This is my one hundred forty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. 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 address the fallacy of the trinity, which I addressed in lesson #139. With lesson #140, I finished the overview for 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. Then in the last 80% of lesson #140, I started to address the courtship stage of The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, which I will continue with this lesson:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 5

“THE COURTSHIP” continued:

Paul addressed the subject of marriage in respect to both 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. At the end of the last lesson, concerning the courtship stage of Yahweh’s marriage to Israel I had quoted Deut. 14:2 & 26:17-18 thusly:

Deut. 14:2: “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.” Is this not the same procedure by which a young man chooses a young woman to become his wife? Does not this chosen woman become a peculiar treasure to this young man? If she doesn’t, they shouldn’t be getting married!

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 similarity of the language used here to a marriage ceremony we are familiar with today! Notice also the mutual pledge given by each of the two parties! The words “treasure” and “peculiar people” are descriptive adjectives which refer to one particular seed from the race of Adam that Yahweh courted as He sought them out to become His bride. This is the major theme throughout Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Yahweh’s courtship with this particular people commenced before the world began. If one is an Israelite today, that one was chosen in Yahweh’s mind before the foundation of the world. Also, if one is an Israelite today or in any period, past or future, such a one has no choice in the matter, for traditionally the man seeks out the woman, not the woman the man! Likewise, one cannot choose the Almighty, but He chooses us. Therefore, no one other than the seed of Israel is chosen. Thus, Israel is His “darling”; His “sweetheart”; His “beloved”.

At Amos 3:2 we read these meaningful words: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth ...”. Furthermore, at Jeremiah 31:3 we observe in part: “... I have loved thee with an everlasting love ...”, the greatest love relationship that has ever existed in all of eternity, past, present or future. Another passage along this same line is found at Deut. 7:6-8, where it is stated: “⁶ For thou art an holy people unto Yahweh thy Elohim: Yahweh thy Elohim hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. ⁷ Yahweh did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: ⁸ But because Yahweh loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath Yahweh brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

No Adamite ever loved as Yahweh loved Israel! When we compare the unalterable Scriptures in the New Testament concerning Christ and His ekklesia, that relationship of Christ (the head) to His “called out ones” (the body) is identical to that found in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant; it’s the same God and the same bride! It’s a relationship of the only true living God to His elect. In the Old Testament we refer to the wife as Israel, whereas in the New we call the bride by various terms, “the assembly”, “redeemed Israel”, “His elect”, “His ekklesia”, and Christ (the Husband) is no other than the manifestation of Yahweh in the flesh. This love is expressed and can only be understood in terms of the greatest exclusive Covenant that Yahweh ever made with a select people! While Yahweh made allowances for other people, such as Ishmael, He didn’t take them unto Himself in marriage as He did Israel!

This love Covenant by Yahweh to Israel is a superior Covenant of the highest order, as it supersedes all other covenants. And just as Yahweh’s love Covenant to Israel should be held in high esteem, so too should a love covenant of marriage between a man and a woman be held in a high degree of honor! It was this same love Covenant by Yahweh to Israel that drove Christ to offer Himself upon the cross. This is true redemption! Churchianity falsely proclaims that redemption is salvation from the original sin. The original sin was race-mixing, for which there is no forgiveness, as once committed, it can never be corrected. There is no such thing as redemption for race-mixing, as it requires a pureblooded kinsman to redeem! This love Covenant supersedes all other covenants. It supersedes but does not supplant (1) the Edenic Covenant, (2) the Adamic Covenant, (3) the Noahic Covenant, (4) the Abrahamic Covenant, (5) the Mosaic Covenant, (6) the Palestinian Covenant, (7) the Davidic Covenant, (8) the Solomonic Covenant, and (9) the New Covenant. At this point, there may be some who are wondering how Yahweh’s marriage Covenant could supersede the New Covenant. The answer is, Yahweh’s marriage Covenant to Israel made the New Covenant possible. Actually, by Yahweh in the flesh coming at Yahshua Christ and dying on the cross, it widowed the tribes of Israel allowing them to return to their “first husband”, Hosea 7:2. Otherwise, the New Covenant would be of no effect. Therefore, it took the death of Yahweh as Christ to nullify Yahweh’s divorce of Israel! Otherwise, Israel was forever separated from Yahweh without any hope of ever being reconciled! This is also the true meaning of the term “Gospel” (good news), that Yahweh in the flesh had died for Israel, making it possible for their remarriage, as the law concerning divorce and remarriage had been satisfied by Christ’s death! And if Yahweh and Christ were not the same person, that death would not have fulfilled the law. Dan Gayman didn’t develop this necessary phase of the love story as I have detailed it here.

For more on this Covenant that supersedes, but does not nullify the other nine covenants, let’s go to the apostle Peter to bring more light on this subject at 1 Peter 1:1-2: “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.”

Now, we need to take special notice of verses 18, 19 and 20 of this 1st chapter of 1st Peter, where he states: “¹⁸ Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; ¹⁹ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: ²⁰ Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you ...”

Peter here is addressing Israelites, descendants of the same people we call Israelites in the Old Testament. Their heirs are at this point standing before Peter. By Peter stating “your fathers”, he was acknowledging that these people had roots going back to the Israelites of the Old Testament. And when Peter referred to “... a lamb without blemish and without spot ...”, he was speaking of Yahweh in the flesh (Christ) “... Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world ...” This is from whence this love Covenant for Israel that supersedes the other nine Covenants emanates! Not only this, but the “lamb” spoken of at this passage is representative of the lambs that were sacrificed at the first Passover in Egypt! Thus, all of this concerns Yahweh’s courtship of Israel! Inasmuch as all of this was “... foreordained before the foundation of the world ...”, it substantiates that this love and marriage Covenant of Yahweh for Israel was in existence before the other nine covenants that He would make with Adam-man at later times and places as the need arose. All of this confirms that Yahweh, before creation, by election, established a means by which Israel, His beloved, His darling, His wife, His bride, His virgin seedline should come into a marriage relationship with Him! This is why it is stated at Isaiah 54:5-8:

“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 Elohim. 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.” Since Yahweh has foreordained it, who can annul it?

As we observe this beautiful relationship, it would be well to consider 1st Peter 2:5-9, especially verse 9, where it reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (RSV). For this verse the Revised Standard Version is much better than the KJV, as the KJV uses the misunderstood rendering at verse 9, “a chosen generation”, rather than the more correct rendering of the RSV, “a chosen race”. This is almost the identical language as found at Exod. 19:5-6: “⁵ Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ⁶ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. ...”

Then in the next verse, at 1st Peter 2:10, we read: “Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Read the prophet Hosea at 2:23: “And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.”

Let us at this time turn to Titus 1:1-2: “¹ Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Yahshua Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; ² In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began ...” Notice the word “elect”, meaning “chosen race”. We must remember that this love Covenant for Israel existed in the mind of Yahweh before the creation of the world! One can only surmise how many eons ago that might have been, and how many thousands or millions of years make up an eon.

We see this beautiful relationship in the courtship with this noble seedline even before Yahweh came in the flesh as Yahshua Christ, and was therefore in Spirit only, and invisible to man’s eye, Col. 1:15. For confirmation that Yahweh’s relationship with Israel began even before the creation of the world, we will now reference Ephesians 1:4: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love ...” Remember, and forget not that Paul’s Ephesian letter was written to the “saints at Ephesus”, redeemed Israel, who were descendants of the Old Testament Israelites! We can say that the Ephesians were “redeemed Israel”, for it was Christ’s substitution on the cross that redeemed them, ushering in Israel’s widowed status and opened the door to their redemption which couldn’t be offered until after the crucifixion, and Paul was the instrument to take the good news to the Israel nations, of which the Ephesians were a part.

Let’s now consider the inspiring passage of Scripture found at 2nd Timothy 1:9: “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Yahshua before the world began ...”

Remember, and forget not what Paul recorded at Romans 8:28-31, where he stated: “²⁸ And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. ³⁰ Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. ³¹ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” Again, it is very clear that Yahweh has had a long-range plan for this chosen seed with whom He desires to establish a love Covenant of marriage! Not only that, but He has planned it in such a way that it will not fail, as this passage very distinctly confirms.

Thus far we have concerned ourselves with a chosen race, an elect people whom Yahweh planned to court and marry eons before the world was created. But there are a people living on this earth who are excluded from any fellowship whatsoever, forever removed from having any association with Yahweh, and we find them mentioned at Rev. 17:8: “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” The “beast” spoken of here is not in the scope of our subject, so I will not elaborate on this beast in this series of The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. Suffice it to say that Yahweh has a chosen seedline, and all others are excluded!

IDENTIFYING YAHWEH’S COURTED SEEDLINE

We come now to probably the most important phase of this series. If I find something of equal or greater significance, I will point it out, but at the moment I cannot foresee any aspect or consequence of greater weight! The matter which we are about to explore may seem very hard and cruel to some, but I didn’t write the Book. So, with trepidation I will proceed and do my best to explain this phase of our love story.

The first group of people that must be excluded from being under Yahweh’s love Covenant of marriage are those who have not the “chay” breathed into Adam-man, for which I will cite 1st Thess. 5:23: “And the very Yahweh of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Sovereign Yahshua Christ.” The non-Adamic peoples are void of the Yahweh-“chay” breathed into Adam, therefore we are speaking of a living essence, a fundamental nature or quality only found in Yahweh and Adam-man! Now some may argue that this is utterly unfair, but who are we to contradict the Almighty? Not only is the “chay” in Adam to be preserved, but also his entire being. Thus, as Christ was the first born of many brethren to be resurrected from the dead, so shall we also be resurrected in like manner preserving our body, soul and spirit. Hence, the non-Adamic races will not be resurrected as they are but walking zombies. Brethren, we are more than just matter, we have a spiritual dimension as well as a soul and a formed physical body – Genesis chapters 1 & 2.

To understand the glorious courtship of Yahweh toward Israel we must envision it by perceiving a view of the earth before the fall of Adam, at which time the archangel Satan had usurped Yahweh’s rightful sovereignty. Not only did our adversary rebel against Yahweh, but he (Satan) influenced one-third of the angels to rebel with him, as recorded at Rev. 12:7-9: “⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ⁹ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Many falsely place this event in the future, whereas it happened in the remote past! If this passage is pointing to a future event then Christ was giving false witness when He said at Luke 10:18: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” It is at Rev. 12:3-4 where it reveals the number of angels who fell with Satan: “³ And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. ⁴ And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth ...” From this verse, we can see that two-thirds of the angels stayed faithful to Yahweh and followed Him, whereas one-third of the angels joined Satan in his rebellion against Yahweh. All of this rebellion started in the remote past, but it is still going on as I write about it here. As I stated before, one can only surmise how many eons ago that this may have happened, or how many thousands or millions of years make up an eon.

