonish captivity is in direct terms foretold. From hence the transition is natural and easy to the more glorious and general restoration which was to take place in a more distant period, and was designed for the ultimate object of the national hopes and expectations. Both events are frequently thus connected together in the prophetic writings; and perhaps with this design, that when that which was nearest at hand should be accomplished, it might afford the clearest, and strongest, and most satisfactory kind of evidence that the latter, how remote soever its period, would in like manner be brought about by the interposition of Providence in its due season. But though this prophecy relates wholly to one single subject, it seems naturally to divide itself into three distinct parts. The first part, after a short preface, in which the prophet is required to commit to writing the matters revealed to him, commences with representing, in a style of awe and energy, the consternation and distress which, in some future day of visitation, should fall upon all nations, preparatory to the scene of Jacob’s deliverance, ver. 5-9. Israel is encouraged to confide in the Divine assurance of restoration and protection, ver. 10, 11. He is prepared previously to expect a severe chastisement for the multitude of his sins; but consoled with the prospect of a happy termination, ver. 12-17. This is followed by an enumeration at large of the blessings and privileges to which the Jews [sic Judahites] should be restored upon their re-admission into God’s favour, ver. 18-22. Again, however, it is declared that the anger of Jehovah would not subside till his purposed vengeance against the wicked should have been fully executed; and then, but not till then, an entire reconciliation would take place between him and all the families of Israel, ver. 23, chap. xxxi. 1. The second part of this prophecy begins chap. xxxi. 2, and is marked by a sudden transition to a distant period of time, represented in a vision, and embellished with a variety of beautiful scenes and images. God announces the renewal of his ancient love for Israel; and promises, in consequence thereof, a speedy restoration of their former privileges and happiness, ver. 2-5. Already the heralds have proclaimed on Mount Ephraim the arrival of the joyful day; they summon the people to re-assemble once more in Zion; and promulgate by special command the glad tidings of salvation which God had accomplished for them. God himself declares his readiness to conduct home the remnant of Israel from all parts of their dispersion, to be compassionate and relieve their infirmities, and to provide them with all necessary accommodations by the way, ver. 6-9. The news is carried into distant lands; and the nations are summoned to attend to the display of God’s power and goodness in rescuing his people from their stronger enemies, and in supplying them after their return with all manner of good things to the full extent of their wants and desires, ver. 10-14. Here the scene changes; and two new personages are successively introduced, in order to diversify the same subject, and to impress it more strongly. Rachel first; who is represented as just risen from the grave, and bitterly bewailing the loss of her children; for whom she anxiously looks about, but none are to be seen. Her tears are dried up; and she is consoled with the assurance that they are not lost for ever, but shall in time be brought back to their ancient borders, ver. 15-17. Ephraim comes next. He laments his past undutifulness with great contrition and penitence, and professes an earnest desire of amendment. These symptoms of returning duty are no sooner discerned in him, than God acknowledges him once more as a darling child and resolves with mercy to receive him, ver. 18-20. The virgin of Israel is then earnestly exhorted to hasten the preparations for their return; and encouraged with having the prospect of a single miracle wrought in her favour, ver. 21, 22. And the vision closes at last with a promise that the Divine blessing should again rest upon the land of Judah; and that the men of Judah should once more dwell there, cultivating it according to the simplicity of ancient institutions, and fully discharged from every want, ver. 23-26. In the third part, by way of appendix to the vision, the following gracious promises are specifically annexed: That God would in time to come supply all the deficiencies of Israel and Judah; and would be as diligent to restore as he had ever been to destroy them; and would not any more visit the offences of the fathers upon the children, ver. 27-30. That he would make with them a better covenant than he had made with their forefathers, ver. 31-34, That they should continue his people by an ordinance as firm and as lasting as that of the heavens, ver. 35-37. And that Jerusalem should again be built, enlarged in its extent, and secure from future desolation, ver. 38-40.”

It is apparent, here, that Dr. Blayney, whomever he might have been, falsely believed that Ephraim (the ten northern tribes of Israel) and Judah of the southern two tribes would in the future return to old Palestine. Other than this supposition, Dr. Blayney did quite well on these two chapters, especially his projecting these unfulfilled prophecies into the future. Thus, Jeremiah 31:27 is a prophecy to be fulfilled beyond the time of Dr. Blayney and Adam Clarke! It is the purpose of this exposé to determine just how this verse has already been fulfilled in the last 50 years, up until 2009.

In order to determine what Jeremiah is implying at 31:27, we must take into consideration the next two verses at 28 and 29. Let’s now read Jeremiah 31:27-29:

“²⁷ ¶ Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. ²⁸ And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith Yahweh. ²⁹ In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

To understand what is being said here, we must go to Ezekiel 18:2-13 as follows:

“² What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? ³ As I live, saith Yahweh singular-Elohim, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. ⁴ Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. ⁵ But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, ⁶ And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, ⁷ And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; ⁸ He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, ⁹ Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith Yahweh singular-Elohim. ¹⁰ If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, ¹¹ And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife, ¹² Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, ¹³ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.”

From this passage, there are 19 proverbial ways for the fathers to eat sour grapes and set the children’s teeth on edge. But these are merely Hebrew proverbs that simply were not always true in the sense of passing on the father’s sins to their offspring down line. Therefore, we must separate the sins that affect the generations of the children down line from the sins that only affect the father who commits them! Here is a list of the sour-grape sins a father may have committed, and I will place a “*” behind the sins that can affect the children down line:

1.- hath eaten upon the mountains* 2.- hath lifted up his eyes to the idols* 3.- hath defiled his neighbour’s wife* 4.- hath come near to a menstruous woman, 5.- hath oppressed 6.- hath not restored to the debtor his pledge 7.- hath spoiled by violence 8.- hath not given his bread to the hungry 9.- hath not covered the naked with a garment 10.- hath given forth upon usury 11.- hath taken increase 12.- hath not withdrawn his hand from iniquity 13.- hath not executed true judgment between man and man 14.- hath not walked in my statutes 15.- hath not kept my judgments 16.- hath oppressed the poor and needy 17.- hath spoiled by violence 18.- hath not restored the pledge 19.- hath committed abomination*.

“HATH EATEN UPON THE MOUNTAINS”

The Hebrew word for “eaten” sometimes carries with it the idiom meaning sexual intercourse, such as at Gen. 3:2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and Prov. 30:20. Support for this assertion 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. It should be obvious that, in the case of “hath eaten upon the mountains”, the sins of the father/mother (eating sour grapes) may affect the following generations forever in the case of  race-mixing!

Race-mixing is described by Jeremiah at 2:13 as: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” And then Jeremiah gives a case-in-point in the same chapter at verses 21-22 thusly: “²¹ Yet I had planted thee [Judah] a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate [race-mixed] plant of a strange vine unto me? ²² For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh singular-Elohim.” What we have here is a situation where neither the terms “sour grapes” nor “broken cisterns” can be taken literally.

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

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

My opinion is that Jeremiah 31:27-29 is speaking of a future time when the house of Israel and the house of Judah will no longer be able to blame their own misfortune on the sins of their forefathers, but must become accountable for their own sins. Since the 1960’s the house of Israel and the house of Judah have been literally, on an unprecedented scale, mixing their Holy seed with the seed of beasts. The sins that the house of Israel and the house of Judah are committing today would make their forefathers blush in comparison! Yes, our fathers did some very bad things and deserved to be punished, but the sins (sour grapes) of their children today are reprehensible:

“²⁷ Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man(120), and with the seed of beast(929). ²⁸ And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith Yahweh. ²⁹ In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

BUT JUST WHO ARE THE “BEASTS”?

In order to determine just who the “beasts” are, it will be necessary to examine several passages to find out. We must remember, though, that many times in Scripture a term is used in a literal manner and at other times in a figurative sense. Let’s now consider Jonah 3:5-8 which states:

“⁵ So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. ⁶ For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. ⁷ And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man(120) nor beast(929), herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: ⁸ But let man(120) and beast(929) be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.”

Some may have read this passage many times without comprehending the context which was being stated. Jonah was sent by Yahweh specifically to Nineveh to warn the people that if they didn’t change their ways, He was going to destroy them as He had formerly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Upon hearing the warning of Yahweh’s messenger, Jonah, the king and all of his subjects repented in sackcloth and ashes for their sins, whatever those sins might have been. But not only did the men and women and the king repent in sackcloth and ashes, but we’re told that the beasts also repented of the works of their hands, and they also put on sackcloth and ashes. No doubt, many of you have witnessed people repenting of their sins in various evangelistic meetings, but have you ever witnessed fourfooted quadruped beasts of any shape, size or form repenting either in sackcloth and ashes or anything else! So we must ask the questions: What does it mean when it speaks about “man”, and what does it mean when it speaks about “beast”? For this I will refer to the E-sword program where the Strong’s number/s follow/s each word in verses 7 and 8:

“Jonah 3:7: And he caused it to be proclaimed(2199) and published(559) through Nineveh(5210) by the decree(4480), (2940) of the king(4428) and his nobles,(1419) saying,(559) Let neither(408) man(120) nor beast,(929) herd(1241) nor flock,(6629) taste(2938) any thing:(3972) let them not(408) feed,(7462) nor(408) drink(8354) water:(4325)

“Jonah 3:8: But let man(120) and beast(929) be covered(3680) with sackcloth,(8242) and cry(7121) mightily(2394) unto(413) God:(430) yea, let them turn(7725) every one(376) from his evil(7451) way,(4480), 1870 and from(4480) the violence(2555) that(834) is in their hands.(3709)”

It should be clear here that the word “man” (#120) can only refer to the Adam-man that is recorded at Gen. 1:26-27 and 2:7-8! It is also evident that the term “beast” (#929) is referring to four-footed cattle, unless it is a metaphor for a beastly type of person. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament describes Strong’s #929 thusly under its own numbering system of  208:

“בְּהֵמָה (beáheµmaÆ). Beast, animal, cattle. (ASV and RSV similar.) Used 137 times, beáheµmaÆ denotes four-footed animals and is distinguished from birds (Gen 6:7), fishes, and reptiles (I Kgs 4:33 [H 5:13]).

“beáheµmaÆ is in contrast to man (<aµdaµm) (e.g. Ex 9:9–10) and though both are subsumed under living things (h\ayyaÆ), there is nowhere a classification of man as animal. beáheµmaÆ can refer to both wild beast, though exclusive use as wild beast is less frequent (cf. Jer 7:33) and domestic animal. When referring to domestic animals, beáheµmaÆ usually includes both large cattle (baµqaµr, q.v.) and sheep (s\oµ<n), but not the ‘creeping things’ (remesŒ) ...”

This is a good definition as far as it goes in the Hebrew, but we need to go to Hebrews 12:20 where Paul states: “For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast(2342) touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart.” Here Paul was quoting Exodus 19:12-13 where it is stated: “¹² And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: ¹³ There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast(929) or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.”

One can clearly see from this that the “beast” of Hebrews 12:20 in the Greek corresponds to the “beast” of Exodus 19:13 in the Hebrew! Therefore, we also need to take into consideration the definition for “beast” for #2342 in the Greek: I will use the Strong’s Enhanced Concordance: “2342 θηρίον therion <thay-ree’-on> Meaning: 1) an animal 2) a wild animal, wild beast, beast 3) metaphor a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious Origin: diminutive from the same as 2339; TDNT - 3:133,333; n n. Usage: AV - beast 42, wild beast 3, venomous beast 1; 46 ...” Notice that a metaphor derived from this Greek word can mean: “3)a brutal, bestial man, savage, ferocious ...”