I wrote about this rebellion of Satan and his angels in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #3 thusly: The story all started in ages past in the heavens when Lucifer and a third of the angels followed him in rebellion against Yahweh. Then Yahweh placed his own son and daughter in the Garden of Eden. At this point, Lucifer decided he must destroy the sons and daughters of Yahweh before they could grow great in the earth. Lucifer decided also that he must plant seed (children) of his own in the earth to counter the children of Yahweh. Therefore, he (Satan) must seduce Eve and cause her to have children by him. Lust played only a secondary role in this matter, as to produce progeny of himself was his main goal. Ever since that time he has been breeding up his own kind, while at the same time, trying to kill or crossbreed down the children of Yahweh. This is why, at every critical period of history, Satan’s children are right there ready to do Satan’s bidding. That is why Herod an (Edomite-Canaanite) descendant of Cain and Esau was Johnny-on-the-spot to kill all the little boy children in order to kill the promised Messiah. Remember? – it was Rachel who was weeping for her children, not Leah. Herod wanted to kill the heir to the house of David who would have been of Judah who was mothered by Leah, but he ended up killing a lot of Benjamite children instead. Remember? – Rachel had two sons: Joseph and Benjamin? When you come to understand that there is a war between Yahweh’s children and Satan’s children, then the events of history become evident. Right now, Satan’s children are trying to crossbreed Yahweh’s children out of existence and you don’t have to look very far to see it (and you have to be blind if you don’t see it)! – End of quote.

We now have an overview of how Satan gained dominion over this world. Upon Satan gaining this dominion, Yahweh created Adam and Eve to take back that dominion from Satan under Himself. Everything was proceeding along quite well until Satan sexually seduced Eve, bringing forth the birth of the half-breed Cain as the firstborn child. With the creation of Adam and Eve, Satan lost his dominion, but with the birth of the half-breed Cain, Cain regained that dominion back for Satan, and the descendants of Cain have held that dominion ever since, even to this very day. Upon the conception of Cain by Eve, Adam had a choice: He could have divorced Eve on the grounds of unfaithfulness and requested Yahweh to create for him another wife, but loving Eve, he opted to keep her, and in the process became the legal stepfather of Cain. By Adam doing the latter, Cain became ruler over Abel whom he slew, and the descendants of Cain have been murdering the descendants of Adam ever since, including Yahshua Christ, which was an act of deicide. At this juncture, it might appear that Yahweh has lost the battle for the dominion over this earth, but this is not the end of the story. And the birth of Cain was not the last attempt by Satan and his angels to forever destroy every last descendant of Adam and Eve.

Had not Eve been sexually seduced by Satan, producing Cain, Abel would have been the firstborn child, and would have been in line to receive the dominion. Because of the murder of Abel by Cain, Adam and Eve had another son in place of Abel named Seth, and here our story takes a different turn. It is recorded at Genesis 4:25-26: “²⁵ And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. ²⁶ And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of Yahweh.”

It is at this juncture we can begin to identify the particular seedline with whom Yahweh would enter into a courtship with, and eventually marry. During this great love story, the providence of Yahweh was in a continual state of vigilance, as He consistently preserved, sustained and protected His godly seedline throughout their history! The road ahead for Yahweh’s courted seedline would not be an easy one, for at every turn it would encounter the enmity of the Cain-Satanic-seedline of Genesis 3:15!

As we then look at Adam-man, we have ten generations from the creation of Adam to the death of Noah. These ten generations covered twenty-six hundred years of history according to the Septuagint text; not two thousand years as the corrupted Masoretic text errantly shows. Of these ten generations, Adam was the first one courted by Yahweh. Abel would have been the second one courted had it not been for Satan’s sexual seduction of Eve, resulting in Cain usurping from Abel his rightful position. It was not until the birth of Seth that he became the second courted by Yahweh. Seth then had a son named Enos who became the third courted by Yahweh. This same process then continued with (#4) Cainan, (#5) Mahalaleel, (#6) Jared, (#7) Enoch, (#8) Methuselah, (#9) Lamech, and, (#10) Noah. During this time, Yahweh was cultivating a relationship as He was courting His people. Without a corrupting foreign influence, molded within this race is an innate genetic propensity to worship Yahweh, which the incident of Enos bears out.

When we come to Noah, we find a time when this godly seedline nearly perished from off the face of this earth, but Scripture informs us that Noah found grace (favor) in the eyes of Yahweh. Noah was a just and righteous man and perfect in his genealogy (family tree). We are told at 1st John 3:9: “Whosoever is born of Yahweh doth not cTO THOSE WHOM THE COVENANT BELONGSbackground: whiteommit sin; for his seed (sperm) remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of Yahweh.” Noah was righteous for this same reason, “for his seed remaineth in him”, meaning that he did not mix his race with the non-Adamic peoples. This is still true of righteous men and women today! When a man and a woman of the same race marry, the two become one, and in that sense, Noah’s “seed remaineth in him”. No other explanation need be given to the wise!

The important thing to grasp here is the fact that from Adam through Noah, for ten generations, Yahweh was courting a specific genetic seedline with the intention of marriage. And if one cannot trace their lineage to that seedline, he will not be among the body of the bride at the “marriage supper of the Lamb”, Rev. 19:9. Not only does this hold true for the first ten generations, but also every generation thereafter. For example, these same ten named patriarchs had many other White Adamic children, but the other children are not counted among Yahweh’s courted ones. Of those other White Adamic children, if they kept their genetics pure, no doubt they will be resurrected, but they will not be among the courted ones for marriage. We will see several examples of this very same thing as we proceed in this series, The Greatest Love Story Ever Told.

As we continue with this love story, we find that immediately after the flood, Noah was reestablished in a Covenant relationship. Therefore, Yahweh’s courting of a specific seedline did not end with Noah, for Yahweh continued to court this godly seedline, His beloved, His darling, His only one. Here is the special seedline that Yahweh was, and still is, calling forth!

Following Noah, we have Shem, Ham and Japheth. At that point in time, Shem became Yahweh’s courted seedline, while Ham and Japheth were excluded. So it becomes very important in relation to the covenants that one’s ancestral line be of Shem rather than Ham or Japheth. There is one exception though: a Shemite male could take a wife of the house of Ham or the house of Japheth, but a female Shemite dare not become the wife of a Hamite or Japhethite, for the seedline always goes through the male. As we continue on with this study, we’ll see several examples of this situation also. So, with all of the White nations that proceeded from Ham or Japheth, they were not part of the courted seedline. And after this, with only one of Shem’s sons! Again, it is paramount here to understand that not all of Shem’s sons became Covenant seed! Only the son named Arphaxad became the courted seedline of Yahweh. And after Arphaxad came Kainan, Salah, Heber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah & Abram (Abraham), in that order. Each of these named patriarchs, in their own turn, then became a member of Yahweh’s courted seedline. While, at the same time, any of the brothers of these named patriarchs were excluded. They were not removed from prior covenants, however, they were not the focus of Yahweh’s plans for Adam-kind, nor are they included in subsequent covenants.

Now when we come down to the man Abram, and you’ll remember that Abram was the son of Terah who also had two other sons, Haran and Nahor. Yahweh did not choose the descendants of either of these two sons! He selected; He elected; He predestined; He foreknew Abram, the son of Terah to be that Covenant seedline whom He was courting, and through whom He would build His great Kingdom on the earth!

At Romans 9:6-7 we have two case-in-point verses where Paul states: “⁶ Not as though the word of Yahweh hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: ⁷ Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

When we consider this man Abram, who was later renamed Abraham, we must remember that he produced a seedline through the Egyptian woman Hagar, in the person of Ishmael. He also produced six sons through the woman Keturah. But we know that the Covenant seedline whom Yahweh was courting since the time of Adam came through Isaac. This is indisputable, as Genesis 21:12 states in part: “... in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Then Romans 9:6-7, in referrence to all the children that Abraham had begotten through Hagar, Sarah and Keturah verifies Genesis 21:12, where it repeats: “... In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Let’s now reconsider what the apostle Paul is saying to us in Romans chapter 9. Paul was pointing out that Abraham had fathered three seedlines: (1) the Ishmaelites by Hagar who were White at the time, but later mixed to become arabs, (2) Isaac, who fathered Jacob who in turn fathered the Israelites, and, (3) children by Keturah, who were White at the time, and whose offspring are thought to be the Brahmans, who later mixed and are now using a caste system. What it all boils down to is this, Paul, at this passage is telling us that of all of Abraham’s children, only Isaac and his seed are Yahweh’s courted seedline; that the offspring by Hagar and Keturah are excluded! (Moses’ wife being an exception, of course, since the male Israelites were always permitted to take wives of the other pure White Adamic families.)

The next generation after Isaac came Esau and Jacob, and again, one son became the object of Yahweh’s courtship for marriage and the other was entirely excluded. Dan Gayman completely overlooked Esau in the “courtship stage” of his nine audio-cassette series on this subject. Because space will not allow it, I can give only a short, concise narrative of how Esau was rejected:

Esau was the older of twin sons born to Isaac and Rebekah, who by birth was in line to receive both the birthright and blessing. While Rebekah was yet carrying the twins in her womb, she inquired of Yahweh why they were struggling within her. In reply, Yahweh informed Rebekah that “the elder shall serve the younger”; just the opposite to the usual inheritance, Gen. 25:22-23. Other passages indicate that Esau was rejected by Yahweh before he was ever born!

To make a long story short, Jacob (the younger of the twins) became a mama’s boy, staying pretty much at home and learning the culinary arts, while Esau became a daddy’s boy, going hunting in the field with Isaac. What we have here is a Christian mother, Rebekah, being informed of Yahweh that Jacob should receive the birthright and blessing, and, Isaac, a Christian father, determined to give the birthright and blessing to Esau. Evidently, Rebekah taught Jacob the culinary arts quite well; any woman who can cook mutton to taste like venison has to be quite a gourmet. How can anyone, then, condemn Rebekah for helping Jacob in a conspiracy to deceive Isaac into giving Jacob the blessing rather than Esau, when it was revealed to her by Yahweh that Jacob should be the one to receive it? Has anyone ever asked what would have happened had not Rebekah interceded for Jacob in the manner that she did? Why her name would have become a curse throughout history down to this very day! Rebekah knew what was right, and she did it, and it was the Christian thing to do!

I also have a strong hunch which I cannot prove, but according to Rebekah’s later scheme with the blessing, she may have been in collusion with Jacob to entice Esau to sell his birthright. If Rebekah would go to the bother of cooking mutton to taste like venison, she would be capable of helping Jacob to entice Esau to sell his birthright. No doubt, she could have told Jacob something like this: “Now Jacob, when Esau goes out on his long hunting trips, he always gets so wrapped-up in his hunting that he neglects to eat, and by the time he guts out the deer, and carries or drags it home, he is thoroughly exhausted and famished with hunger, so every time he goes hunting, put on a pot of those red lentils, as the more they cook the better they taste, and then bargain the lentils for his birthright.”