Are we to believe that Moses spoke to the four-footed cattle instructing them that they should “not go up into the mount or touch the border of it” and “whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death ... there shall not a hand [not paw or hoof here] touch it”? Surely, Moses wasn’t speaking to the four-footed animals in the camp of Israel; their cattle, their sheep, their goats, “don’t put your paws or hooves on the border of the mountain, or you’re going to be shot through”! A dumb animal would never have understood Moses’ instructions! This is evidence that the “beasts” of these cited passages fall under the category of metaphors rather than literal statements, regardless of what today’s commentaries and lexicons say otherwise!

Another passage which uses this same term “beast” in allegory or metaphor or symbolic language is Exodus 22:19, which is found among specific instructions regarding unlawful acts: “Whosoever lieth with a beast(929) shall surely be put to death.” Let’s follow up this passage with Leviticus 20:15-16: “15 And if a man lie with a beast(929), he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast(929). 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast(929), and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast(929): they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Now, these verses are inserted between the commands of other forbidden sexual relationships. You will notice that the command is “not to lie with” and this can hardly apply to four-footed animals, as they have sexual intercourse standing on their feet! Common sense alone should substantiate that this is idiomatic language! It makes a lot more sense to put a two-legged beast to death for such a crime than a fourfooted beast! If this passage is referring to a two-legged beast, then there are a lot of two-legged beasts today needing the death penalty!

Again, Who Are These Called Beasts?: Evidence is mounting from various sources, such as the Book Of Giants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the fallen angels came to this planet thousands of years before Adam and committed “miscegenation” with certain animals, producing creatures appearing half-animal and half-human-like. This evidence can be found in a book entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation, ©1996, by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr,. & Edward Cook, chapter 33, pages 246-250. For all of those who would like further data on this, check my Watchman’s Teaching Letter, #114 in an article written by William Finck entitled The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4. The Hebrew in chapter 1 of Genesis does not support the hypothesis that they were ever created by Yahweh Elohim (but it does support that the “man” at Gen. 1:26-27 is the same “man” as at Gen. 2:7 & 8). Not only this, but the Almighty has said that He is going to root-up everything He did not plant, Matt. 15:13!

This is my one hundred thirty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul, and we’ll address what Paul meant at Romans 9:25-27 where he stated:

“²⁵ As he saith also in Osee [i.e. Hosea], I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. ²⁶ And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. ²⁷ Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved ...”

In this passage, Paul is referring to the bill of divorce given to Israel by Yahweh for her unfaithfulness to Him, as her Husband, and His promise to take her back again to Himself as His wife. Years ago, Dan Gayman produced a nine-part series on audiocassette tapes on this subject, and I will be following his general outline, omitting some parts where I don’t agree in certain areas, and adding other references of importance which I feel he missed. He titled his production “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, but I will title my version of this thesis, “The Greatest Love Story Ever Told” in my own words:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD

The love story we’re about to examine is like no other in comparison. Many are the novels lining the tens of thousands of linear feet of shelves in many book stores, department stores or about any kind of a store one can imagine. But novels, as a general rule, are not true. The love story we’re about to investigate is true from start to finish, and for this there is no room for doubt. This love story has seven stages of development: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

The last place in the Bible that this marriage is mentioned is at Revelation 21:9-14 which states: “⁹ And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. ¹⁰ And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, ¹¹ Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; ¹² And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: ¹³ On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. ¹⁴ And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

From this passage there can be absolutely no doubt as to the identity of the wife of our greatest love story ever told. It is definitely stated that the bride consists of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that doesn’t mean the Canaanite-Edomite variety of people calling themselves “Jews”. Not only is the bride in this case identified, but also the Husband who is here stated as “The Lamb”. It should be stated from the very beginning that the Lamb never married any other race of people than the White Adamic race, and of the White Adamic race, only the offspring of Abraham followed by Isaac and Jacob.

But some will protest from the very start, claiming that it was Yahweh who married Israel rather than the Lamb. But Christ was very clear that the Lamb was also the Father. Right away those believing in a plurality of gods (dualists or trinitarians) will object. Those believing in two or three persons of the Godhead have a real problem, for if there are two or three persons of the Godhead, then Christ is going to marry His Father’s wife, breaking His own Law (and doing only what a Canaanite would do). We don’t have to guess about this, as Scripture attests to the lifestyles of the Canaanites! It is recorded in the 18th chapter of Leviticus and we will read verses 24 and 25:

Leviticus 18:24-25: “²⁴ Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: ²⁵ And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”

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

§ sons were having incest with their mothers.

§ fathers were having incest with their daughters.

§ brothers were having incest with their sisters.

§ fathers-in-law were having incest with their daughters-in-law.

§ nephews were having incest with their aunts.

§ uncles were having incest with their nieces.

§ brothers-in-law were having incest with their sisters-in-law.

§ sons-in-laws were having incest with their mothers-in-law.

§ grandfathers were having incest with their granddaughters.

§ grandsons were having incest with their grandmothers.

§ spouses were laying carnally with their neighbor’s spouses.

§ both sexes were also habitual homosexuals.

After checking all of this, does anyone still believe that Yahshua Christ is going to marry His Father’s wife? If one should believe such a thing, it would lower the morals of Christ (the Lamb) actually lower than that of the average alley cat.

Before we go any farther with this subject it would be advisable to determine just how many persons there are making up the Godhead. In order to accomplish this we will go to John 14:6-11: “⁶ Yahshua saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. ⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ⁸ Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. ⁹ Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? ¹⁰ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. ¹¹ Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”

Here Christ was explaining to his disciples the incarnation of Yahweh in Adam-man, or into Himself. Thus, there is a sense of a Father and Son relationship (Yahweh incarnated in Yahshua), but there is only one True God here. This is made very clear here, and at Mark 12:29, where Christ was quoting verbatim Deuteronomy 6:4, both of which state:

Mark 12:28-30: “²⁸ And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? ²⁹ And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: ³⁰ And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (KJV.)

Here the word translated “one” in this passage is the Greek word #1520, “hice”, and is translated as “one” 121 times in the New Testament! This same word is also translated several other times as a variant of the number one, such words as “mile”, “certain”, “other”, “a”, “another”, “only”, “thing”, “each”, “man”, “particular”, “any” meaning anyone, “every” meaning everyone, “whether” meaning whichever, and “several” only once. Overwhelmingly, when it is translated as “one” in English, that is what it means in the Greek! Therefore if one demands that there are two or three persons of the Godhead, that person is breaking the first and greatest commandment!

Paul supports Christ’s words of Mark 12:29 by stating at Ephesians 4:4-6: “⁴ There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; ⁵ One Master, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Therefore, it is obvious that Yahshua Christ, being Yahweh incarnate in the flesh, is not going to marry His Father’s wife, but rather (being one with the Father), is going remarry His FIRST and ONLY wife, the twelve tribes of Israel! Israel is to return to her “first husband”! (Hosea 2:7)!

Isaiah 45:5, 6, 21 substantiates that there is but one God stating: “⁵ I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no Elohim beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: ⁶ That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else. ... ²¹ Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I Yahweh? and there is no Elohim else beside me; a just Elohim and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”

In the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6:4 reads: “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.”

Deuteronomy 4:35, 39: “³⁵ Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that Yahweh he is Elohim; there is none else beside him. ³⁹ Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that Yahweh he is singular-Elohim in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” Notice “him” is in the singular! “Him” is a pronoun for the noun Yahweh! It does not say: “... none else beside us ...”. How many times does it have to say “none else” before we believe Yahweh’s Word!

If there is any question that Yahshua Christ was the Lamb of God, all we need to do is go to John 1:29 where John the Baptist announced: “The next day John seeth Yahshua coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Also John 1:36: “And looking upon Yahshua as he [John the Baptist] walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!” Remember that the passage which we formerly read at Revelation stated in part 21:9-14: “... Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. ... And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

I will state again with emphasis: If Yahweh and Yahshua are two different persons, then according to the account at Revelation 21:9-14, Yahshua Christ is going to marry His Father’s wife in violation to Yahweh’s own Law! Again, I will remind the reader, that is something only a Canaanite-Edomite-jew would do! Not only this, but there are other serious implications if we demand that Yahweh and Yahshua are two different persons! Now that we have established these facts, we are ready to consider the entire love story of how Yahweh married His chosen people Israel, and Israel is not to be confused with the Canaanite-Edomite-jews masquerading as Israelis along with their abortive state in old Palestine. As we contemplate the greatest love story ever told, we are considering one of the major themes of the Bible. I say “themes” as the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 is also one of the major themes of the Bible.

Before we consider the seven stages: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage, we will do an overview to prepare us for this subject. These seven stages represent seven periods of Israel’s history. This overview will prepare us for where we are going in this study of the greatest love story ever told, and give us some foresight on this very important subject, and how it will affect those who are included in this marriage. This marriage is for an exclusive people, and only those who have the proper wedding garment are invited to attend the wedding.

First of all, to get started on this overview we will go to Exodus 19:3-6: “³ And Moses went up unto Elohim, and Yahweh called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ⁴ Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. ⁵ Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ⁶ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” This is not the beginning of the greatest love story ever told, but it leads us in the right direction, as it identifies the exclusive people whom Yahweh had chosen to marry. This passage serves as a passage from the Old Testament to identify the people of this marriage. For a New Testament view of this same thing, we will go to 1st Peter 2:1-2: “¹ Peter, an apostle of Yahshua Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ² Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Yahshua Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” As we will see later in this study, the blood of Yahshua Christ plays a very important part in this marriage.

Then also from 1 Peter 2:5-9 we read: “⁵ Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Yahshua Christ. ⁶ Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. ⁷ Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, ⁸ And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. ⁹ But ye are a chosen race [#G1085], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” The KJV translates the Greek word genos at 1 Peter 2:9 as “generation” rather than “race” which causes much confusion. In the case of the greatest love story ever told, race plays a very important role.

As we contemplate the greatest love story ever told, an overview of the seven stages of Israel’s history (which includes both the house of Israel and the house of Judah) are in order, and becomes the purpose of this composition to set forth the basic and elementary tenets established in Holy Writ. To introduce this, a major theme found therein, these are seven stages: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. As we view this story, we can observe our condition today, that there is no inspired knowledge among our lost Israelite people; the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Keltic, Teutonic (German) and related people, concerning our marriage to our Almighty, Yahweh, who came in the flesh as Yahshua to redeem His wife back unto Himself! We are as sheep without a shepherd, and without the knowledge of our marriage relationship to Him! As a whole, we are without a vision, we have no knowledge of our destiny, we don’t know who we are, we do not know from where we came nor we are going, we are a people unaware of our roots, ignorant of our heritage and oblivious to our birthright. We are a blind people led by blind shepherds. We are a people who attend a multitude of churches which are aflame with every heresy ever contrived by men in the name of “Christianity”. Every aspect of the culture of our blind people is under attack from every conceivable direction. We send our children to public schools which have become nothing more than dens of humanism, where our children are victimized by a form of mental molestation which is even more deplorable than sexual molestation, and we pay dearly for it in the process! These dens of humanism have denied our children of a knowledge of their Christian heritage with curriculums that have blocked and separated them from any possibility of understanding their heritage as a people! God forbid that our children learn that we, as lost Israel, are married to the Almighty. It is high time that we, as a people, come to the knowledge that our White Christian history and heritage has been subverted and destroyed, and that our children don’t stand any more of a chance than the proverbial snowball in hell!

Because of all of this, we have become a people without a hope, a vision or a destiny, and unless we begin, en mass, to return to the Bible and learn of our heritage, our situation will only grow worse. When we view our people today, they are comparable to the Judahites of Lamentations 5:1-9: “¹ Remember, O Yahweh, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. ² Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. ³ We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. ⁴ We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us. ⁵ Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest. ⁶ We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. ⁷ Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities. ⁸ Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand. ⁹ We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.”

I fail to comprehend how anyone of our Israelite heritage could read this passage without seeing its parallel to the present threat of our White, Western civilization, i.e., the United States and Canada, in our hemisphere, and the British Isles and the greater part of Europe, along with Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and related peoples. As we evaluate our situation today, throughout our Israel lands, we lament as did the Judahites of Jeremiah’s day.

Today, our birthright as White Christians lies shattered and broken! We, like Esau, have sold our birthright for a mess of red-Communist-socialist-jewish pottage. Today, our White Christian nations have fallen for Satan’s liberal agenda of integration rather than Yahweh’s program of segregation. Our culture has lost the vision that Yahweh gives to His faithful sons and daughters. We have lost the excellencies of His Law; His plan and His purpose. As a result, our punishment has been to wander over this earth for better than 2500 years, being separated from our Almighty-Husband, stumbling all of that time for a lack of true Christian knowledge.

Therefore, our objective for reviewing the greatest love story ever told, is to explore the origins of our White Christian roots. For anyone with the slightest degree of common sense can clearly see that time is running out for our race. All of today’s Israel nations are now in this same racial dilemma, with no deliverance in sight. White Israelites of unmixed ancestry are rapidly becoming a minority on this earth. It is now common for our prostitute media (with thoughts of genocide), to brag of a near future when our White race will no longer exist! We are now in peril against enormous numerical odds by the nonwhite races of this world, with no end in sight. We find ourselves driven into a cospan style=margin-left: 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .75in; line-height: 105%; tab-stops: .75inrner, with trouble on every hand, and the whole world arrayed against us. Not only are we losing dominion, as did the United Kingdom, upon whose empire at one time the sun never set, but we are also losing our “gates” or the shipping lanes such as the Suez and Panama canals to the nonwhite races. China now has a central bank, like our Federal Reserve, that issues credit out of thin air, and buys up large portions of our American White Christian Israel nation’s assets. From this we are faced with financial collapse, political chaos, social upheaval and all kinds of moral degeneracy, along with the bastardization of our race. Thus, it behooves us to find the Biblical solution by reviewing and studying the greatest love story ever told.

Once we recognize and earnestly seek out Yahweh’s will for a people properly designated as Israel, we will realize that we do possess an eternal birthright and that destiny is on our side, as long as we obey his commands. Yahweh promised that as long as the ordinance of sun and moon remain that there would always be an Israel found at Jeremiah 31:35-36. “35 Thus saith Yahweh, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; Yahweh of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith Yahweh, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.” This is one more reason for boning up on the seven stages of Yahweh’s marriage to Israel: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

Once we become aware of all of these things, it becomes obligatory for us to act upon our birthright; our destiny, and our heritage as found in the Bible. Those who happen to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon, Keltic, Germanic, Scandinavian or related people, have a lawful claim which no one can annul: to the covenants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in particular. These have an inheritance in the Bible which no one can take away! Not only that, but a family tree that reaches back 7500 years to Adam, whom no other race can claim for a progenitor! These have a divine destiny in the greatest love story ever told! Discovering this truth will drastically impact one’s life for the better or for the worse depending on how it is received. But whether received or not, Yahweh’s covenants to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still operative, and if the message is not received with joy, the recipient leaves himself open to receive Yahweh’s chastisement until it is received, according to Hebrews 12:6-8 where it says: “⁶ For whom Yahweh loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. ⁷ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? ⁸ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” There are only two categories here, bastards or sons!

If one qualifies as a son, then one qualifies as an heir. If per chance you were notified that you were an heir to a vast estate of houses, lands and large sums of money due to your ancestral ties, no doubt you would be overcome with joy. If that inheritance had been allotted on the grounds of family records and history, chronological data, recorded agreements and covenants along with heraldry, there would be no room left for doubt that you were indeed a legitimate heir to enormous wealth! Now pay attention and take heed, for the message you are about to receive could mean that you have a specific right of inheritance, a rightful claim to the exclusive covenants, charters and promises of Holy Writ.

If one qualifies as an heir of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Keltic, Germanic, Scandinavian or related person, then one qualifies as a true lineal descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thus an heir to a vast estate of unlimited wealth in Yahshua Christ. It is only through the Spirit of Yahweh that one becomes aware that he is an heir of the Promise, and that Holy Spirit only resides in Adamic White men, woman and children. Therefore, to qualify for this entitled estate, one must first be a White Adamite, and secondly a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Note: Not just Abraham alone, but all three: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! If not all three, then one is excluded from the Obligations and Promises! Upon realization that one is an heir, one immediately becomes aware of the importance of Yahshua Christ; His virgin birth; His blood atonement; His resurrection; His laws; and His promise to return and assume the throne of David forevermore. These blessings and Promises are all part of a vast estate of wealth which one can claim as an inheritance through Yahshua Christ. Upon discovering that true White Christians are in fact descendants of Abraham and Sarah, it becomes imperative that one explore and investigate their White Christian roots. Thus, the children born to Abraham by Hagar and Keturah are excluded. One exception is found to this; that being it was forbidden for an Israelite woman to take a husband from a White Adamite not under the Covenant, but a male Israelite was allowed to take a White Adamite woman not under the Covenant. (Examples, Joseph and Moses.) This is because the Israelite people have patriarchal laws of inheritance. This is another proof that today’s matriarchal Kenite-Edomite-jews are not Israelites.

If all of these things are true, and they are, that our roots extend far back into the Bible, this could become the most notable treasure hunt of one’s life. Not only that, but such a person then becomes part of the greatest love story ever told since the time of creation! The purpose of this exposé of the greatest love story ever told is to remove the blindness from the eyes of our White Christian Israelite people and place before them a true picture of their destiny in what Yahweh has planned on their behalf. These facts dispel the perverted message preached behind the pulpits in mainstream denominational churches.

One cannot come to an understanding of world events outside of Yahweh’s inspired Word. Likewise, there can be no understanding of the Scriptures without recognizing the true identity of the principal people that comprise the people of Yahweh! It is recorded that, each in their turn, Yahweh gave unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and to Jacob-Israel that were to be fulfilled in a national and multinational sense. Not just a “nation”, but “a nation and a company of nations” was to be their destiny. It was also the destiny for the people of Israel to be “rulers with God” [ish-ra-el] which the name Israel implies, making the people of Israel also the people of Yahweh singular-Elohim.

It is clear that these promises made of Israel’s future were to be national, and there is positively no recorded authority whatsoever in the Bible for transferring these promises to any other people or any institution called “the church”. These were unconditional promises, meaning that all obligations for them were binding on the part of Yahweh, with positively nothing binding on the part of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. These promises are also eternal (without a time limit), and they are exclusive to the people of Israel and Judah, and no one else. Therefore, Yahshua Christ came at His first Advent to redeem Israel alone by His blood, and positively no one else.

The people designated as Israel in the Bible can only be identified today, on the world stage, as the race of people who have and are fulfilling every prerequisite and minute detail of the attributes Yahweh predicted for them when covenanting with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is only one race today that fits Yahweh’s description and they are identified as Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Keltic, Teutonic (German) and related people. As we research the greatest love story ever told, we will observe the destiny and the trail left behind by that people throughout their history. And when we search it out, we will discover that the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and kindred peoples are indeed the theme of our Bible story. They are not only the principal people of the Bible, but they are the heirs of the covenant. They, and they alone, are the recipients of the divine blessings. It is a malignant misconception to assume that the nonwhite races will be blessed in any way, shape, or form directly, or indirectly, from Yahweh’s Covenants to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob!

The White Adamic peoples are the executors of the great commission of the Bible; the command to take the Gospel to all the nations that the tribes of Israel had become. They are the possessors of the Biblical guarantee that there would always be an Israel, Jeremiah 31:35-36. They alone are the chosen seed upon whom the blessings of Yahweh have fallen. Indeed they are the people with immunity from destruction brought about by the blood of Christ. At the time when these unconditional promises were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Canaanites hadn’t as yet become racially-mixed among a FEW pureblooded Judahites to become half-breed Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews as opposed to the majority of pureblooded the Israelites and pure blooded Judahites. Without grasping the knowledge of these three different entities, one will never comprehend the present world crisis, and the Bible will forever remain an enigma. We are living in an age that demands that we expeditiously don the cloak of our Christian responsibilities and obligations before Yahweh, for upon this Israel people and their Messiah the outcome of our history depends!

As this narrative moves forward to give a comprehensive account of the greatest love story ever told, may the Almighty Yahweh revive in the hearts of every Caucasian-Israelite a foresight of our racial heritage, and why it is so important to keep it pure! May Yahweh’s Spirit plant within our hearts a flaming desire which will never cease to be quickened, and move us onward to fulfill the purpose for which we were born. May we return to the word of Yahweh and to the essence of His Law. To what destination will this study take us? As we follow the trail of these principal people of Scripture from both Biblical and secular history, our study will consist of seven basic categories of Yahweh’s relationship with a people called Israel. The seven stages we will be dealing with are: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. In other words, it will start with Yahweh’s courtship of Israel; then His marriage to them; it will include a study of the honeymoon; it will portray the estrangement of that people to their Husband; it will render the ultimate writing of a bill of divorce to these people; then it will involve a provision for the reconciliation of these people back to their Husband; and finally Israel’s remarriage back to Yahweh in the flesh, (the Lamb of God).

There are many misconceptions of what is meant by the “Gospel”, but the ‘good news’ is that Yahweh came in the flesh to die, in order to satisfy His own law, so He could purchase us back to Himself and renew His marriage to we Israelites forever!

This is my one hundred thirty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. This is another in a series on the apostle Paul where he addresses the subject of marriage both in respect to Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, and the marriage of a man and woman. The law that affect these two types of marriages are the same. It is no short topic and it will take several lessons to cover. As I stated in the last lesson, I’m following the outline of Dan Gayman in his nine-audiocassette series, and though he did well, there are areas where evidence proves some of his premises to be incorrect. For instance, Gayman, in that series, spoke favorably of a trinity. As I stated in the last lesson, if Yahshua Christ (the Lamb) and Yahweh are two different persons, then according to Scripture, Yahshua is going to marry His Father’s wife! Therefore, in essence, Gayman was destroying his own thesis.

Now continuing:     

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 2

This love story will have seven stages of development: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. In the last lesson, I started with an overview of the subject of Yahweh marrying the twelve tribes of Israel. With this lesson, I will continue with that overview before I start on the subject of the “courtship”.

Upon inspecting Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, by the terms of their wedding vows they agreed to accept His absolute, ultimate, lawful authority over every aspect of their lives. When we get to the marriage ceremony, we will examine that history in great detail. As we proceed through the courtship and marriage phases, it will become quite obvious why we should obey these same rules in our own personal lives, for Yahweh expects no more of us than He would do Himself. That is why it was necessary for Him to come in the flesh as Yahshua to die, as that was the only option He had under His own law, in order to remarry the twelve tribes. Yahshua being as a second person wouldn’t have met Yahweh’s lawful requirements. In fact, that would have broken His law!

The greatest law of all in Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes was “kind after kind”! When Yahweh came as Yahshua in the flesh, the Messiah was of the same genetic family that He as Yahweh created in Adam. It’s not God as three different persons, as many suppose, but rather One God in three manifestations! As I have stated before, if God is three different persons, then Christ is going to marry His Father’s wife. This is something that Dan Gayman neglected to consider in his audiocassette series on this subject! Thus, Adam was truly made in the image of Yahweh, both genetically and in Spirit. As a result, for Adam (both male and female) to marry outside of his genetic family (race) is self-destructive. As we examine the courtship and marriage, we will be taking notice of the seed brought forth of this particular created race, the race of Adam-kind! Then from this race, we’ll be looking in particular at Israel, especially chosen of Yahweh through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

It is also imperative that we view the marriage stage of Israel’s history in the context of what is referred to as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven”; one of the greater events of importance in the history of the twelve tribes by which all priorities were governed and established at Mt. Sinai at the time of their grand marriage, where Yahweh became a Husband to a people called Israel.