 

This is my one hundred and forty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. Starting with lesson #137, I have been addressing a new subject entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told which involves the very important Biblical story of how our Almighty Yahweh married the twelve tribes of Israel. There are seven stages of this marriage relationship as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. And while the entire narrative is significant throughout the Bible, we are especially interested in the part the apostle Paul played in the reconciliation stage at, 2 Corinthians 11:2, where he wrote: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” We cannot fully understand what Paul is stating here unless we comprehend that many passages in the Old Testament speak of Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes. Therefore, if Christ and Yahweh are two different persons, as the trinitarians claim, Paul was bearing false witness. Notice that Paul specifically states, “... I have espoused you to one husband ...”, not two! Therefore, any mention of God being a trinity of three individual persons is a lie from the get-go.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 6

“THE COURTSHIP” continued:

As we move through the history of Yahweh’s chosen Caucasian seedline, this love story intensifies. This chosen seedline was not to worship in the same manner as the non-Israelites around them, but they were to approach and meet their Almighty in a very prescribed manner. Their altars were to be erected in a very precise fashion, and only the blood of clean animals was accepted as a clean sacrifice for a clean virgin seedline all the way back to Adam. Not only that, but every ritual in their worship foreshadowed their eventual marriage, estrangement, divorce, reconciliation and remarriage to this one Almighty God. When Paul stated “one husband” he knew what he was talking about. And since Paul declared “one husband”, he wasn’t teaching a trinity of persons. So don’t say that you believe Paul and, at the same time, promote a trinity! In doing so, you’re is not following Paul, but is following the pagan romish catholic church! And protestantism is little more than warmed-over catholicism!

As we continue, we find we are establishing the courtship stage of Yahweh’s Covenant with His beloved, His only one, His darling, His sweetheart. All of this had been going on since the creation of Adam, but the forming of an elect bride began with the call of Abraham in chapter 12 of Genesis. It was not the entire Adamic seedline that was being courted, but the cream-of-the-crop of the Adamic seedline. This is not only an exclusive race of people, but an exclusive of family-line within that race. What we have in Genesis chapters 1 through 11 is a history of those Adamites who were chosen of Yahweh, and the other Adamites who were not.

In Genesis chapters 1 through 11 we have crowded into a short space an account of the formation of the universe, the creation of Adam-kind, and Satan’s failure to stamp out the Adamic race through the sexual seduction of Eve. Then the program of miscegenation continued with the “sons of heaven” (fallen angels) mating with the Adamic women, bringing forth mutated children whom by-and-large were destroyed at the time of Noah’s flood, although some survived, only to mix with the seed of Canaan (Ham’s ill-gotten son by his mother, Noah’s wife). After the event of Noah’s flood, we find chronicled the building of the tower of Babel all crowded into these same 11 chapters. Further, we find during this period that Yahweh was courting unto Himself an exclusive Adamic seedline within the Adamic seedline! And if this elect seedline would scarcely be saved, where do the ungodly non-Adamic seedlines stand, 1 Peter 4:18? Then, from the first word of the 12th chapter of Genesis to the last word of the last chapter of the book of Revelation, we are given insight about Yahweh and His love relationship with one particular seedline called Israel, His darling, His sweetheart, with all others being excluded.

Dear reader, stop and consider that starting with Genesis chapter 12 through 24, the narrative is primarily about Abraham. Then, where Genesis chapter 24 leaves off with Abraham, through Genesis chapter 28, it is chiefly an account of Isaac. And where Genesis chapter 28 discontinues with Isaac, it begins with Jacob and follows through Genesis chapter 37. And where Genesis chapter 37 by-and-large concludes with Jacob, the chronicle continues principally about Joseph through Genesis chapter 50. So in chapters 12 through 50 we are dealing basically with four men, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Yahweh, help us to realize the significance of the story that the Bible truly reveals to us, or The Greatest Love Story Ever Told.

We must remember that throughout the history of the patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, that Yahweh was courting a relationship with this seedline by making promises such as the Adamic and Noahic covenants. But these are only two out of nine covenants that He would eventually establish with this exclusive seedline. This exclusiveness later passed from Abraham to Isaac; then it passed from Isaac to Jacob (called Israel); then it passed from Jacob-Israel to his twelve sons; then it passed down-line from each of Jacob-Israel’s twelve sons, from father to son, from one generation to another, and if one cannot trace his or her lineage to one of Jacob-Israel’s twelve sons he or she is not of that exclusive seedline! And that lineage must be traced through the father’s side of the house in each up-line generation. However, Israelite men could take Adamic non-Israelite wives.

Now when we consider Abraham, we should recognize that Yahweh called this man out, and dear reader, we should take off our shoes as we are standing on Holy Covenant ground. Not only should we do this for Abraham, but Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons as well. And I would remind the reader that that same Holy Covenant ground is still with us today, and should be respected as such. This Holy Covenant ground is for a selected seedline and cannot be shared with others for whom the door is forever closed. All of this Holy Covenant ground first appears in chapter 12 of Genesis, and from that point on throughout the rest of the Bible, it’s the story of one man’s family. Reading Scripture in any other way is entirely out-of-context!

When Yahweh called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees at Genesis 12:1-3, it is stated: “¹ Now Yahweh had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: ² And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: ³ And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Before we go any further, we should identify what is meant by the phrase “all families of the earth”. This phrase is almost always taken out-of-context today and errantly applied to all of the races of this world. To determine its true meaning, we must investigate the Hebrew word translated into English as “earth”. Here “earth” is #127 in the Strong’s and is defined as “soil (from its redness) ...” This same Hebrew word #127 is used at Gen. 2:7 where it is written: “And Yahweh singular-Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground127, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Therefore what Gen. 12:3 is really saying is that through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s twelve sons shall the many nations formed by the twelve tribes of Israel be blessed, and indirectly some of the other White Adamites not under the Covenant to a lesser degree. It has absolutely nothing to do with the nonwhite races! Anyone who doesn’t believe this should check out Strong’s Hebrew #127 for themselves!

The Abrahamic Covenant begins in Genesis chapter 12, as stated above. It continues in chapter 13, looking carefully at verse 16 where it reads: “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” It continues, then, in Genesis chapter 17 on a grand scale, and one must read that entire chapter. But I will quote only verses 6, 7, 19, 21: “⁶ And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. ⁷ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. ... ¹⁹ And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. ... ²¹ But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” This was an unconditional Covenant as there were no strings attached on the part of Abraham and Isaac, meaning that it can never be annulled or be made lawfully void for any reason. And because Yahweh could find no greater witnesses, He swore by the sun and the moon, that as long as these shone in the heavens, this Covenant relationship would not be broken. The last time that I checked, the sun and moon were still shining!

Again I will state, we should take off our shoes as we are standing on Holy Covenant ground! This courtship stage of Yahweh for His chosen seedline is far too serious to pass over lightly. At this juncture it should be demonstrated just how important this Holy Covenant ground is. Although this Covenant made by Yahweh to Abraham was unconditional, nevertheless Yahweh still put Abraham to the test! But, Yahweh knowing all things in advance, knew that Abraham would pass it. The story of this testing is found at Genesis 22:2, 6-8, 10-13:

“² And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. ... ⁶ And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. ⁷ And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? ⁸ And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. ... ¹⁰ And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. ¹¹ And the angel of Yahweh called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. ¹² And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. ¹³ And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. ...”

What man or woman contemplating marriage hasn’t wondered within themselves, “Will this spouse be faithful to me through thick and thin?” And if that question isn’t settled beforehand, they shouldn’t be getting married. And so it was with Yahweh and His intended Bride. As a covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is holy and to be unbroken, so too is the Covenant of marriage by Yahweh to His chosen wife to be Holy and unbroken! Again I will repeat, we should take off our shoes, for we are standing on Holy Covenant ground!

Many might wonder at the significance of Abraham placing Isaac on the altar. To start with, one must remember that Yahweh made an unconditional and everlasting promise to Abraham. Isaac was the first miraculous fulfillment of that promise. So, there was much more going on with this act of Abraham placing Isaac on the altar than might be apparent to the eye, for when Abraham placed Isaac on that altar, he also placed every generation down-line after Isaac on the altar to this very day. In other words, we who are descended from Isaac through Jacob-Israel were placed on that same altar with Isaac. Therefore, when we took our first breath of life, we belonged to Yahweh. Even before that, we belonged to Yahweh when we were conceived, whether we like it or not, and what is there about it to dislike? What it all boils down to is, we are not our own, we were conceived and born under contract, and we have no choice in that matter. And what other choice would we want to have? It can’t be any better than what we already have, which we didn’t ask for in the first place. Again, I will repeat, we should take off our shoes for we are standing on Holy Covenant ground! Who is there among us that would want to trade places with someone else whose feet aren’t standing on Holy Covenant ground?

While it is very comforting to realize that this placing of Isaac on the altar, by Abraham, secures for us our position under Yahweh’s Covenant, that is no guarantee that we cannot lose our right of birth. Esau is a good example of one who lost his. And once lost, it can never be regained no matter how hard one might try. Esau lost his position under Yahweh’s Covenant by marrying two Hittite women not of his race! Not only did Esau lose his position under Yahweh’s Covenant, but it brought the wrath of Yahweh down upon him and all of his offspring. It is recorded both at Malachi 1:2-3 and Rom. 9:13: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Not only did Esau abandon his position under Yahweh’s Covenant, but it is prophesied that his posterity will be destroyed forever at Obadiah 18: “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh hath spoken it.” Not only is this a judgment of destruction for Esau and his progeny, but is also a warning of destruction for anyone who commits miscegenation (race-mixing). More data on Esau can be found in Genesis chapter 25.

It is important to notice that the Covenant originally given to Abraham was repeated to Isaac at Gen. 26:2-5: “² And Yahweh appeared unto him [Isaac], and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: ³ Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; ⁴ And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; ⁵ Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” This repeated Covenant to Isaac alone indicates that Ishmael, son of Abraham by Hagar, and the offspring of Abraham by Keturah were bypassed by Yahweh and were not included under the Abrahamic Covenant. Gen. 21:10 & Gal. 4:30 clearly state: “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (See also Rom. 9:7-8.) So, not only did the Covenant-line follow Abraham but also Sarah. How could it be otherwise when both Hagar and Keturah were rejected as true heirs of the Covenant? Maybe a better way of stating this situation is that Sarah was Yahweh’s favorite wife for Abraham. She must have been quite a woman!

I should also point out that race-mixing always breaks up a family, as it did with Jacob and Esau. The family may attempt to smooth it over by putting its best foot forward, but just as in the case of Jacob and Esau, there is no hope for reconciliation, ever! At Gen. 35:1 we are informed: “And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.” You will notice here that it was necessary for Jacob to flee from his brother Esau. When alien blood enters a family, it always causes a division, and Isaac’s family was no exception. The rift in Isaac’s family caused his two sons to be separated for 14 years, and after that 14 years there was a truce of sorts, but each of the brothers had to go their own way, leaving Isaac and Rebekah at home grieving over the situation, for race-mixing always causes “a grief of mind”!

Then we are informed in the next verse, at Gen. 35:2: “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments.” It is always the influence of strange gods that leads to racial impurity, but here Jacob instructs his family to clean up their act by casting away their idols and certain idolatrous costume jewelry, and taking a bath with a change of clean clothes. After all, Jacob’s family was standing firmly on Holy Covenant ground, and it was time for them to act and look the part! Why do all of this? They were on their way to Bethel (the house of El)! Esau was an idolater inasmuch as he esteemed Hittite women higher than his own kind, even going to the extent of marrying two of them. This is no different than those who idolize so-called sports figures today not of their own race, when they gather around their TV to cheer them on. This is idolatry of the most malignant kind, for the end thereof is death, without any hope of resurrection on the part of the offspring of the one who would commit miscegenation as the result of such idolatry! Just as the offspring of the race-mixer Esau was rejected and hated of Yahweh, so also with those who would idolize a sports figure not of his own kind! There is no room for universalism on Holy Covenant ground.