After the courtship and marriage came the third stage, or the honeymoon, which could not have happened had Yahweh not literally forced Israel out of the land of Egypt, whereupon they were led through the Red Sea toward the promised land where the bride would come under total subjection (or at least almost total subjection) to the Almighty Yahweh, their Husband. By maneuvering them into a desert country, Yahweh had moved His bride away from all alien influence, at least for that part of their history. Thus, the bride became totally dependent on her Husband for forty years, or some 14,600 days where they wandered under His cloud of protection, and where He prepared them for an eternity of marital bliss.

Upon examination of the honeymoon record of the children of Israel, it becomes apparent that Yahweh would test His newly taken bride. Faithfulness would be determined on the basis of the bride keeping her Husband’s laws, and His laws were designed to bring the bride life as opposed to death. Time and time again, Yahweh would put his newly taken wife, Israel, to the test. But Israel would prove to be a very precious diamond in the rough. Out of all of Yahweh’s extensive testing of Israel in the desert, of some 2½ or 2¾ million Israelites, only two adults from that vast company were able to survive the honeymoon period.

I am going to include something at this point that Dan Gayman didn’t mention in his presentation on this subject, and that is the fact that the “two adults” (Joshua and Caleb) that survived the honeymoon period were willing to exterminate all of the Canaanites, who had absorbed the blood of Cain (who had murdered Abel), from the face of the earth, and the other Israelites weren’t willing to do that! It is a very sad thing, but we have those very same Canaanites with us today, passing themselves off as Israelites. Had the body of Israel (the 12 tribes) obeyed Yahweh at that time, we wouldn’t have any Canaanite-jews with us today! Anyway, what a way to end a honeymoon!

After the honeymoon period, the 4th stage of Israel’s history involves their estrangement from their Husband. His people Israel were the crowning point in His created universe. Unlike White Israel, there are bad racial “kinds” of people on this earth that Yahweh did not create, Matt. 13:47-50. Also, Yahweh created the horse and the donkey, but He did not create a mule. In other words, there are created people and non-created people or mule-people. They are called by the term “mulatto”, which is a word derived from the expression, mule! The Canaanite tribes living in old Canaan, which Israel was to exterminate, were a variety of mule-people of various mixtures including the Kenites, or descendants of Cain!

Following Yahweh’s courtship, marriage and honeymoon with this particular seed, or race called by grace, we find that Israel was established as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, but in spite of this, these people became estranged to Yahweh and His law. We must ask though, how did this estrangement take place? As we begin to examine the details of this estrangement period in Israel’s history, we will find that it took place as God’s Israelites sought to impute deity unto themselves, where every man strove to become his own god. They wandered away from the absolute Word of Yahweh’s law to follow the religious rituals of the mule-people around them, just like they are doing today. That’s the same reason why today we have a mule for president! The way they are going, they will have to change the emblem of the Democratic party from a donkey to a mule!

The reader might be wondering what all of this has to do with the apostle Paul’s teaching concerning Yahweh’s marriage to Israel. If the reader will only follow this series to its end (and at this time I have no idea on how many lessons this marriage will cover), it will become evident that Paul is in full agreement with the rest of the Bible on this issue. As we get into the various stages of this marriage, some of the principal citations will be from Paul’s epistles. This is a big subject, and it must be covered comprehensively! Let’s now continue with this overview of these seven stages.

It has just been stated above that the beginning of the estrangement stage started with the twelve tribes becoming a god unto themselves. To give an example of this, for the moment we will skip over the book of Joshua to the book of Judges chapters 17 and 18, but we are particularly interested in Judges 17:6 which states: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

Now, in order to understand the entire story, one must read both chapters 17 and 18 in their entirety. It’s about a man by the name of Micah, and there are seven different persons in the Bible by that name. This is why people need Bible commentaries in such cases as we are demonstrating here, although there are a lot of misleading things in the various commentaries, so they must be used very carefully. Because space will not allow me to quote both of these chapters here, I would advise the reader to go to their Bible and read chapters 17 and 18, and then return again to read the rest of this lesson, after which I will quote from Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, pages 390-391 which is a very good, concise description of this story. I don’t like the way this source uses the term “Jehovah”, so as you read the next three paragraphs, substitute the true name of Yahweh in its place:

“MICAH (Mi'cah) [shortened form of Michael or Micaiah]:

“A man of Ephraim. In violation of the eighth of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:15), Micah took 1,100 silver pieces from his mother. When he confessed and returned them, she said: ‘I must without fail sanctify the silver to Jehovah from my hand for my son, so as to make a carved image and a molten statue; and now I shall give it back to you.’ She then took 200 pieces to a silversmith who made ‘a carved image and a molten statue’ that afterward came to be in Micah’s house. Micah, who had ‘a house of gods,’ made an ephod and teraphim and empowered one of his sons to act as priest for him. Although this arrangement was ostensibly to honor Jehovah, it was grossly improper, for it violated the commandment forbidding idolatry (Ex. 20:4-6) and bypassed Jehovah’s tabernacle and his priesthood, (Jg. 17:1-6; De. 12:1-14). Later, Micah took Jonathan, a descendant of Moses’ son Gershom, into his home, hiring this young Levite as his priest. (Jg. 18:4, 30) Mistakenly feeling satisfied with this, Micah said: ‘Now I do know that Jehovah will do me good.’ (Jg. 17:7-13) But Jonathan was not of Aaron’s lineage and thus was not even qualified for priestly service, which only added to Micah’s error. – Nu. 3:10.

“In those days, the Danites, searching for territory in which to dwell, sent out five spies, who eventually came to Ephraim ‘as far as the house of Micah and got to spend the night there.’ While near Micah’s house, they recognized Jonathan’s voice, found out what he was doing there, and had him inquire of God so that they might know whether their venture would be successful. The priest told them: ‘Go in peace. It is before Jehovah that your way is in which you go.’ (Jg. 18:1-6) They subsequently spied out Laish and returned, telling their brothers about it, whereupon the five spies and 600 Danite men girded for warfare headed for that city. En route, as they passed Micah’s house, the spies told their brothers about his religious articles and suggested their acquisition. The Danites took these and also convinced the Levite that it would be better for him to be a priest to a tribe and family in Israel than just for one man. They then took him, the ephod, the teraphim, and the carved image and went their way. – Jg. 18:7-21.

“Shortly thereafter, Micah and a company of men pursued the Danites. Upon catching up with them and being asked what was the matter, Micah said: ‘My gods that I made you have taken, the priest too, and you go your way, and what do I have anymore?’ At that, the sons of Dan warned of possible assault if Micah continued following them and voicing protest. Seeing that the Danites were much stronger than his band, Micah returned home. (Jg. 18:22-26) The Danites thereafter struck down and burned Laish, building the city of Dan on its site. Jonathan and his sons became priests to the Danites, who ‘kept the carved image of Micah, which he had made, set up for themselves all the days that the house of the true God [the tabernacle] continued in Shiloh. – Jg. 18:27-31.”

Although Dan Gayman did well in his presentation on this subject, he did not cite this passage which clearly shows how things were deteriorating with the twelve tribes of Israel in Canaan during the time of the judges. As this passage clearly shows, the Israelites were attempting to devise their own style of divinity over that of Yahweh. This is also clearly shown by Micah (a different Micah than the one in Judges) at 6:16 which states:

“For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people.” I don’t recall Dan Gayman citing this passage either.

And as the Israelites left the absolutes of the Almighty’s divine deity, their everlasting Husband, they chose to be a god unto themselves, setting up their own laws and religious worship apart from the pure laws and worship of their Elohim, the Almighty Yahweh! As a people of Elohim (the Almighty), when He had married this people, you will remember that He had established them under appropriate worship; He had instituted the exacting details by which they would worship Him in obedience and hallow His sacred name, Yahweh, which they still scoff at to this very day. All worship had been structured to honor the Almighty Husband, and to bring about an upright relationship to Him, and an equitable relationship to their brothers in the Faith. As we follow the estrangement period of Israel’s history, we will see how their distancing of themselves from their Husband, and their self-confidence in their own rational minds caused their marriage to deteriorate from generation to generation. As we observe the marriage of Yahweh with His people Israel, we cannot help but grasp the lack of faithful obedience to that marriage covenant by the Husband’s wife. As we study the relationship of this people to their Husband, and all of the various stages of Israel’s history, we will examine their worship, their covenant obligation, and the absolutes of Yahweh’s commandments, laws and statutes.

We will find that Israel’s estrangement to Yahweh worsened in degrees until Yahweh had no alternative but to write them a bill of divorce! In fact, His own divine law demanded that He judge His people and put them away in punishment! As we explore Yahweh’s standard for divorce, and His putting away of these people in punishment, it will be necessary to chronicle specifically the terms and conditions by which this divorce should and did proceed. It will be found that when we look deeply into the manner in which Yahweh wrote out a bill of divorcement for His people, Israel, it will involve a secular study of the tide and ebb of the flow of history, as Yahweh brought forth two mighty empires, the Assyrian and the Chaldean. Thus, these two great empires became Yahweh’s rod of indignation in His hand by which He wrote out His bill of divorce to Israel!

As we explore this particular phase of history, it will involve Israel and Judah being systematically removed from their homeland by four different Assyrian emperors and one Chaldean emperor, namely, Tiglath Pileser; Shalmaneser V; Sargon II; Sennacherib; and Nebuchadnezzar. The basic meaning of the term “divorce” is “to put away”, and you will notice that the majority of Judah was taken into captivity as well as the ten tribes of Israel. Only a small remnant of Judah returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. Many today are oblivious to the fact that all of Judah, except Jerusalem, was taken into Assyrian captivity by Sennacherib of Assyria. Thus, the ten tribes of Israel were completely removed, and nearly all Judah (except for a remnant), never to return to their homeland for the true lawful worship and the benefits of the marriage estate.

We will also find, as Yahweh wrote out this bill of divorce, that with it came severe judgment upon His people, for from that day forth, until reconciliation would be achieved, they were to be known as “the lost sheep put away in punishment”. After the divorce period, we will examine a period in Israel’s history which we will call, “the time of the reconciliation”, meaning “to become friendly again”.

As we consider the “time of the reconciliation”, it can only be the time when Yahweh (who married Israel in the first place) came in the flesh as Adam-man, born of a virgin, or what is called, “the Incarnation”. This was not “the second personage of the Godhead”, as Dan Gayman claims, but was Yahweh incarnated into Adam’s flesh. As I have stated before, If Yahshua is the actual son of Yahweh, (or two different persons), then, according to New Testament Scripture, Christ is going to marry His Father’s wife! Such an idea goes contrary to Scripture, as at Hosea 2:7 where (speaking of Israel) it is stated:

“And she [Israel] shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”

Let’s see if we can count to three: 1-. Yahweh was Israel’s first Husband, 2-. A false god would make Israel’s second husband, and 3-. Christ (who some claim is “the second person of the Godhead”) would make husband number three. But Israel has followed many false gods, so Christ could be the 99th or 100th, husband, or even higher! But regardless of how many gods, Hosea 2:7 states: “... I will go and return to my first husband ...” Either Hosea is lying or it’s the dualists and trinitarians who are lying!

Not only do we have this problem of conflicting concepts concerning the marriage and remarriage of Israel, but John 1:29 identifies Christ as “the Lamb of God”, and Revelation 19:9 identifies the Lamb of God as the One who will remarry Israel!

John 1:6: “The next day John seeth Yahshua coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Revelation 19:9: “And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

Who really, then, is the only Husband that Israel will ever have? Isaiah 54:4-8 gives us the answer:

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

For anyone who doesn’t understand this passage, it is speaking in both a past and future tense. In a past tense as Yahweh who had divorced the twelve tribes, and in a future tense as Yahweh who came in the flesh as Yahshua (meaning Yahweh saves) who will remarry Israel as “the Lamb of God”. For a moment, let’s take a second look at the key elements here: “... shame of thy youth ... reproach of thy widowhood ... thy Maker is thine husband ... thy Redeemer ... woman forsaken ... a wife of youth ... have I forsaken thee ... will I gather thee ... I hid my face from thee ... will I have mercy on thee ...” This is not speaking of two persons of the Godhead here! The same one who hid His face from thee (in divorce) is the same one who will gather and have mercy on thee (in remarriage)! While I agree in many places with Dan Gayman on this subject, this is one of a few areas where I do not give my approval to his position.