When we arrive at Genesis 48:13-22, we are again standing on Holy Covenant ground with the story of Jacob blessing Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Here again, we see Yahweh’s courting of Israel for marriage in action. Before we get involved with Joseph and his two sons, we need to understand how Joseph’s wife came under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here is what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #31 for November of 2000:

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

I am going to have to beg to differ with Halley on Joseph’s wife, for it appears she was of the House of Shem, just as Tamar was (the mother of Pharez and Zarah). And, I don’t believe that Joseph’s father-in-law was practicing “vile idolatry”, for he was a priest of “Beth Shemesh.” It is also evident that there were, at least, some Shemites in Egypt during Joseph’s time, and Joseph didn’t marry a heathen as implied! Then in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #33 for January of 2001 I stated:

There is another consideration we should take into account concerning the story of Joseph as it is recorded in the Bible. Sometimes little details are hidden just under the surface until we take the time to really analyze them. Joseph’s marriage to Asenath is one of these hidden cases. Let’s read the account at Genesis 41:45:

“And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.”

Did you notice what we just read about the pharaoh giving Joseph his wife? There is only one way that he would have had the authority to do such a thing. That is if the pharaoh was of the House of Shem himself. At that time period, evidently the pharaohs were Shemites. Obviously, the lower class of the Egyptians were not though, only the ruling class. If this is true, it puts our story in an entirely different light! Also, if this is true, we can be sure Joseph wasn’t sold by the Ishmaelites to the Hyksos, but to Amosis’ area at Thebes. ...

It would appear, with the marriage of Joseph to Asenath, there was a close family relationship between Joseph and the pharaoh. Howard B. Rand, in his book Primo-genesis, page 117 seems to agree with this when he says:

“The priestly caste to which Joseph’s father-in-law, the Priest of On, belonged was undoubtedly of the line of Shem. Apparently Shem’s descendants were established in the office of the priesthood in Egypt at the time of the building of the Great Pyramid. Thus, the purity of the racial stock of the appointed seed was preserved in the birth of these boys to Joseph and Asenath.”

Then from Watchman’s Teaching Letter #40 for January of 2001 I stated: We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders (William Finck) pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:

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

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume M-P, page 535: “... Jeremiah 43:13 predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will break the obelisks of Heliopolis (בית שמש; KJV ‘Beth Shemesh’). Obelisks originally at Heliopolis have been taken to Rome and Istanbul and two to Alexandria, and then one of these two to London and one to New York. Only one remains at On.”

This evidence clearly demonstrates that Joseph’s wife was a pure descendant of Shem. It was her bloodline that counts to be a proper wife for Joseph. How much pagan religion had been adopted by these Shemites in Egypt we do not know. Asenath, upon her marriage to Joseph came under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but had it been a female Israelite marrying a male Shemite not under Yahweh’s Covenant, Jacob would not have blessed him nor his children. So, once we understand that Asenath was a pureblooded Shemite, we are standing on solid Holy Covenant ground! The root of this matter is that there are far too many misconceptions concerning the bloodlines of such key Bible personalities such as Moses’ wife, the Ethiopian eunuch, etc. floating centertext-align: center; line-height: normalaround, causing untold confusion which are not true! One such Bible personality which 99%+ people get wrong, is claiming that Ruth was a Moabite, whereas she was a pure-blooded Israelite lady whose family took up residence in a land formerly occupied by the Moabites. The following is a portion of an article I wrote in a brochure entitled Merits & Shortcomings Of British-Israel #1:

As for Rahab being “a Canaanitish Gentile woman”, Mr. W.H. Poole is overlooking the fact that Rahab displayed her tribe’s symbol of the “scarlet-thread”, which definitely makes her of the tribe of Zerah-Judah. Neither was Rahab a harlot, as Josephus clearly shows in his account. If you are not familiar with the fact that Rahab was not a harlot, you need to get a copy of my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #120 for April, 2008. How Rahab ever ended up in Jericho is uncertain, but it is quite evident that most of Zerah-Judah left Egypt before the Exodus and ended up at Troy. So Rahab, like Asenath, was also as racially pure as the falling snow.

Nor was “Ruth a Moabitish heathen”, as Mr. W.H. Poole states. There is still an erroneous claim made today that Ruth was a “gentile Moabite” who became an ancestor of Yahshua Christ. Anyone who makes such a declaration really hasn’t thoroughly researched the Biblical history surrounding the story of Ruth.

If one will check, he will find that during the Joshua period, the Israelites killed and displaced the occupants of a large portion of the land of Moab, and then reoccupied the land of Moab for themselves for 300 years. Please check the following scriptures: Num. 21:25, 29, 31; 33-35; Deut. 2:32-34; Deut. 3:12-16; 23:3; Judg. 11:12-26; Zeph. 2:9; Isa. 25:10. Ruth was an Israelite who merely dwelt in the land of Moab. Ruth was a Moabite only by geographic area rather than by genetics. Christ was of a pure bloodline all the way back to Adam!

To understand the chronological order of events, one must fathom that: firstly, Sihon, king of the Amorites, had conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab. Secondly, that after Sihon had absorbed the Moabites, Israel destroyed both the Amorites as well as the Moabites whom Sihon had conquered and brought under his rule. Upon driving the Amorites (+ absorbed Moabites) out of the promised land, it is recorded at Joshua 18:7 that half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the tribes of Gad and Reuben, moved into the former land of Moab east of the Jordan. It was later, during the Judges period, that an Israelite lady from the conquered land of Moab by the name of Ruth journeyed with her mother-in-law Naomi back to Bethlehem. With a King James Bible in his hands, this matter of Ruth should have been fully resolved by Mr. W.H. Poole! But I would estimate that less than one tenth of 1% of all Bible scholars over the last 2000 years have been able to resolve this matter about Ruth being an Israelite!

Let me state it yet another way for those who find it hard to understand that Ruth was an Israelite and not a Moabite. At the time of Ruth, the Israelites had occupied the land of Moab for approximately 300 years without interruption! I don’t believe there is any problem with understanding that at the time of Ruth all Israel was ruled by judges. That means that Israelite judges were assigned to half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the tribes of Gad and Reuben, on the east side of the Jordan river in the land formerly known as Moab. In other words, when Elimelech and Naomi and their two sons left Bethlehem due to the famine, they left the jurisdiction of their judge at Bethlehem and came under the jurisdiction of the Israelite judge in the land of Moab, for whatever particular tribe of Manasseh, Reuben or Gad who had settled there. Therefore, when the two sons of Elimelech and Naomi took women of Moab as wives, they had taken wives from one of the three tribes of Manasseh, Gad or Reuben. Then after Elimelech and their two sons had died, Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem, and Ruth, and her Israelite daughter-in-law (of Manasseh, Gad or Reuben) decided to return with her. Then both Naomi and Ruth left the jurisdiction of the Israelite judge in the land of Moab and came under the jurisdiction of the Israelite judge at Bethlehem.

Therefore, there wasn’t a single drop of impure, heathen blood flowing in Yahshua Christ’s veins! Not through Joseph’s wife Asenath; not through Rahab of the scarlet-thread; and not through the Israelite lady, Ruth! I hope that some of the shortcomings of British-Israel are now becoming evident to the reader! British-Israel also makes the mistake of designating the Germans as Assyrians, whereas the greater part of the Germanic tribes were from the tribe of Judah. (End of quote.) I would also like the reader to realize that Dan Gayman didn’t address these Biblical personalities in this context.

I would like to impress upon the reader’s mind that all such confusion concerning these and other key Biblical personalities wreaks havoc with Holy Covenant doctrine! Add to this confusion the doctrine of a trinity and we have absolute chaos, for we are forced to take a position that the Son is going to marry His Father’s wife! I spelled out in very clear language and backed it up with Scripture after Scripture, in WTL lesson #139, that there is but one God! Yet there is already a movement under way in Israel Identity attempting to debunk everything that I established in that lesson. The story of Yahweh’s courtship, marriage, honeymoon, estrangement, divorce, reconciliation, and remarriage to the twelve tribes of Israel is so simple that even a third grader should understand it! What a third grader is unable to grasp is when this kind of event occurs with his own father and mother. Such a child is usually traumatized for life! Yet, those holding the theory of a trinity would have us believe that it would be satisfactory if the third grader’s older brother would marry his mother, taking the father’s place in the family! In spite of this, this is exactly what the trinitarians are accusing the Almighty of doing!

The idea of a trinity is entirely contrary to Yahweh’s Word, as Hosea 2:7 specifically states: “And she [the twelve tribes of 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.” Therefore, if the Father and Son are separate persons, Israel must return to the Father and not marry the Son! But inasmuch as the Father and the Son are one and the same person, there is no difficulty. Either this is correct, or Hosea is lying by prophesying at 2:7: “... I will go and return to my first husband ...”! By the trinitarians demanding separate persons, they are entirely removing Christ from the picture! And by removing Christ (who is one with Yahweh), they are also rejecting Him! And, by removing Christ from the picture, the trinitarians are wittingly or unwittingly joining the crowd who cried “... His blood be on us, and on our children.” When I state all of this, I include myself, as I used to strongly believe in a trinity which I am now ashamed to admit!

Not only does a trinity pervert The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, but also the theory of “original sin” (or sin nature), which I will address in future issues of Watchman’s Teaching Letters. If the premise of “original sin” is true, then Christ Himself was polluted with it, which Scripture does not support, but quite the opposite!

 

This is my one hundred and forty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my twelfth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told in which I gave the reader a general overview before I started the seven stages of this story which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. This love story which is found in everyone’s Bible is sorely neglected, and hardly ever mentioned to any extent by nominal churchianity. Even Israel Identity has carelessly overlooked its importance. Unless one has delved seriously into the marriage relationship between Yahweh and His people Israel, one simply cannot comprehend the entire Bible story, and much of its narrative remains a mystery. Previously, I presented an overview of the subject to prepare the reader for the rest of the story. Then after that, I did a comprehensive study of the courtship stage to the marriage. With this lesson we will be getting into the marriage stage itself. It’s a broad subject and we’ll have to cover it sufficiently!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 7

“THE MARRIAGE” stage:

As we begin our story of Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, we’ll consider the text found at Exodus 15:1-2, 13, 16:

“¹ Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto Yahweh, and spake, saying, I will sing unto Yahweh, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. ² Yahweh is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. ... ¹³ Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation. ... ¹⁶ Fear and dread shall fall upon them [Israel’s enemy]; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O Yahweh, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.”

As we look back nearly 3500 years in history and envision the marriage ceremony between our Almighty Yahweh and that holy anointed people called Israel, the seed of Isaac, called from the loins of Abraham of the race of Adam through the lineage of Shem, we are bringing to remembrance the greatest and most moving love story in all of the world’s history! And if one is not from that select seedline, he cannot be part of Yahweh’s elect. While there will be other branches of the White Adamic race in the resurrection, they will not be the priesthood representing the bride of Yahshua!

When we recapitulate from the call of Abraham to the time that Yahweh had accepted the twelve tribes of Israel as His bride, and they, in turn, accepted Him as their Husband, we must take into consideration that 430 years of history had transpired, and during all of that time, Yahweh had courted a noble seedline! He had courted a virgin! He had become betrothed to a virgin seedline, and the set time had arrived for the marriage of Almighty Yahweh to this sanctified (set apart) seedline to take place.

As we approach the marriage ceremony of this singled-out family line of the race of Adam to their Husband, Almighty God Himself, that same seedline that had gone down into Egypt with Jacob, numbering a mere 70 souls had by the time of the Exodus multiplied into a great nation numbering between 2½ to 3 million people. At that time, as Yahweh prepared to marry His betrothed virgin, let us contemplate the immense love relationship that had developed; had been foreseen; and foreordained in the mind of Yahweh before the foundation of the world for His people, Israel! This was no spur-of-the-moment decision on the part of Yahweh! It was, in fact, the crowning-point of His entire creation of the universe! But this is not the end of the story by any means. This is, in fact, the underlying context on which the rest of Scripture rests, for without the message of, (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage, one cannot fully comprehend the purpose for Christ’s Redemption! And surely the trinitarians have it misconstrued more than anyone else, for they would have the Son marrying His Father’s wife!

Contemplating the days just prior to the wedding ceremony, we arrive in our Bible at the 1st chapter of the book of Exodus. In doing so, we find that Yahweh’s betrothed virgin-seed of Israel had grown in number to become a great and mighty nation. Joseph and all his brothers had died along with that generation, and as time moved forward, the Israelites continued to multiply into an exceedingly great people in the land of Goshen, insomuch that it aroused the hatred of the pharaohs of Egypt. At that juncture, Yahweh was preparing to take His Cinderella-slave-virgin from Egypt into the Sinai Wilderness where the marriage ceremony would take place. No doubt, many of the Fairy Tales we Saxons pass on to our children originated from Bible stories! What could be more analogous with the story of Israel’s slavery to the Egyptians than the fairy tale of Cinderella? Israel, the beautiful lady, whom no one else wanted but Yahweh! And while Egypt and Assyria were once much greater Adamic nations, they were only wicked stepsisters destined to subservience (Isa. 19:23-25)! After all, it was only Israelites who ended up wearing wooden shoes, as the tale relates!

As Yahweh prepared to move this mighty nation of 2½ to 3 million people out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, to the place where the marriage ceremony would take place, He first, by divine providence, raised up a man named Moses. We find in Moses, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before him, a man of stature specially called forth by Yahweh to give direction and leadership to this noble racial vine. When we consider this man Moses, we see a man of great faith who always walked close with Yahweh.

As we examine Hebrews 11:23-29 we find an appropriate description of Moses’ faith thusly: “²³ By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. ²⁴ By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; ²⁵ Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; ²⁶ Esteeming the reproach of Christ [sic the anointed] greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. ²⁷ By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. ²⁸ Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. ²⁹ By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying [attempting] to do were drowned.”

You will notice that I have struck out the name “Christ” in verse 26 above and replaced it with “the anointed”, and for good reason. It is true that in most cases in the New Testament where the Greek christos appears, it is speaking of Christ, but not always. In the Old Testament the expression “anointed” (christos) was used for kings and other important people given a special calling. But most importantly, the designation “anointed” was given to the children of Israel! Especially is this true in Psalm 105! Though Moses prophesied of the coming of Christ, he could hardly have understood “the reproach of Christ”. It is evident that the early translators from the Greek got so used to translating christos (G-5547) as Christ that they somehow overlooked the true context of the passage! We would understand it better had they rendered it, “Esteeming the reproach of the anointed greater riches than the treasures in Egypt”, (“the anointed” being Moses’ kinsmen, the twelve tribes of the children of Israel). I would point out here that Dan Gayman, in his presentation on this same subject, didn’t address this translation error.

Inasmuch as all of this was predestined by the providence of Yahweh before the foundation of the world, we see the Almighty moved forward in providing Moses with an assistant in his brother Aaron to move His intended bride out of Egypt into the Sinai Wilderness where that great wedding ceremony of the marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel would take place.

At Exodus 4:29-31-5:1, we find greater detail of how Yahweh was making preparation to move His betrothed away from Egypt, through the Red Sea, to Mount Sinai where the wedding ceremony would become a binding marriage covenant:

“²⁹ And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: ³⁰ And Aaron spake all the words which Yahweh had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. ³¹ And the people believed: and when they heard that Yahweh had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. ... ¹ And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.” Had Pharaoh let Israel go on this first occasion, they would have taken their marriage vows to their suitor, Yahweh, and as His wife, would never have returned! But it was not to be that easy! Besides, it had to happen in such a way that neither Israel nor Yahweh would ever forget! And once Israel and Yahweh had exchanged pledges, neither she nor her Husband could ever marry another, unless one died!

Here we have Yahweh preparing to deliver His Cinderella-slave-virgin bride-to-be out of Egypt, suggesting to Pharaoh that they needed to celebrate a feast day. We should notice a very important situation here, as this was not at all what Yahweh had in mind! It is the fact that neither Moses with his brother Aaron, nor Yahweh Himself, were obligated to reveal to Pharaoh the truth of the matter. Yes, Yahweh was instructing Moses and Aaron to lie to the pharaoh. Neither is a Christian obligated to reveal the truth to an enemy!

I would remind the reader that once King Saul had disqualified himself as being king of Israel, as told at 1 Sam. 16:1-3, Yahweh Himself directed the prophet Samuel to fill his horn with oil and go to Jesse the Bethlehemite to anoint a new king from among one of his sons. This caused Samuel to be distraught, whereupon he voiced his concern. To this Yahweh replied: “... Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to Yahweh. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.” (vv. 2-3). Here, Yahweh instructed Samuel, should Saul inquire, to completely misrepresent his mission to Jesse at Bethlehem. Who, therefore, can accuse Yahweh of directing Samuel to tell a lie? Neither can anyone accuse us of lying when we are asked personal things that are no one else’s business!

As Yahweh prepared this people, His betrothed, to become His wife, and come under the terms and provisions of His laws and precepts for living, we are impressed when we become aware of His glorious and exalted efforts to bring Israel, His Holy bride, into a beautiful relationship to share His dominion in this world. But before we get into that actual ceremony where Yahweh and His intended bride take their marital vows, we must consider for a moment just what constitutes a marriage. In both Biblical and oftentimes secular law a man and a woman are not considered married until the consummation is completed through sexual intercourse. So whether a wedding ceremony is performed or not, marriage takes place at the time of consummation. In many cases, the young couple may become so sexually aroused they surrender to their desires to face the consequences after the fact. This is not the ideal situation, but they are married nonetheless. What is significant here is the fact that Yahweh chose to have a marriage ceremony prior to the consummation. And ideally, that is the way we cultured Israelites should follow suit. But if it is too late to perform the marriage ceremony before the consummation, surely a marriage ceremony should be performed after the consummation, with the bride wearing white!

Many may not be aware of it, but early in our country, when a couple wanted to get married, the two parties (probably including families) would get together and they would write up an agreement promising to get lawfully married with witnesses. Upon that agreement, the couple consummated the marriage. In those days they had circuit riders who might show up 6 to 8 weeks later when the marriage ceremony finally took place, and the bride was, in many cases, already pregnant with her first child. And there is absolutely no reason why that bride should not have dressed in white, if she were a virgin before the consummation! Likewise for the marriage ceremony of the couple who surrendered to their sexual desires prematurely!

Some will argue that it would be impossible for Yahweh to consummate His marriage with Israel! If you are one of those who assume as much, think again! As a matter of fact, He consummated it the second day of the marriage! Those of us who know the Scripture are aware that a thousand years to Yahweh is but one day, and approximately 1400 years (or 1 & 4/10 day) after He married the twelve tribes of Israel, Yahweh, in one of His three manifestations (the Holy Spirit, Matt. 1:20) caused Mary, the mother of Christ, to become pregnant without sexual intercourse. But nevertheless the marriage of Yahweh to Israel was consummated, and the offspring was both God and Adam-man, or Yahweh in the flesh! Not only was the marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel foreordained before the foundation of the world, but also the consummation that would bring about the birth of Christ! Again, I would remind the reader that Dan Gayman didn’t go into all of this detail when he presented this same subject! Now that we have some insight on these things, let’s continue with the actual ceremony that took place!

For a starter, let’s take a look at Deut. 26:17-19: “¹⁷ Thou hast avouched Yahweh this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: ¹⁸ And Yahweh hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; ¹⁹ And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto Yahweh thy God, as he hath spoken.” How can anyone deny that this is language used in a marriage ceremony? Notice the mutual pledge given by each of the two parties! The words “treasure” and “peculiar people” are descriptive adjectives which refer to one particular seed from the race of Adam that Yahweh courted as He sought them out to become His bride. This is what Yahweh had in mind as he guided Israel forward through history.

In order to move the twelve tribes of Israel nearer to the location where the wedding would take place, we read the following at Exodus 6:1-7: “¹ Then Yahweh said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. ² And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Yahweh: ³ And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them. ⁴ And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. ⁵ And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. ⁶ Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: ⁷ And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.”

Something very important happened in verse 3 above, as Yahweh revealed to Israel His true name! This was only proper on the part of Yahweh, for among the Israelites, the bride always takes the husband’s name. Surely, no self-respecting bride would want to marry someone by the name of “whoseit”! However, under the New Covenant, the name became even more important, as it means “Yahweh is Salvation”, or “Yahshua”. Oddly, this is the same name as the sixth book in the Old Testament, Joshua. As there is no “J” in the Hebrew, one must pronounce the “J” as “Y”, and it becomes quite evident that Joshua had the same name as Christ! In fact the KJV translators used the name Jesus at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 where it should have been Joshua, and has since been corrected in some later translations. Surely, if we want to be in the category of the “chaste virgin” whom Paul would present to Christ, we would want to use the correct name of our Husband! So, if one doesn’t like the name of the husband, maybe one should request to be excluded from the bridal party! While Dan Gayman pointed out the proper name of YHWH in his presentation on this same subject, he didn’t elaborate to this extent!

Also to be noticed in verse 7 above is, “... And I will take you to me for a people ...”. Is this not the same as we do when we take to ourselves a wife or a husband? Are we not asked, “Will you take this woman ...”? or, “Will you take this man ...”? In the same way, Yahweh took we White Israelites unto Himself as a people!

Another important measure that the Husband, Yahweh, had to implement was finding His bride (the twelve tribes of Israel) a new home where they would no longer be under the alien influence of Egypt. Egypt had served as a temporary haven for the descendants of Jacob, but in the meantime Hittite blood had infiltrated into the pharaoh’s harem, which in turn can be traced back to Cain, or the satanic seedline. Once one understands that the pharaoh of Moses’ time had been polluted with the satanic blood of Cain, one can then comprehend why that particular pharaoh would order the murder of all the Israelite children being born. It’s the same satanic seedline that has promoted abortion in all of the White Israelite nations of today!