I would remind the reader that I haven’t, as yet, gone into detail on the seven stages of the greatest love story ever told, which are, (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. I am still working on the general overview of these seven stages before I finally address each of these stages individually. It’s a big subject, and it needs to be done properly! Therefore, a certain amount of preparatory work is in order! I would also remind the reader that the apostle Paul wrote about marriage, and his teachings are right in line with the rest of the Bible on this subject!

When we finally get to the detailed account of the period of the reconciliation, we will find it was the redeeming blood of Yahshua Christ that played a major role in the remarriage of Yahweh back to a people called Israel. To understand the reconciliation we must first consider the divorce phase of this relationship. Let’s go on to the remarriage part of it. It is very important, at this stage, that we understand it is only a near kinsman to Israel which can lawfully redeem her. This is clearly set forth throughout the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, but let’s consider the law of “kinsman redemption” as found in Leviticus 25:47-49:

“⁴⁷ And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: ⁴⁸ After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: ⁴⁹ Either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.”

Now let’s take up this subject of redemption. This is a big subject, and we are going to have to do the subject justice. Because redemption has not been tauArialMsoNormalght correctly by the so-called “Churches”, this may seem like a new mysterious doctrine. I assure you it is not! Upon getting into this phase of our subject, I found that I had to run references for about two months or better a few years ago. In running all of these references, I did find a few (but very few) who understood the redemption message. Before we get into all that, I would like to point out the meaning of the word “redeem” in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

“1350 גָּאַל gâ’al gaw-a’ l; a prime root, to redeem (according to the Oriental law  of kinship), i.e. to be the next of kin (and as such to buy back a relative’s property, marry his widow, etc.):– X in any wise. X at all, avenger, deliver, (do, perform the part of near, next) kinfolk (-man), purchase, ransom, redeem (-er), revenger.”

The Hebrew word #1350 is used 104 times in the Old Testament and the problem is, it is always translated “redeemer” instead of “kinsman redeemer”. Because of this, most people don’t understand that it is absolutely necessary that redemption be by near-of-kin. So what I am going to do here is: I am going to quote five of these passages and add the term “kinsman” in brackets. It really should not be necessary to add brackets as the word “kinsman” is there (we are really not adding anything.) You probably have noticed how the King James Version of the Bible puts all of the words that were not in the original manuscripts in italics. By doing this they have tried to add English words to make it mean in English what it meant in whatever language they were translating it from. They have taken educated guesses at this and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are not. Well here the word “kinsman” is in the original meaning, so we shouldn’t really have to use brackets or italics to place it in the text.

Leviticus 25:25: “If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem (#1350) [as a kinsman] that which his brother sold.”

Psalm 74:2: “Remember thy congregation which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed (#1350) [as a kinsmen]; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.”

Psalm 107:2: “Let the redeemed (#1350) [kinsmen] of Yahweh say so, whom he hath redeemed (#1350) [as a kinsman] from the hand of the enemy.”

Isaiah 43:1: “But now thus saith Yahweh that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have [as a kinsman] redeemed (#1350) thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.”

Isaiah 62:12: “And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed (#1350) by their [kinsman] Yahweh: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.”

It should be quite obvious here that the Bible has much to say about the idea of purchasing back the next-of-kin out of a state of slavery. If we do not understand that we, as Israel, sold ourselves into servitude as a result of breaking our marriage vows by taking up pagan religions, then we cannot comprehend why it was necessary for Yahweh to come in the flesh and die so He could be in a position to purchase us back to Him. If we cannot understand “redemption” then we cannot grasp one of the chief doctrines of the Bible. As I said before, what is being taught on this in the “Churches” of today is not “redemption”.

Now, let’s get down to brass tacks and see what the apostle Paul had to say about this “purchasing back” or “redemption” at Galatians 4:4-5, 7:

“4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To REDEEM them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ... 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

William Finck translates these same verses:

“⁴ And when the fulfillment of the time had come, Yahweh had dispatched His Son, having been born of a woman, having been subject to law, ⁵ in order that he would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons. ... ⁷ So you are no longer a bondman but a son, and if a son, then an heir through Yahweh.”

You will notice in the 7th verse here that the KJV has it, “... heir of God through Christ ...”, while Finck renders it simply, “heir through Yahweh”. Inasmuch as Yahshua Christ was Yahweh in the flesh, Finck’s readings follows the oldest manuscripts, where the King James version follows late manuscripts which have the additional words. Inasmuch as Yahshua Christ was Yahweh in the flesh, Finck’s rendering on verse 7 makes a lot of sense!

The event of the Incarnation became the special central focal point that Yahshua Christ was born into this world of a virgin. We cannot fully comprehend the entire theme of the Bible without a thorough understanding of the event and purpose for the Incarnation of Yahweh into an Adamic flesh body! As we examine the period of the reconciliation, we will discover that the great revealed truth of the redeeming blood of Yahshua Christ to a people called Israel, as their kinsman redeemer, involves the major tenets of the Holy Christian Apostolic Faith!

This Faith, once delivered, was provided in order that a people called Israel could be reconciled back to Yahweh and move forth in time and space to take dominion of the world, and bring the Almighty’s creation back into a rightful relationship. When we get into the subject of the reconciliation, it will involve the study of the great prophecies of the Bible.

The final stage in our examination of Israel’s history encompasses the story of the remarriage of the people of Israel back to the Lamb, Yahshua Christ, who was slain from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8. Not only this, but the remarriage will embrace many of the parables in Holy Writ. As we consider the remarriage, we are looking at a people, the redeemed of Yahweh moving back into a position of dominion by the appropriation of the blood of Yahshua Christ by their repentance, confession and godly sorrow for their past history (at least for those who are aware of their identity), Ezek. 18:30-32. Other Israelites yet unaware of their identity sense their sins by the law that Yahweh has written on tablets of their heart, Jer. 32:39-40; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27. These sins just happen to be the same sins when breaking any of the ten commandments Yahweh presented to Moses plus any of the statutes and ordinances. It was the Temple rituals that have been fulfilled with the Sacrifice of Yahshua dying on the cross, thus they have been discontinued and no longer in effect because redemption is complete.

When at last this marriage takes place, with the full establishment of His government, under His law, according to His will for the life His people, Israel and the whole creation will move forth in time and space to become the greatest, most glorious event in all of history. As we follow the seven stages of Israel’s history through the Bible, as we consider, (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage, what are the implications of this remarkable story, the greatest love story ever told? Significantly, it involves the only means whereby Yahweh’s Israel people, the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian and related peoples of this day can look squarely at history and come to a knowledge of the means, methods, and terms by which they must move forth at this time in their history. A qualified study of these seven stages in the history of this people will of necessity require a very careful examination of the entire structure of the Holy Christian Apostolic Faith. Importantly, it is imperative that this people move back under the absolutes of Yahweh’s law and His will for their lives. All this will entail the appropriation of the Holy blood of Yahshua Christ, our kinsman, in a devout righteous manner, and then moving forward in boldness.

Again, I will advise the reader that I have included information and citations which Dan Gayman did not mention in his audiocassette tape series, The Greatest Story Ever Told. My improved and more comprehensive coverage of Yahweh’s marriage, divorce and remarriage to Israel, I have more fully entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, so that my title for this protracted series is different than his.

This is my one hundred thirty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. In the last two lesson, #’s 137 & 138, I started a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told by which I was in the process of giving the reader a general overview before going into detail on the subject. This will take some time to complete as it will cover seven stages: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. But something has happened since putting those lessons on the Internet and distributing the remainder of them to my U.S. Postal subscribers. I got a letter from a man whom I will not name at this point, stating in very large letters: “Jesus was not a Jew” ... “Oneness is Jewish”. On this first letter from him, there was no return address on the envelope nor anything inside the letter to indicate who he was. Well, about a week later, I received a second letter from him with his name and return address. Upon this, I typed out a letter back to him explaining some of the same things I presented to you in lessons #’s 137 & 138. Then, about a week later, I received a large envelope with a letter and a 15 page article on the “trinity” which he said he had written some years previous to this. Whereupon, I wrote him a second letter stating my position, citing several passages of Scripture in return to him. With that letter, in a large envelope, I returned to him much of my data, plus some of my past writings, which weighed about 4 ounces.

Therefore, I realized that I needed to address this matter of the doctrine of the “trinity” before we go any farther, as it is incompatible with the doctrine of the marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel! As I stated in the last two lessons, I’m following the outline of Dan Gayman in his nine-audiocassette series, and though he did well, there are areas where evidence proves some of his premises to be incorrect. For instance, in that series Gayman spoke favorably of a trinity. As I stated in lesson #138, if Yahshua Christ (the Lamb) and Yahweh are two different persons, then according to Scripture, Yahshua is going to marry His Father’s wife! Therefore, in essence, Gayman was destroying his own thesis.

What I am about to present in this lesson ranks high among the principal tenets found in the Bible, and without its comprehension, one is lost to a major portion of the enlightenment found in its pages. In short, one can’t have it both ways – one cannot have both the marriage and the trinity! It is true that there is a Father-Son relationship spoken of in Scripture, but it is not “God in three persons” but one God in three manifestations! Yes, there is a Father, and yes, there is a Son, but Christ Himself cleared up the matter in two very important passages found at John 12:45 & 14:6-9:

At John 12:45 Yahshua stated: “And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” Here Christ is both the sent and the sender!

At John 14:6-9 Yahshua stated: “⁶ Yahshua saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. ⁷ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ⁸ Philip saith unto him, Master, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. ⁹ Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” Here Christ is seen as both Son and Father!

But we have another witness in the Old Testament, at Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Here it is prophesied that Christ would be called the Father, and at John 12:45 and 14:6-9 He called Himself the Father, as predicted. If we can’t trust Christ’s own Word, who can we trust? This is evidence that Christ would make the matter clear; that He being the Son was also the Father, and in the above two passages found in John, He confirmed the words of Isaiah 9:6. Nothing could be more insulting to Christ than to speak or sing of Him as part of a trinity, for it repugnantly implies that He is going to marry His Father’s wife at Rev 19:9! Stop and think, it amounts to accusing Him of committing incest! Didn’t Christ suffer enough on the cross without having His reputation dragged through a hog’s sty? Have we no shame? Yet many people are doing just this by singing “holy, holy, holy, blessed trinity”! There is nothing more UNHOLY than singing such a song! I would ask such people, “what would you do if someone were to commit incest in your family?” Or, “What would you think if your son got your wife pregnant?” Why, then, should we accuse the Almighty of doing such a thing by claiming He is a trinity of persons?

I would point out to the reader, there was a time that I strongly believed in a trinity, which term I will not capitalize as I no longer hold to that premise. There was a time when I agreed with most everything that churchianity taught on this subject. Therefore, it would help if I would explain how my position was changed. With the Israel Identity message, I found that I had to reverse myself on nearly everything I thought I knew, which includes more than the matter at hand. Approximately 20 to 25 years ago, I ordered a 14 audiocassette series on the Book of Revelation by Bertrand L. Comparet, which I then transcribed into writing. This is what Comparet said on tape #1, which I now fully believe: “... First of all, in this Book of Revelation, the Revelation thatwas given to John by Yahshua the Christ. And lest there be somebody who has been at some time misled by the common “church” doctrine of the trinity, that we have three separate and different Gods (just like the pagans, you know; they have a few more than we). But no, don’t be misled by that. Some of the preachers take that view, yet the Bible makes it clear that Yahshua the Christ, son of Yahweh, is at the same time Yahweh, God, the Father Himself, and this is one of the places where He tells us so in unmistakable words. ...” I would also state that I used to strongly believe in the doctrine of futurism, but Comparet also enlightened me on the historical interpretation of Revelation.