So, what we have here is a proposed new home for a virgin bride! But the Husband cannot place the virgin bride in that new home until after He marries her. Neither can the expectant bridegroom marry His virgin, as long as the virgin bride is still in Egypt. When we analyze this situation, we see that it wasn’t practical for the wedding to take place in Egypt, which was under satanic influence, nor in Canaan, also under satanic influence! Hence, we begin to comprehend why the Wilderness of Sinai was an ideal location for the wedding! Another thing that we can begin to realize is: by Yahweh marrying Israel in the Wilderness of Sinai, when He guided her to her new home in Canaan, Yahweh picked up His bride and carried her over the threshold, when they crossed the Jordan river under the leadership of Joshua. Surely, the carrying of a bride by the husband over the threshold of their new home is an Israelite tradition, and not meant for others! Maybe we should get back to traditional Israelite weddings, where the parties pledge to honor each other in fidelity until death!

The next thing that we need to address is the fact that when Yahweh married Israel, He married all twelve tribes! There are those who take various Biblical passages out-of-context and try to exclude certain tribes. For instance, some read Rev. 7:4-8 where the tribes of (1 Juda, (2 Reuben, (3 Gad, (4 Aser, (5 Nepthalim, (6 Manasses, (7 Simeon, (8 Levi, (9 Issachar, (10 Zabulon, (11 Joseph, and, (12 Benjamin are mentioned. Right away they will falsely conclude that Dan and/or Ephraim are missing and won’t be in the kingdom! Had they correctly understood history, they would have grasped that Dan was not in the territories afflicted by the romish catholic persecutions that murdered upwards of 50 million + of Israelites, and that Ephraim stands in place of his father, Joseph.

Another group of false prophets attempt to exclude Judah as being a legitimate tribe of Israel. They do this by falsely claiming that Christ was of the tribe of Ephraim rather than the tribe of Judah. They make this assumption on the incorrect basis that the land area of “Ephrath” or “Ephratah” (known later as Bethlehem) is a person rather than a piece of land. They will errantly cite 1 Sam. 17:12 where it says: “Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons ...” Here they read “Ephraim” (as being a son of Joseph, forming a tribe of Israel) into the context, rather than Ephrath or Ephratah, a geographic area. They even go to the extreme of trying to identify a different Bethlehem other than the one in Judaea. Had they read 1 Sam. 16:1 they couldn’t have made that mistake where it states: “And Yahweh said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons.” It should be clear from this that “Ephrath” and “Bethlehem” are the same place, and not a person or a tribe! These false prophets who spread this LIE are scattering the Israel sheep rather than gathering them, thus helping to fulfill Satan’s agenda!

Let’s now consider another passage that refers to this marriage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel found at Exodus 19:5-11:

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

Not only was the wedding ceremony completed here, but at Exodus 24:3-8, we find the laws given to Israel which she must follow as her part of the marriage pact: “³ And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Yahweh hath said will we do. ⁴ And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. ⁵ And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto Yahweh. ⁶ And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. ⁷ And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that Yahweh hath said will we do, and be obedient. ⁸ And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words.”

To show the reader that all twelve of the tribes Israel were included in Yahweh’s marriage to them, I will cite Exod. 19:1, 3-6:

“¹ In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. ... ³ And Moses went up unto God, and Yahweh called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ⁴ Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. ⁵ Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my [marriage] covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ⁶ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” It should be quite clear when it says, “the house of Jacob”, it includes all of his twelve sons and their tribes! We also read in the 4th verse, “... and brought you unto myself ...” which can only be referring to Yahweh’s marriage to “the house of Jacob”. Everything that happened to the twelve tribes of Israel from Moses’ first audience with Pharaoh until their entering into Canaan under Joshua embraced this great marriage. As a matter of fact, every event cited in the Bible surrounds Yahweh’s marriage to Israel in one way or another! And out of this marriage, a son was born! His name was Yahshua, whom some call “Jesus”. Just what would the Bible amount to without this Son? Question: Under this circumstance, how important is this marriage? No marriage; no Redeemer!

Once Christ comes into the picture, we must return to the time of the Passover, for He is our Passover. Therefore, having a Passover without Christ being the Passover Lamb would amount to nothing. Consequently, no marriage, no Passover or Passover Lamb! But before the first Passover could be established in Egypt, it was necessary to have several plagues on the Egyptians. Anything short of complete safety for the Israelites with the army of the Egyptians being completely destroyed would have been unsatisfactory!

To reinforce the fact that Yahweh did indeed marry all twelve tribes of His people Israel, I will repeat a passage I used in lesson #140 at 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 a very important passage as Yahweh declares He is not only Israel’s Husband, but Israel’s Redeemer, therefore revealing that He is both Father and Son!

Another passage that assures us that Yahweh married Israel can be 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 we have Israel likened unto the wife and Yahweh likened as her Husband! How can anyone claim that a literal marriage is not meant? It all boils down to the fact, if one doesn’t understand the marriage, one simply cannot comprehend the entire context of the Bible!

Let’s now take a look at this marriage from the Husband’s point-of-view, Yahweh God of Hosts. Throughout the corridors of history, He had carefully provided for every necessity that His Cinderella bride had need of (all twelve tribes of them). He had courted this Holy seedline as no other people in all of history. For hundreds upon hundreds of years in all periods of history, He had sustained this holy Cinderella seedline; He had preserved them; He had guarded them; He had maintained them; and He had nurtured them. With patience He courted them; blessed them and prospered them until this seed had grown into great and mighty nations, all from the loins of one man and one woman, Abraham and Sarah, and Sarah at the conception of Isaac was well passed child-bearing age.

Let us evaluate the position of the Husband Himself, for up to the time when the exchanging of marital vows were to take place, He had carefully nurtured His intended Cinderella bride; His betrothed virgin seedline had been wondrously preserved, blessed and courted by her Suitor, Yahweh!, On the other hand, let us consider the bride; the Israel of the Bridegroom’s creation, a virgin people. For better than 200 years this pure line of people had been isolated from the world in Egypt, ever since the arrival of Jacob and his family. This noble line was racially pure, a Holy seed, cultured by their Suitor, Yahweh Himself. As we continue to view this seedline, let us consider the beauty of this bride.

We will next turn to Ezekiel 16:8-15 for a description of the loveliness of Yahweh’s beautiful Cinderella bride. And how could any man desire a more beautiful woman than depicted by Ezekiel? Truly, the Israelite women are the most beautiful in all the world:

“⁸ Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith Yahweh GOD, and thou becamest mine. ⁹ Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. ¹⁰ I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. ¹¹ I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. ¹² And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears,p/em and a beautiful crown upon thine head. ¹³ Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was o/emf fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. ¹⁴ And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith Yahweh God. ¹⁵ But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.”

This last verse 15 is very descriptive of what we see going on today! Our beautiful White Israel young women (actually immature teen-age girls, not very far removed from being children) are being encouraged by our “fifth-column” media of books, music, newspapers, magazines, radio, movies and television to commit miscegenation with every alien nonwhite beast of the field that comes along, and if our fine young White male Israelites object, they are labeled as politically incorrect! Yahweh didn’t marry out of His race, and neither should we! Our first ancestor Adam said of Eve, that she “... is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ...”, Gen. 2:23! Remember, every law that Yahweh made for Adam-man, He obeys Himself! Therefore, the Son is not going to marry His Father’s wife, like a Canaanite would do!

This is my one hundred and forty-fifth monthly teaching letter and begins my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told in which I gave the reader a general overview before I started the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. Upon arriving at lesson #’s 143 and 144, I was finally able to get into the marriage phase of the story. With this lesson we will continue with the marriage ceremony. But before I do, I need to clear up a misunderstanding. As hard as I try to avoid any misconceptions of what I am writing, I find there are still communication barriers blocking my efforts. To show you a case in point, I will refer to an E-mail I received April 3, 2010 from Ronald J. Gardner (a man I highly respect), stating in part:

“Dear Mr. Emahiser, I was reading through your WTL 141, and on page 7 there is the comment about ‘Had not Eve been sexually seduced by Satan, producing Cain, Abel would have been the firstborn child, and would have been in line to receive the dominion.’

“My question here is whether Abel in fact was the ‘second born.’ If Cain’s father was ‘Satan,’ i.e., ‘the serpent,’ then that means Cain would be Satan’s ‘first born son,’ not Adam’s first born.

“But Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve together produced Abel, and so I see it that Abel would be Adam’s truly ‘first born son,’ and thus Abel would obtain the ‘dominion,’ and the Blessing and the Inheritance, etc.

“However, I would be pleased to hear of your opinion on this fairly new point, since so many ‘Christian’ and ‘Christian Identity,’ and (what I would prefer as a title) ‘Israelite Identity preachers’ have been for years setting forth the idea that Abel was Adam’s second-born son, and my view here would be contrary to their preachings.

R.J. Gardner”

Two Seedline doctrine is the key to understanding The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. First of all, Ronald is correct, Abel was Adam’s firstborn son, but Eve’s second! Upon the conception and birth of Cain (fathered by Satan), had Adam divorced Eve for infidelity, Eve and Cain would have been cast forever out of Adam’s future, and be forgotten forever, just as divorced spouses are today. But in spite of Eve’s sexual infidelity to Adam, he kept her! It is identical to the case when Mary became pregnant with Christ that Joseph had the lawful right to put her away, but he didn’t, so Christ became his lawful son. This is important, as it was through Joseph that Christ inherited the kingship! And just as Christ received His kingship through Joseph, Cain received the kingship through Adam, though Cain was only a stepson. Yahweh said to Cain, Gen. 4:7, “... And unto thee (Cain) shall be his (Abel’s) desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Abel).” And the descendants of Cain are still ruling over the descendants of Adam to this very day. No, Cain was not Adam’s firstborn, but upon Adam accepting Eve in her infidelity, Cain became the ruler of this world! All of this is important to the marriage of Israel to Yahweh, as under this marriage, Adam’s descendants’ desire (rule) falls under Yahweh-in-the flesh once again!

With this lesson, we will continue with the marriage stage of Yahweh to the twelve tribes of Israel:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 9

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

We will now proceed with the Biblical narrative of how Moses ushered Yahweh’s Cinderella, virgin-seedline to take her place by His side and pledge her vows to Him, and He to her! What we have with this facet of the story is one of the most comprehensive prenuptial agreements ever made between a Husband and his wife. This was necessary to ensure that the virgin-bride would always be faithful to her Husband, as Eve’s desire (Adam’s rule) would be to her husband. Today the “obey” clause is being taken out of the marriage ceremony, and as a result, the marriages aren’t lasting very long. And to be fair to the bride, the grooms of today are not living up to their part of the marriage pledge! The grooms of today don’t seem to understand that once married, it’s time to stay home with the bride instead of continuing to run every night with the boys!