Another passage at Isaiah 7:14 supports this also: “Therefore Yahweh himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Immanuel is #H6005 and means: “with us (is) El”. “El” is #H410, and is in the singular, and therefore cannot support a trinity!

I should also point out that a thesis on this topic concerning “one God vs. a trinity”, without a mention of Yahweh’s marriage to Israel (all 12 tribes), is a deficient work, for we read at Hosea 2:7: “And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”

So the “Lamb of God”, who is Yahweh in the flesh, or Yahshua Christ, is Israel’s first Husband! Anything else is out-of-context! The problem is, if Yahweh the Father didn’t come in the flesh as Yahshua and die for us, we, according to His own Law, are forever divorced from the Father without any hope of reconciliation. In short, if that is the case, we have no redemption! The Law demands that except upon the death of one of the two parties, can the other remarry! The reason that I hold so tenaciously to this is because I do not want to be judged as an antichrist! Therefore, I will never, never, never stop declaring that Yahshua is Yahweh come in the Flesh!

For important reasons, we must return to John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me” and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” Some of the commentaries, with their trinitarian leanings, try to suggest that Philip and the rest of Christ’s followers saw only the attributes of the Father working in Christ. For instance, the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary on John 12:45 states in part, “The Father and the Son are inseparable; though they are two personalities, they work as one being ...” How could it be “two personalities” when Christ went on in John 14:10 to state in part, “... I am in the Father, and the Father in me ...”. To suggest that the Father and the Son are two different persons is equivalent to accusing Christ of suffering from schizophrenia i.e., a dual or split personality! To avoid such an assertion, one must conclude that there is but ONE GOD! To show that one and the same God is meant, we will read John 5:16-18, where a sect of Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews were rebuking Christ (not indicating which sect it was):

“¹⁶ And therefore did the Jews persecute Yahshua, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. ¹⁷ But Yahshua answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. ¹⁸ Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Here the Greek word for “equal” is Strong’s #2470, and Goodrick & Kohlenberger in their The NIV Exhaustive Concordance describe it thusly: “2698 ἴσος (isos), η (ē),  ον (on): adj.; = Str 2470; ... ‘equal, same as’ (Mt 20:12; Mk 14:56, 59; Lk 6:34; Jn 5:18; Ac 11:17; Php 2:6; Rev 21:16+).” Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the N.T. appears to agree, stating in part on page 307: “... to claim for one’s self the nature, rank, authority, which belong to God, Jn. v. 18 ...”

In support of this is 1 Timothy 3:16: “Who has been manifest in flesh, justified in Spirit, has appeared to messengers, has been proclaimed among nations, is believed in the cosmos, taken up in splendor.” (Translation, W.R. Finck.)

Another passage which supports the fact that the Father and Son are one and the same is found at John 10:25-39

“²⁴ Then came the [Kenite-Edomite]-jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. ²⁵ Yahshua answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. ²⁶ But ye believe not, because ye are not of my [Israel] sheep, as I said unto you. ²⁷ My [Israel] sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: ²⁸ And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and my Father are one. ³¹ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. ³² Yahshua answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? ³³ The [Kenite-Edomite]-jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

What is there that is so difficult to understand that the Father and the Son are one and the same person? The only aspect that separates the Son from the Father is the fact that before the incarnation of Yahweh in the flesh, Yahweh was an invisible being, Col. 1:15. Also, it is very clear from this last quoted passage that the Kenite-Edomite-jews understood that Christ was claiming to be Yahweh God Himself, and they would bring this very same charge to their kangaroo-court trial to gain support for His crucifixion! Repeating their charge, “... because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” It is very obvious here that the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews understood Christ’s words as a claim to being God Himself! Therefore, they had a better comprehension of Christ’s words here than the later roman catholic and protestant trinitarians [4 words lowercase mine]. A few verses later, at John 10:38, Christ stated in part: “... the Father is in me, and I in him.” This substantiates John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” How could it be otherwise?

Once we comprehend these facts, we can then understand the context of Philippians 2:6-9: “⁶ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ⁷ But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ⁸ And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. ⁹ Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”

Not only is it important to understand that Christ was Yahweh come incarnate in the flesh (with a secondary meaning “a.- flesh-colored; pink, b.- red; rosy”), but also the bloodline of that flesh. There is no such thing as an incarnate negroid or mongolian! Hence, there should be no question as to Christ’s race!

At John 7:42 we read: “Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?”

Romans 1:3: “... who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” ASV

2 Timothy 2:8: “Remember that Yahshua Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel ...”

Thus, we see that Yahshua Christ (the Son) was Yahweh (the Father) incarnate into David’s fleshly line. Yes, there is a father-son relationship, while at the same time being the same person. If Christ is to be considered a second person, then He couldn’t have come into existence until His conception and birth, which is contrary to Scripture! On the other hand, if Christ preexisted as a second person or Son of Yahweh, His birth at Bethlehem couldn’t have been His incarnation, but rather (and this is absurd) His reincarnation! As one can plainly see, the theory of a trinity falls apart at the seams! As I have stated before, it’s not God as three persons, but ONE GOD as three manifestations! Not only this, but if the Father and Son are two different persons, then according to Scripture, the Son is going to marry His Father’s wife, which lowers the morals of the Almighty equivalent to that of the average alley cat! Such an assertion is vile beyond description!

As shown above, Yahshua Christ was of the line of David, and that can only be through His mother Mary, as Joseph was not his physical father. It is well known today that the mother contributes as many chromosomes to the child’s genetics as does the father, so Christ was legitimately of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan. So in effect, Christ was both son of David and son of Yahweh (in respect to His incarnation into David’s flesh). Hence, neither the expressions “Son of God” nor “son of man” are out of place. And since Christ explained at John 12:45 “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, He is both the sent and the sender, or both the Father and the Son! Therefore, every place it speaks of the Father and the Son in Scripture, it must be taken in this context that the Father and Son are one and the same!

The concept of Father and Son are alluded to at Matt. 3:17, where it is stated: “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Some would claim that this demonstrates two different persons, but it must be kept in a proper context as the Father and Son being One. Some may respond, “But here the Father is in heaven and the Son is on the earth!” We must remember, though, that Yahweh is omnipresent, meaning “present in all places at all times”, so it matters not from whence came the voice, as long as it was heard! Because of Yahweh’s omnipresence, it means (at the same time He was stating this above), He could be present several trillion light-years out in space near some distant galaxy. This verse doesn’t support any trinitarian interpretation!

Another verse cited by the trinitarians to somehow support the premise that the Father and Son are two persons is Matt. 7:21, which reads: “Not every one that saith unto me, Master, Master, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Here again, the trinitarians will assume that heaven is somewhere other than on this earth, and that Christ is addressing this in His earthly ministry, postulating that somehow this proves these are two different persons. But where is this “kingdom of heaven” sometimes referred to as the “kingdom of God“? When it speaks of the “kingdom” in this manner, it is referring to the kingdom people of the twelve tribes of Israel right here on this earth! Where else would one expect the Father to be except in the midst of His people? In other words, Israel is the heavenly race of people, or the born from above people, John 3:3! How the trinitarians get two persons out of Matt. 7:21 I’ll never understand, for Christ’s own words at John 12:45 were, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” The “him” here is the Father!

Again, the trinitarians will cite Matt. 11:25-27 to somehow support their theory of the Father and Son being two separate persons: “²⁵ At that time Yahshua answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Sovereign of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. ²⁶ Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. ²⁷ All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Actually, this passage supports the oneness of the Father and Son rather than a trinity, where it says, “... and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son ...” Again, read Matt. 11:25-27 in the context of John 12:45, were Christ said, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.”

Trinitarians point out Matt. 12:50 as surefire proof that the Father and Son are separate persons, where it reads: “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” One trinitarian stating, “... leaving no doubt as to His connection to the God in heaven.” I will assert again that the “God in heaven” spoken of here is the God of the heavenly race of Adamic Israelites as pointed out previously above. Not only is the Father in this heaven, but also “my brother”, “sister” and “mother”, for they are all of this heavenly race! No wonder in Matthew chapter 13 that the multitudes were astonished, saying, (vv. 55-56): “⁵⁵ Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? ⁵⁶ And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” These passages can only be understood in the context of John 12:45, where Christ said, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.”

Also, Matt. 14:33 where it reads, “... Of a truth thou art the Son of God”, where Christ calmed the sea must be taken in the context of John 12:45, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.”

The trinitarians are also quick to point out Matt. 16:15-16, where Peter confessed: “¹⁵ He [Christ] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? ¹⁶ And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Again, this passage can only be understood in the context of John 12:45, where Christ said, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.”

Yet another passage the trinitarians use to support their flawed premise is found at Matt. 17:5, which states: “While he [Yahshua] yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Here the trinitarians use man’s logic to support their faulty hypothesis, but the context at John 12:45 still stands, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me” and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” Inasmuch as the Father is omnipresent, the trinitarians overlook the fact that the Father can be in the Son and the cloud simultaneously! This shows that they serve a very small and insignificant god.

Never quitting in their endeavor to prop up their flawed premise, the trinitarians will cite Matt. 18:10, which reads in part: “... That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” After citing this, one trinitarian wrote, “Jesus again refers to God as ‘my Father,’ reaffirming that he was the Son of God.” This is in blatant disregard of John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...”. Matt. 18:10 is just another verse which the trinitarians take out-of-context! It appears the trinitarian’s god is so small that they will need a powerful magnifying glass to find him!

The trinitarians, being quite stubborn in their persuasion, will cite Matt. 24:35-36, where it says, “³⁵ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. ³⁶ But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” The trtext-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; line-height: 105%u/spanstrong/stronginitarians will assume from this, in their flawed resolve, that the Father and Son are two different persons, that one knew something that the other didn’t. But is this really what Christ implied? In other words, did Christ know the day and the hour? We must remember that Christ, having a two-fold nature (very God and very man), it would exclude Him from verse 36. Therefore, Christ being both the Father and the Son did know the day and the hour! To understand that He did know we must review John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” Therefore, being both the Father and Son, He did know the day and the hour, and nothing at Matt. 24:36 says that He didn’t! So the trinitarians strikeout again!

Not giving up on their pet theory of promoting a trinity, the trinitarians will cite Matt. 27:43, where it states: “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” At this point, we must ask the question, How did these Kenite-Edomite-jews know that Christ claimed to be “the Son of God”? It was at John 10:30 where Christ stated, “... I and my Father are one.” And this proclamation was based on John 12:45 where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” Such are the words that were used as an excuse to crucify Him!

Then one trinitarian cites Matt. 27:54 and suggests it is the ultimate proof of a trinity, which reads: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Yahshua, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” No doubt this was a very startling event, for at that moment the veil in the Temple was rent and many saints who had formerly died arose from their graves. But just because the centurion is recorded as saying, “Truly this was the Son of God” doesn’t make the Father and Son two separate persons! This is not true as it is not in context with John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...”.

The trinitarians will then attempt to find support for a trinity at Matt. 28:18-19, where it says: “¹⁸ And Yahshua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ...” One trinitarian, thinking he had the ultimate answer, wrote, “This is the Trinity.” Well, it might appear as a trinity to some, but there is one major problem in applying verse 19 to a trinity. The English word “name” is properly translated from the Greek #368,6 on´-om-ah, and is singular in both the English and the Greek. Therefore, it is not the plural “names” but rather the singular “name”! And since it is not plural, it cannot support three separate persons no matter how much they rant and rave otherwise! As I said before, it is not God in three persons, but ONE GOD in three manifestations!