So, unlike the unstable and irresponsible men and women of today, Yahweh required a prenuptial agreement to prevent such a volatile relationship from developing between His bride and Himself. This nuptial agreement is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23, and I will give you a general perspective of the various topics involved:

YAHWEH’S PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL

Exodus Chapter XX

vv1-2.- Yahweh notifies Israel their freedom is of Him, v3.- The First Commandment bids faithfulness to Yahweh, vv4-6.- The Second, against making and worshipping images, or practicing idolatry, v7.- The Third, against false swearing, blasphemy, and irreverent use of the name of Yahweh, vv8-11.- The Fourth, against profanation of the Sabbath, and idleness on the other days of the week, v12.- The Fifth, against disrespect and disobedience to parents, v13.- The Sixth, against murder and cruelty, v14.- The Seventh, against adulterating or mixing of race, v15.- The Eighth, against stealing and dishonesty, v16.- The Ninth, against false testimony, perjury, etc., v17.- The Tenth, against covetousness, especially for thy neighbor’s wife, v18.- The people are alarmed at the awful appearance of Yahweh on the mount, and stand far off, v19.- They pray that Moses may be mediator between God and them, v20.- Moses encourages them, vv21-22.- He draws near to the thick darkness, and God communes with him, v23.- Further directions against idolatry, v24.- Directions concerning making an altar of earth, v25.- and against an altar of hewn stone, v26.- None of these to be ascended to by steps, and the reason given.

Exodus Chapter XXI

vv1-2.- Laws regarding slaves. They shall be released in the seventh year, v3.- If a servant brought a wife to servitude with him, both should go out free on the seventh year, v4.- If his master had given him a wife, and she bore him children, he might go out free on the seventh year, but his wife and children must remain, as the property of the master, vv5-6.- If, through love to his master, wife, and children, he did not choose to avail himself of the privilege granted by the law, of going out free on the seventh year, his ear was to be bored at the door post with an awl, as an emblem of his being attached to the family forever, vv7-11.- Laws concerning maid-servants, betrothed to their masters or to the sons of their masters, vv12-15.- Laws concerning battery and murder, v16.- Concerning men-stealing, v17.- Concerning him that curses his parents, vv18-19.- Of strife between man and man, vv20-21.- between a master and his servants, v22.- Of injuries done to women in pregnancy, vv23-25.- Punishment to fit the crime, or law of retribution, vv26-27.- Of injuries done to servants, by which they gain the right of freedom, vv28-32.- Laws concerning the ox which has gored men, vv33-34.- Of the pit left uncovered, into which a man or a beast has fallen, vv35-36.- Laws concerning the ox that kills another.

Exodus Chapter XXII

vv1-4.- Laws concerning theft, v5.- concerning trespass, v6. concerning casualties, vv7-13.- Laws concerning deposits, or goods left in custody of others, which may have been lost, stolen, or damaged, vv14-15.- Laws concerning things borrowed or let out on hire, vv16- 17.- Laws concerning seduction, v18.- Laws concerning witchcraft, v19.- Law against mixing of race, v 20.- idolatry, v21.- Laws concerning strangers of one’s own race, vv22-24.- concerning widows, v25.- lending money to the poor, v26-27.- concerning pledges, v28.- concerning respect to magistrates, vv29-30.- concerning the first ripe fruits, and the first-born of man and beast, v31.- Directions concerning carcasses found torn in the field.

Exodus Chapter XXIII

v1.- Laws against evil-speaking, v2.- Against keeping bad company, v3.- Against partiality, vv4-5.- Laws commanding acts of kindness and compassion, v6.- Against oppression, v7.- Against unrighteous decisions, v8.- Against bribery and corruption, v9.- Against unkindness to kindred strangers, vv10-11.- The ordinance concerning the Sabbatical year, v12.- The Sabbath a day of rest, v13.- Reject all thought and mention of other gods, v14.- Keeping three annual festivals, v15.- The feast of unleavened bread, v16.- The feast of harvest, and the feast of ingathering, v17.- All the males to appear before Yahweh three times in a year, vv18-19.- Different ordinances – no blood to be offered with leavened bread – or fat left till the next day – the first fruits to be brought to the house of Yahweh – a kid not to be eaten before it is weaned, vv20-23.- Description of the Angel of Yahweh, who was to lead the people into the promised land, and drive out the Amorites, v24.- Idolatry to be avoided, and the images of idols destroyed, vv25-27.- Reciprocal promises between Yahweh and His people, v28.- Hornets shall be sent to drive out the Canaanites, vv29-30.- The ancient inhabitants to be driven out, and the reason why, v31.- The boundaries of the promised land, vv32-33.- No league or covenant to be made with the ancient Canaanite tribes or their descendants.

WHAT WE ISRAELITES SHOULD UNDERSTAND

CONCERNING OUR NUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH YAHWEH

Let us first go to Exodus 24:3-8, where we agreed and promised that we would keep the terms of this nuptial agreement with Yahweh:

“³ And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Yahweh hath said will we do. ⁴ And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. ⁵ And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto Yahweh. ⁶ And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. ⁷ And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that Yahweh hath said will we do, and be obedient. ⁸ And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh hath made with you concerning all these words.”

For those who may not be aware of it, if you are an Israelite of Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic or related bloodline, you are responsible to Yahweh for this pledge that I have underlined here! When our ancient forefathers made this pledge, they spoke for all of their posterity after themselves. So whether we like it or not, we are accountable for keeping the terms as spelled out to us in Scripture! When we took our first breath, we became liable to this agreement, and there is no evading its stipulations and provisions. And would we really want it any other way?

But this is not the only lawful contract we are under, as I showed in my paper Nine Covenants With Adam-Man. In that article I listed them as (1 The Edenic Covenant, (2 The Adamic Covenant, (3 The Noahic Covenant, (4 The Abrahamic Covenant, (5 The Mosaic Covenant, (6 The Palestinian Covenant, (7 The Davidic Covenant, (8 The Solomon Covenant, and (9 The New Covenant. The only way to be under these lawful covenants is by right of birth. If one is not born under any one of these named contracts, there is absolutely no way one can qualify. And if one is naturally born under these lawful instruments, there is no way one can evade the responsibility for their terms and provisions. Just because some generations elapsed during which our ancestors dropped the ball is no reason to assume that they are voided today! They aren’t, and the lawful parties involved can by no means circumvent them!

Now that we have some idea of what is required of us under this nuptial agreement, let’s examine how we measure up to what we, as a people, promised Yahweh we would do. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand my own position in all of this, for as an individual, there are some areas where I have fallen short, and as a husband I have fallen short, and as a father I have fallen short of this nuptial agreement with Yahweh. But I have an excuse, as my parents and grandparents never taught me anything about this nuptial agreement with Yahweh, and even though Christian, they didn’t understand it themselves. None of the pastors of the churches that I belonged to and attended ever told me I was subject to Yahweh’s nuptial agreement, as they were too ignorant of it. It was only later, when I was awakened to the Israel Identity message that I became aware of such things, and even then it took me about twenty years to realize the seriousness of these covenants and marriage vows to Yahweh! I tell you all of this, as I don’t want to give anyone a wrong impression of myself! On the other hand, I know beyond all doubt that Yahweh sent me the beautiful lady I would marry, and that both of us were faithful to our marriage vows, and that we raised a son in a Christian home, and I have no regrets for that.

? HOW DO WE ISRAELITES MEASURE UP ?

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not have any other elohim above Yahweh, Exod. 20:3! What about the Easter bunny, Halloween, and Santa Claus?

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not make any graven images, Exod. 20:4! What about the Statue of Liberty?

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not take the name of Yahweh in vain, Exod. 20:7! What is worse, we refuse to accept His true name, using “Lord” (actually Baal) instead. Exod. 23:20-21 states: “²⁰ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. ²¹ Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.” That Angel was Joshua, who in Hebrew had the same name as Christ. As there is no “J” in Hebrew, use “Y” instead, or Yahshua which means Yah-saves. “Yah” being the abbreviated form of Yahweh. Read it again, “... for my name is in him.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, Exod. 20:8! The only holy day that falls on Sunday is Pentecost once a year.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would honor our father and mother, Exod. 20:12! Today we, like Esau, dishonor our father and mother by marrying outside of our White Israelite race!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not commit adultery, Exod. 20:14! Probably the best passage to cross-reference to understand the Hebrew word for adultery, #5003, nâ’aph, would be Prov. 5:20: “And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange [H2114 zûwr] woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger [H5237 nokrîy]?” Both of these Hebrew words for the definition of “strange” have connotations of a non-Adamic race. The KJV has correctly rendered #H5237, nokrîy as, “alien”, “foreigner”, and “outlandish”. So the command to not commit adultery can only mean not to have sexual relations with another race. The tenth commandment addresses the sin of sexual relationship with another man’s wife! Sadly, churchianity has adopted the wrong definition for the sin of adultery as being sexual relations with another man’s wife, rather than sexual relations with one not of his or her own race!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not steal from others of our brethren. Yet, down through the corridors of history we have had White Israelites operating hand-in-hand with the Canaanite-jew as unjust debt collectors rather than working for a living. In an Israelite home, while the father is out slaving by the sweat of his brow, the mother is left at home, and for-the-most-part has to teach their children Yahweh’s precepts for living. It is therefore by-and-large the mother’s responsibility (backed by the father) to nip-in-the-bud the first tendency of the child to confiscate for himself an item belonging to someone else, usually another child. Such an occasion would be an opportunity to teach the child the Biblical principle of paying back double. This would entail returning the item taken plus an item of like kind, along with an apology. This might seem too traumatic for a five year old, but it would be better than sitting in prison at twenty-five for grand larceny! The mother might even apply this Biblical principal at a younger age to a lesser degree. Not only is the Israelite mother in the best position to teach her children not to steal, but also to teach all the other commandments and precepts of this nuptial agreement.

To drive this point home, I will relate an incident in my own life when I was about nine years old. Born in 1927, I grew up during the depression years from 1929 until the beginning of WW II. My father had to take a job wherever he could find one, which necessitated moving from place to place almost endlessly. On one occasion, we moved into a mostly White district on the west side and adjacent to the New York Central and Chesapeake & Ohio railroads in Fostoria, Ohio. Shortly thereafter, in a duplex immediately south of the house where we lived, a mexican family moved into one floor of the duplex and a negro family into the other. It wasn’t very long until one day my sister and I were playing with the children of those families. As soon as my mother spied us playing with those aliens, she immediately called us in from playing, and in no uncertain terms directed us to go into our living room. Then she very sternly declared to us: “They are not of our kind”, and ordered my sister and I to never be found playing with them again, and we never disobeyed that edict!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would never bear false witness against our brethren. It is amazing how early in life our children learn to lie. Again, being home with the children, the Israelite mother is in the best position to quell this before it gets out-of-hand. The problem we face on this today is that our enemy has so manipulated our finances that it takes both father and mother holding down full-time jobs just to pay the bills. So rather than the mother, the children are left to non-interested baby-sitters and preschool agencies to train them, and it doesn’t get done! Before WW II, we in America had some of the finest and most moral young women in the world, but because of the war effort, they went into the factories, and after the war they never returned home again to train-up their children as they should have, and we are paying dearly for that today. But there are times to tell the truth and other times to withhold the truth, as I wrote in WTL #143:

I would remind the reader that once King Saul had disqualified himself as being king of Israel, as told at 1 Sam. 16:1-3, Yahweh Himself directed the prophet Samuel to fill his horn with oil and go to Jesse the Bethlehemite to anoint a new king from among one of his sons. This caused Samuel to be distraught, whereupon he voiced his concern. To this Yahweh replied: “... Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to Yahweh. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee.” (vv. 2-3). Here, Yahweh instructed Samuel, should Saul inquire, to completely misrepresent his mission to Jesse at Bethlehem. Who, therefore, can accuse Yahweh of directing Samuel to tell a lie? Neither can anyone accuse us of lying when we are asked personal things that are no one else’s business! This, we also have to teach our children!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not covet our neighbor’s house nor our neighbor’s wife. Exod 20:17: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Now our Almighty is not so dense minded as to make two commandments just alike, so there has to be a marked difference between, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not ... covet thy neighbor’s wife ...”. If there is no difference between these two commandments, then we have only nine commandments, not ten!