We should not be surprised that Christ is called by more than one appellation, as Isaiah 9:6 gives a few more: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Did you notice here that the Son would also be called the Father? It seems that the trinitarians know more about it than Isaiah! Actually, they are intimating that Isaiah is a liar!

It is paramount that we take all of these passages in context with John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...”

Another passage that alludes to this same thought is Mark 9:36-37, where we read: “³⁶ And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, ³⁷ Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” Thus, to receive the Son is to receive the Father! This is similar language to John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...”

Likewise, similar language is found at John 7:16: “Yahshua answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” Question: Who sent Him? Answer: John 12:45, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” It is clear, Christ knowing that the Father and Son were ONE, He was sent by the Father. John 8:16 might seem to contradict this, where Christ states: “And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” Here, Christ, knowing the Father and Son are ONE, is declaring that the Father and Son serve as two witnesses when it comes to the law (the Father being Spirit and the Son being flesh). Yet in Christ, the Spirit and the flesh are fused into one being, never to be severed. How else could the Father and Son be ONE?

Another passage which declares that the Father and Son are ONE is found at John 10:37-38 thusly: “³⁷ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. ³⁸ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

An additional passage that describes this very same concept is found at Romans 1:3-4, where Paul states: “3 Concerning His Son who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of Yahweh with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ...”. Most translations do not include the phrase, “Jesus Christ our Lord” as does the KJV. The proper context here is found at John 14:9, where Christ stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” i.e., Yahweh took up His abode in the fleshly body of Christ.

Going back to the man who wrote that 15-page article attempting to prove a trinity, he made a very serious blunder on page 10 where he stated in reference to Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 10:12; 12:2; & 1 Pet. 3:22, “If He is sitting on the right hand of God He must be a separate person (and HIS Son) and where we should seek what is above, or from God.” All of these passages are subject to John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” Yes, as a metaphor, there is a father-son relationship, and yes, as a metaphor, a son is his father’s right arm or hand! (i.e. strength or example.)

Like I said at the beginning of this lesson, if the premise of a trinity is true, there can be no remarriage of Israel back to “the Lamb of God” who is one with the Father, (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 7:9-10-11, 14; 12:11; 14:4; 15:3; 19:9; 21:3; & 22:1, 3). To claim such a thing is tantamount to the Son marrying His Father’s wife! If the premise of a trinity is true, the remarriage is untrue, it’s that simple! I sincerely hope the man who wrote his 15-page paper on his supposed trinity will wake up to the seriousness of this implication.

The following are some of the other passages that this man used attempting to justify a trinity: Mark 1:11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7, 37; 13:26, 32; 14:62; 15:39; Luke 1:35, 37; 3:22, 38; 4:34, 41; 8:27-28; 9:26, 35; 10:22; 18:19; 22:70-71; 23:46; John 1:29, 34, 40, 51; 3:17-18, 35; 5:18, 19-47; 6:27, 39-39, 65, 67; 7:16; 8:16-19, 28-29, 38, 42, 54; 10:18, 36; 11:27; 17:7-10; 20:31; Acts 8:37; 9:20; 13:33; Romans 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:1, 15-16; 4:4; Ph’p. 2:5-8; Col. 1:3; 3:1-2; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 1:1-2, 5; 2:6, 7; 3:6; 4:14: 5:8; 10:12; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:23; 4:10, 14-15; 5:5-6, 10-15; 2 John 3, 7, 9.

I would advise each reader of this lesson to check every one of these references out for themselves, applying John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” for a proper context.

It is my prayer that the reader can now comprehend why it was necessary for me to address this issue of the trinity so I can proceed with the subject The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. Surely the doctrine of the trinity represented an obstacle blocking its presentation. I will leave you with this thought: With a trinity, Whom do we really worship? Secondly, Was the first trinity Satan, Eve and Cain?

This is my one hundred and fortieth monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. In the last three lesson #’s 137, 138 & 139, I started a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told for which I was giving the reader a general overview before going into detail on the subject, which will take some time to complete, as it will cover seven stages: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. The apostle Paul addressed the subject of marriage both with respect to Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, and the marriage of a man and woman. The laws that affect these two types of marriages are the same. This is not a subject that can be entirely addressed in one short lesson, nor should it be passed over lightly. As I have stated in the last three lessons, I’m following the outline of Dan Gayman in his nine-audiocassette series, and though he did well, there are areas where evidence proves some of his premises to be incorrect. In his presentation, Gayman spoke favorably of a trinity. As I demonstrated in the last lesson, if Yahshua Christ (the Lamb) and Yahweh are two different persons, then according to Scripture, Yahshua is going to marry His Father’s wife!

The main passages of Scripture that dispel the premise of a trinity of individual persons are John 12:45, where Christ addressed the Pharisees, “... he that seeth me seeth him that sent me”, and John 14:9, where He stated to Philip, “... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...” It is true that there is a Father-Son relationship spoken of in Scripture, but it is not “God in three persons”, but ONE GOD in three manifestations! An example of three manifestations is found at Matt. 28:19, where it states: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ...”. Here John 12:45 and 14:9 take precedence over Matt. 28:19! Therefore, the subject of The Greatest Love Story Ever Told is incompatible with a trinity because it would have the Son marrying His Father’s wife! A very vile accusation indeed! Furthermore, the Father and Son have the same name; the Father being (Yah)weh and the son (Yah)shua; “Yah” being the abbreviated form of Yahweh! Therefore, the name is singular as the Greek substantiates! In positively no way does Matt. 28:19 prove a trinity; in fact, quite the opposite!

In lesson #’s 137 & 138, I was presenting an overview of the seven stages of the marriage, divorce and remarriage of Yahweh to Israel. Then I realized that it was imperative to refute the fallacy of the trinity, which I addressed in lesson #139. I still haven’t really covered all of the overview, so with this lesson I will continue where I left off with the overview to The Greatest Love Story Ever Told:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 3

To properly shoulder our responsibility in the Kingdom of Yahweh requires that our people perform His law and will for our lives. This will necessitate an about-face from following Satan’s agenda to placing ourselves under the blood of Yahshua Christ and following His narrow way; for Yahweh is the God of segregation, while Satan is the god of integration. The broad way is the way of integration, whereas the narrow way is the way of segregation! It is only then that we can receive our crown rights on this earth as the national wife to our Husband, the King.

This whole story embraces His people Israel. And although in past times they were numerically insignificant, as promised they grew to be as innumerable as the stars, but today their number is being greatly diminished due to race-mixing! And although the situation appears dire indeed, we have the assurance, as long as the sun and moon are still shining in the heavens, that there will always be an Israel people here on this earth. Therefore, because of the evil forces at work today trying destroying the racial purity of our people, it behooves us to study The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. Daily, we need to move forward in faith and obedience and take a stand against the evil forces around us. Our guide for such an endeavor is a study of revisionist history in the context of Yahweh’s word properly translated and applied.

When we seriously begin to seek the truth and move forward in faith against the forces of evil, the Almighty will start to judge the wicked of this world and reestablish His seedline anew into a glorious Kingdom and government on this earth. As a primer, it is absolutely imperative that we study very carefully the seven stages of the marriage, divorce and remarriage of the “Lamb of God” to Israel, who is no other than her “first Husband”, Yahweh, as pointed out at Hosea 2:7: “And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.” Once we follow His Kingdom plan, we will no longer be the tail, but we will once more become the head, as spoken of at Deut. 28:13 & 28:43-44:

Deut. 28:13: “¹² Yahweh shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. ¹³ And Yahweh shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of Yahweh thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them ...”

Deut. 28:43-44: “⁴³ The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. ⁴⁴ He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” This begs the question today, who’s lending to whom? But, when we, as Israel, begin to realize all of this and apply His commandments to our society, this curse will be reversed in our favor! Today, Israel is blatantly breaking the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not race-mix.” But Christ predicted that this would be happening just previous to His Second Advent, at Matt. 24:38: “³⁷ But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. ³⁸ 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 ...” Most of the rest of Matthew chapter 24 contains the predictions of the destruction of the Temple, along with Jerusalem, but this verse can fit only our day, so it represents a mile-marker for where we are in prophetic time.

More importantly, concerning Deut. 28:13 & 28:43-44 above, is that the laws commanded by Yahweh in the Old Testament have not been done away with as some claim. Had they been done away with, there should be no reason why prosperity eludes us in the United States, and the other Israel countries, today. The reason we are not enjoying prosperity is because of the Almighty’s chastisement found at Heb. 12:5-8: “⁵ ... My son, despise not thou the chastening of Yahweh, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: ⁶ For whom Yahweh loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. ⁷ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? ⁸ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Being a “bastard” implies that one is not a racially pure Israelite! This is something that Dan Gayman failed to address in his presentation on this subject. Yes, Gayman is a strong proponent of Yahweh’s law, but I don’t remember him quoting Hebrews 12:5-8. Important also is the fact that if we are being chastised, we are true Israel, and that a substantial number of us remain racially pure, although there are less of us every single day due to Satan’s liberal left-wing, Canaanite-jewish-communist agenda! For the rest of us who haven’t joined Satan’s agenda (though we be but a very small remnant of Israel), we shall become more than conquerors through our Savior and Redeemer, Yahshua the Messiah, our Anointed!

So may Yahweh bless you as we undertake our study of the seven stages of The Greatest Love Story Ever Told: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 4

“THE COURTSHIP”:

This will begin stage #1 of our study on The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. As we look into this study of the courtship we will find that it is one of the preeminent truths of the Bible. Our object is to show that the Almighty, before the creation of the world, would seek the destiny of a particular people in whom He would work out His great Plan. For an opening text I will cite Romans 9:1-5: “¹ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, ² That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. ³ For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: ⁴ Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; ⁵ Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”

Upon reading this passage we must ask: Does it make any difference who the Israelites are? Many will reply, “What difference does it make?” The truth is, it is the difference between understanding one’s Bible or the Bible remaining a complete mystery! As one can plainly see, it made a lot of difference to Paul who the Israelites were! As we advance through this study, we will do the same as Paul! Surely they are NOT the Canaanite-jews falsely claiming to be Israelis today! Further, at Romans 10:1 Paul stated: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” Nor was Paul referring to the Canaanite-jews here either, and that also makes a lot of difference! The notable difference being: a member of the tribe of Judah is a pureblooded Israelite, whereas the Canaanite-jew is a half-breed, i.e., half Canaanite and half Judahite at best! As Yahweh hated Esau, so also does He hate half-breed Canaanite-jews, Malachi 1:3 and Rom. 9:13! The bottom line is, this study on the courtship is directed toward the pure-blooded Israelites of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah; not the half-breed Canaanite-jews! All of this encompasses the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, the promises, and even Christ concerning the flesh in knowing who the true Israelites of the Bible are! Without the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, the promises, and even Christ concerning the flesh, there are no Israelites, and the Canaanite-jews have none of these prerequisites, and never will!

Presently, our major concern is Christ’s relationship with a people of a particular seedline descended from the Adamic race. As we observe this favored people – the Israel of Yahweh known today as the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and related kin – and consider this relationship between Yahweh and this people, we will be contemplating the metaphorical story of Yahweh in His role as Husband to Israel! And while the description of a metaphor is, “use of a word denoting one kind of object or idea in place of another to suggest a likeness between them”, every Biblical law affecting this marriage is identical to that between a man and his wife, and applies in like manner! Until this “likeness” is well understood, we are not fully ready to continue with this study. Therefore, I urge each reader to pray to Yahweh requesting help to resolve this “likeness” in their own mind! Once one comes to such an understanding, one will realize that the Almighty asks nothing more from us than He would be obligated to do Himself! Again, it cannot be over-emphasized that all of the Biblical laws concerning the marriage between a man and his wife apply also to the marriage of Yahweh to His people Israel! Surely the Almighty is not about to disobey any of His own laws – He never has and He never will! Nor is the Son going to marry His Father’s wife!

This marriage relationship of Yahweh to His people Israel is well established in the Bible. Therefore, it becomes necessary to show how this metaphor is portrayed to us in Holy Writ, and a good starting point would be Isaiah 54:5: “For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” This is an extremely important passage as it not only depicts the marriage of Yahweh to His people Israel, but also strongly declares that the Husband is the “Holy One” of Israel! Notice, it is not a holy two, but a Holy One! For a broader perspective on this marriage relationship, I would suggest that the reader examine Isaiah 54:1 through 17.

Yet another important passage that refers to this marriage relationship between Yahweh and His people Israel is found at Jeremiah 3:20, where it states: “Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh.” Here in Jeremiah 3:20 we have Israel likened unto the wife and Yahweh likened as her Husband! At Jeremiah 31:31-32 we find an excellent example of this metaphorical use of the Husband-wife relationship to convey The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, and Yahweh’s relationship to this people exclusively: “³¹ Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: ³² Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh ...” Note that Yahweh states in unmistakable words that He is a Husband to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which refutes the assertion which some make that Judah was neither married nor divorced.

At Ezekiel 16:31-33, Israel is likened unto a wife that commits adultery by taking strangers instead of obeying the Husband: “³¹ In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; ³² But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! ³³ They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.”

Further, we have this Husband-and-wife relationship laid out for us to examine, at Hosea 2:2, where it states: “Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts ...” Remember, at this point we are coming quite near to the time when the divorce will be put into force by Yahweh! Now take a look at verse 7, where the prophet states: “And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.” When Dan Gayman quoted this verse 7, he should have discovered his error in conjecturing a trinity. Israel’s return to her first husband under the New Covenant is the Lamb of God, who is identical to Yahweh in the flesh. As I have stated before, the Son cannot marry His Father’s wife as that would violate Yahweh’s law! Israel is to return to her first Husband, not marry a second one!

The metaphor of the Husband-wife relationship also shows up at Malachi 2:11, 14-15, where we read: “¹¹ Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. ... ¹⁴ Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. ¹⁵ And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” Not only does this verify that Judah was married to Yahweh, but shows that Yahweh had every reason He needed to divorce her!

At this point, the reader should be shown what is written at Rev. 21:9, 12: “⁹ And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. ... ¹² And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel ...” Therefore, we can establish beyond all doubt that Israel (all 12 tribes) are the Lamb’s wife! She is the bride, she is the virgin, she is that Holy seed from the race of Adam that Yahweh Almighty predestined and ordained before the foundation of the world to be His chosen people.

Israel, when Yahweh first began to court them with the call of Abraham, was a pure virgin seed without spot or blemish (i.e., mixture of an alien race). With the succeeding generations of Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh’s exclusive covenant was repeated to them, eliminating all unwanted connections and preserving only the twelve tribes of Israel. Jeremiah 18:13 speaks of Israel as a virgin before she hired out to all of her undesirable lovers thusly: “Therefore thus saith Yahweh; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.”

At Amos 5:1-2, about 787 B.C. before the divorce took place, we read his words: “¹ Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even a lamentation, O house of Israel. ² The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.” As we view this relationship between Yahweh Almighty and this particular Holy seed of the race of Adam, we need to take into consideration the use of the metaphor comparing the Husband-wife concept of Yahweh and Israel to that of a man and his wife. It becomes especially important, in order to follow this love story in all of its dimensions, and that is the reason for viewing this relationship as a marriage! In fact, there is no other legitimate way to look at it!

The depth and breath of this love story can only be portrayed by a marital relationship from courtship through dissolution and reconciliation and the fact that Israel was Yahweh’s sweetheart. We are now considering the courtship stage of the seven stages of this development in history between the two. Let’s now turn to Psalm 22:16-20:

“¹⁶ For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. ¹⁷ I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. ¹⁸ They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. ¹⁹ But be not thou far from me, O Yahweh: O my strength, haste thee to help me. ²⁰ Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.”

Before looking into this passage, we must understand that it is a prophecy by king David of the crucifixion of Christ a thousand years later. The “dogs” referred to here are the Canaanites, just as they are identified in the New Testament, and it was the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews who were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion. A few of the Judahites during the intertestamental period had actually mixed their bloodline with some of these, producing Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite-jews. We must also comprehend that this passage is a prophecy of Yahweh, coming as a kinsman Redeemer in Adam’s flesh, to die so He could purchase back His Israel wife, whom He had put away in divorce, unto Himself! The outstanding part of this last passage is verse 20, where it says, “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” The word “darling” in this verse in the Hebrew in the Strong’s #3173 is defined as, “... united, i.e. sole, by implication beloved, also lonely ...” from which one can derive “beloved, my only one”. Truly, the children of Israel were Yahweh’s sweetheart (all twelve tribes)! How can we be sure this is speaking of the Israel people? Well, let’s read on at Psalm 22:21-23:

“²¹ Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. ²² I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. ²³ Ye that fear Yahweh, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.”

First of all, it should be pointed out what is meant in verse 21, where the “lion’s mouth” and the “horns of the unicorns” are spoken of. Surely, the lion spoken of here is the kingdom of Judah and the unicorn is representative of the kingdom of Israel. For more information on this, check the book Symbols Of Our Celto-Saxon Heritage by W.H Bennett, page 87. On that same page, Bennett shows the British Royal Arms with a lion on the left and a unicorn on the right. There are various coats of arms of our Israelite nations which use this combination of lion and unicorn. Once one becomes aware of whom the lion and unicorn are, it fits quite well with verses 22 and 23 of this same passage, especially verse 23, where it says “all ye seed of Israel.” Once again, truly the Israelite people of the house of Judah and the house of Israel were, and still are, Yahweh’s sweetheart! So now we know who this “darling” is! In Dan Gayman’s presentation on this same subject, somehow he overlooked explaining who the lion and the unicorn are, though he did identify who the “darling” is – it is Yahweh’s wife Israel!

But this is not the end of the story on David’s Psalm 22, for there is more evidence in Scripture concerning the “lion’s mouth”. Just because the lion is identified with the house of Judah, or even the house of David, is no sign that the king-line of Judah has always did the right thing. By-and-large the king-line of Judah has done well down through history, yet at times they have wittingly or unwittingly abused their power! Since Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion, surely the “lion’s mouth” played a part in that event. As I have shown in my three brochures on the “Scarlet-Thread”, the Julian family of Caesars can be traced back to the Trojans, and in turn to Zerah-Judah. Now the important thing here to understand is that Zerah-Judah can also represent the “lion’s mouth”. And if you will recall, there was a separate Roman trial of Yahshua Christ. In the Roman trial Pilate officiated, and spoke officially for the Roman empire, and in particular for Caesar Tiberias, thus the “lion’s mouth”. In fact, Christ was saved from the “lion’s mouth” as Pilate found Christ not guilty (“I find no fault in this man”, Luke 23:4)! On the other hand, Pilate dismissed the case, he yielded to the Canaanite-jews to conduct their own trial in which Christ was falsely accused. A cross-reference to Psalm 22:20, where the term “darling” is used, is found at Psalm 35:17, where David states: “Yahweh, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.

One more passage in Psalm 22 should be considered here as it is very significant to the subject of the marriage of Yahweh to His people, Israel. That is Psalm 22:30-31, where it reads: “³⁰ A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to Yahweh for a generation. ³¹ They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.” As we have learned heretofore, the “seed” that “shall serve him” can only be the twelve tribes of Israel, the Husband’s wife! But the word translated “generation” here is confusing. It could be taken by some to mean a very short period of time, maybe as short as twenty years. The word “generation” at verse 30 is #1755 in Strong’s Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary and is defined as, “a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling:– age, X evermore, generation, [n-]ever, posterity.” Strong, for lack of space, didn’t give a very comprehensive definition to this Hebrew word. The prime definition here is “revolution”, or to move in circles or cycles. Had Strong given an example of a “family circle”, Psalm 22:30 would be clearer. All we have to do is compare this verse with Gen. 6:9, where it reads: “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations(1755), and Noah walked with God.” Thus, “generation” is speaking of a “family circle” or family tree. Hence, Noah was perfect in his genealogy. This is the same sense in which Psalm 20:30 should be taken, or: “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to Yahweh for a perfect genealogy.”

Thus, God by election chose a seed to serve Him! This is the same seed which Christ pointed out at Matt. 15:24: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (meaning all twelve tribes). Had Christ sent His disciples to any other people, He being ONE with the Father, would have become unfaithful to His wife, the seed of Israel! We, as the seed Israel, were unfaithful to our Husband, but He was never at any time unfaithful to us! Further, Christ, upon giving His disciples the great commission, stated at Matt. 10:5-6: “⁵ These twelve Yahshua sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the heathen, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: ⁶ But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Here again, Christ, being ONE with the Father, was sending His disciples to the seed of Israel, the wife that He had divorced and put away in punishment. It all boils down to the truism that Yahweh, in the personage of Yahshua Christ, came to rescue and ransom captive Israel, His bride.

One ironic thing about it was, Judas Iscariot was one of those disciples, but the message he carried was from Christ. Judas, being a descendant of Cain failed as a disciple, but the message from Christ did not fail His chosen seed!

At this particular juncture, it is essential that we take a look at the courtship relationship between Yahweh and His chosen virgin seedline. It is imperative that we cite some passages from Scripture relative to this very thing. One such verse is found at Matt. 13:44, where we read: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.” What is this treasure hidden in this field?

We know from a previous parable, the parable of the wheat and the tares, at Matt. 13:24 it is written: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field ...” We are also aware that at verse 38 of this same chapter Yahshua Christ said: “The field is the world [G2889 established order]; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one ...” What we are looking for in the parable of the hidden treasure is a particular seedline in which Yahweh found pleasure hidden in the same field as at Matt. 13:44, which depicts the world where both the seedline of the wheat-people and the seedline of tare-people reside. These are the two seedlines of Genesis 3:15!

The reason that the people of the “hidden treasure” are hidden is because Yahweh hid them! He hid them so well that the people of the “hidden treasure” can’t even find themselves! To this very day the “hidden treasure” people claim to be “Gentiles”, a term with a corrupted meaning. Another reason they were hidden was for their protection. At Psalm 83:2-3 we read: “² For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. ³ They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.” Not only do we need to know who the “hidden ones” are, but also the “enemies” of the “hidden ones” at Psalm 83:2!

How do we know who the “hidden ones” really are? Just who represents this “hidden treasure” of which Matt. 13:44 speaks? We can find the answer to these questions at Psalm 135:4, where David states: “For Yahweh hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.” Not only does this verse reveal the answer to our questions, but also Exod. 19:5: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine ...” With these two passages as witnesses, there can no longer be any doubt as to who “the treasure hid in a field” are! They are the same chosen ones with whom Yahweh would have a courtship with, and then marry. During the courtship, a proposal of marriage by Yahweh to Israel is recorded at Exod. 6:7: “And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you an Almighty: and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your Elohim, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.” Notice the language here, “I will take you to me ...”. Is this not similar to the more familiar, “Will you take this woman to be ...”? or, “Will you take this man to be ...”? But here Yahweh pledges to Israel, “... I will take you to me ...” Because the woman is the weaker vessel, in marriage she places herself under the protection of her husband, the stronger vessel. Is not Yahweh, in His proposal, offering to be Israel’s stronger vessel? After all, Elohim in reference to Yahweh is always used in a singular sense and means “mighty one”. Can anyone claim that this is not a courtship by Yahweh for Israel’s hand in marriage?

More on this topic can be found at Deut. 14:2, where it says: “For thou art an holy people unto Yahweh thy Elohim, and Yahweh hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.”

More marriage ceremony language is found at Deut. 26:17-18 thusly: “¹⁷ Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy Elohim, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: ¹⁸ And Yahweh hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments ...”. (Notice the mutual pledge here.)

There is much more to be commented on concerning the courtship stage of The Greatest Love Story Ever Told.