Many are the husbands, when they are away from home working on their jobs to put food on the table and clothes on their wives, have had a neighbor pay their wives a visit and end up in their bedroom! And this usually continued for an extended length of time before the whole episode was exposed, and always ended in divorce! To encourage this kind of activity, the ACLU has brought suit against we true Israelites to prevent Yahweh’s nuptial agreement to be posted in public places. We really are going to have to stop proclaiming that those Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jews are God’s chosen people!

But the Ten Commandments are not the end of Yahweh’s nuptial agreement with His bride, the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. That there were twelve tribes included in this marriage is very clear at Exodus 24:3-4 where it states: “³ And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which Yahweh hath said will we do. ⁴ And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. There are some fools (meaning stupid persons) in Israel Identity who teach that the tribe of Judah is completely disqualified from being a tribe, yet Holy Writ states otherwise, and Judah is included in the nuptial agreement!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not make gods of silver nor gods of gold as emblems to represent Yahweh, Exod. 20:23! Rather we, as Israel, should look to Yahweh’s power and head-ship as He had done in delivering us from the Egyptians, dividing the Red Sea, bringing water out of the rock, quail into the desert, manna from heaven to feed us, and the pillar of cloud to direct, enlighten, and shield us.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would make altars of earth on which to sacrifice rather than hewn stone, nor would we go up to an altar by steps in order to prevent showing our nakedness, Exod. 20:23-26! It is very clear from this description that Yahweh wanted Israel to dress, act, and worship in modesty, rather than like our latter-day Israelites at a rock concert!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised that if we should buy an Israelite servant, after six years of service we should set him free in the seventh, Exodus 21:2! It should be noted that no one but an Israelite would be qualified to purchase an Israelite servant, and surely the purchaser became responsible for all of that servant’s living necessities such as shelter, food, clothing, health care, etc. As one can plainly see, the Israelite servant didn’t need to worry if his job was going to be outsourced to a third-world nation, with him being put out into the cold.

Actually, an Israelite servant was treated like one of the family. The reason some became servants were: (1) Sometimes, people in extreme poverty sold themselves to be a servant. (2) A father might sell his daughter for a maid servant. (3) An insolvent debtor might sell himself as a slave to his creditor. (4) A thief, if he had no money to pay his fine, was sold to repay the one from whom he had stolen. (5) Sometimes an Israelite was taken as a prisoner of war, and was sold as a slave. (6) An Israelite slave who had been ransomed from a foreign nation by an Israelite might be sold by him who ransomed him to one of his own nation. There was never any provision in Israelite law to purchase black slaves from Africa, or any other nonwhite nation!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would allow our servants specific domestic rights during their six years of service, and upon their release in the seventh: (1) that if the servant came in unmarried he could go out unmarried, (2) that if he came in married he could go out married (3) that if the master had, during the servant’s service, given him a wife, the servant could be released by himself or volunteer to remain a servant with his wife, Exod. 21:2-6! I will say this, we in America should never have purchased negros as servants (PERIOD). But inasmuch as we did, we should have lived up to these precepts! In this, both the northern and southern states share equal guilt. It’s the old greedy lust to get something practically for nothing! The old saying is: “Green-eye greedy-gut, go around and eat the whole world up.” The Bible principal for owning servants is: have servants of one’s own race, and deal honestly with them, and allow them to be released in the seventh year!

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

What it all boils down to is: if you think you need more than one wife, you better make damn sure you are financially able over a lifetime to supply their every need and expect them to demand a share of the luxuries as well (perhaps a brand new automobile each year for each wife)! This is besides meeting all of the needs of any children born by these multiple wives, which could be as many as twelve from each one! That’s Biblical as well! Just think of the fortune a man would need if he had twelve wives, and each wife bore him twelve children!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would follow His mandate concerning murder, manslaughter and accidental death: Exod. 21:12-14! Verse 12 generally states the rule should one kill another Adam-man. And Genesis 9:6 makes it very clear that this rule is meant only for the descendants of Adam: “Whoso sheddeth man’s120 blood, by man120 shall his blood be shed: for in the image6754 of God made he man120.” If this meant the nonwhite races as some insist at Gen. 1:26 & 27, then it would be a capital crime to murder a member of the nonwhite races and there would be no law against killing a White. Let’s check these Strong’s numbers against Genesis 1:26-27: “²⁶ And God said, Let us make man120 in our image6754, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ²⁷ So God created man120 in his own image6754, in the image6754 of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Well, If we are going to enforce Yahweh’s capital punishment for murder, we surely are going to have to identify the right people! If Strong’s Hebrew number 120 means the other races, we might as well throw our Bibles into the nearest trash can!

Getting back to the capital punishment of Exod. 21:12-14, from the earliest known times, even back to Genesis 9:6 and beyond, the nearest of kin had the right of the revenger of blood for anyone who murdered a member of his family. In the case of Cain murdering Abel, Abel didn’t have a younger brother until later, and by the time Seth was born, Cain had already fled the territory. Therefore, one of Seth’s descendants will have to assume the responsibility for revenge of Abel, as his blood is still crying from the ground. Not only did Cain murder Abel, but Cain’s descendants were legally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ! Cain’s bloodline followed on up to Gen. 15:19, and they were known as “Kenites”, and were absorbed into the other nine tribes of Canaan named at Gen. 15:19-21. Cain’s bloodline then followed the Hittite line on up to the time of Esau, when he married two Hittite women. Then Esau mixed with the bloodline of Cain, which followed on up to the time of Christ when they gained power over both the Temple and Judaea, where they cried “... His blood be on us, and on our children”, Matt. 27:25!

So it should be no mystery, then, that when Christ returns at His Second Advent, He will be the revenger of blood for both Abel and Himself. All of this will happen right on schedule because we promised we would keep every word of Yahweh’s nuptial agreement with us!

To document the Cain-Kenite-Hittite-Edomite connection, I will cite Eusebius’ The Church History 1:6, translation by Paul L. Maier, And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, 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 ...”

 

This is my one hundred and forty-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. With the last two lessons, we got into the marriage stage of the Love Story. It was necessary to take into consideration the prenuptial agreement which Yahweh made with His bride, the twelve tribes of Israel. As the nuptial agreement was too long to complete in lesson 145, we will continue with it here.

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 10

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

YAHWEH’S PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL continued:

In order to understand the full significance of the nuptial agreement which Yahweh made with the twelve tribes of Israel, one needs to obtain a copy of the previous lesson. The provisions for this agreement are pretty well spelled out in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. The last provision we addressed was that of killing a man, at Exod. 21:12-14. I showed that verse 12 generally stated the rule should one kill another Adam-man, but I didn’t address the circumstances covering verses 13 and 14. In cases where an Adam-man kill another without malice, yet subject to being put to death by the hand of the avenger of blood as nearest of kin, Yahweh prescribed cities of refuge to which the accidental manslayer might flee until a civil magistrate might judge the case. Before cities of refuge were assigned as havens of safety, an Israelite might find the altar of Yahweh a place of asylum. But if a man should kill his neighbor presumptuously, neither the city of refuge nor the altar would spare him from justice.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would not smite our father or our mother, Exod. 21:15! An act such as this was considered the lowest of moral depravity. Upon an Israelite son or daughter consorting or fornicating (i.e. race-mixing) with a nonwhite is equivalent (and even more depraved) than smiting their father or mother, and the penalty was, and should still be, death! (Num. 25:6-8)

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised we would not steal a man for the purpose of selling him into slavery, nor would we purchase a stolen man upon penalty of death, Exod. 21:16! And contrary to Adam Clarke in his Commentary, this has nothing to do with negroes or negro slave dealers, but rather only White Adam-kind, even though the word “man” here is H376, ’îysh! A man would have been stolen or sold by-and-large for forced labor, whereas a woman would have been, and still is, stolen or sold primarily for sexual purposes. In either situation, it requires nothing short of the death penalty!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would not curse our father or our mother on penalty of death, Exod. 21:17! As a minimum, we should respect our fathers and mothers all the way back to Adam for maintaining and keeping in tact their/our genetic purity. A half-breed (mamzer) child has every reason to curse his father and mother, for it is something that can never be corrected, or as Scripture states “... a sin unto death ...”, 1 John 5:16! Mamzers can breed only more mamzers! We are even admonished, at this same passage, that it is futile to pray for such a tragic event as the birth of a half-breed!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would reimburse any brother for his loss of time and cost of recovery in the event of maiming or debilitating him in a heated argument, Exod. 21:18-19. If a man injured another in an argument, he was responsible to pay for his loss of time according to his occupation and also his medical expenses. This was an excellent and wise institution, and most courts of justice still regulate their decisions on such cases by this Biblical precept.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would punish any master who killed or injured a man or maid servant with a rod, Exod. 21:20-21. If the servant who had been beaten by his master died by his hand, the master was to be punished with death, see Gen. 9:5-6. Be he master or servant (slave), he shall not avoid justice! But if the beaten one survive the beating a day or two, the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the servant died as the result of some unrelated cause. In Biblical times, a servant represented part of the master’s wealth, and it might have been decided that the master suffered loss through his own bad judgment.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would punish any man who injured a woman by physically forcing or contending with her who was, at the time, carrying an unborn child, and as a result of the physical abuse on the part of the intrusive man whose hostility would cause the woman’s child to be born dead, Exod. 21:22-23. In spite of what the high courts of today have decided, the unborn child carried by the mother is the property of the father, and therefore the crime in this case is against the husband of the mother carrying the child, and the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if any mischief followed, that is, if the child was fully formed, and was killed as a result of this physical abuse, or the woman lost her life as a result of this brutality, then the punishment was meted out according to other cases of murder – the person who did the striving with the woman was put to death, ver. 22. Once a racially pure child is voluntarily conceived by an Adamic woman, she, under normal circumstances, has no Biblical right to abort it!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would mete out punishment for crimes in like-kind; eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burning for burning, wound for wound, and stripe for stripe, Exod. 21:24-25. Actually, this is a continuation of verse 23 where it includes “life for life”. According to Adam Clarke in his Commentary on this passage, he states: “... This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans. Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor. It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in canon law, in reference to all calumniators ... ‘If the calumniator fail in proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused.’ Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.” It appears, here, that Adam Clark is insinuating that Yahweh’s law is somewhat imperfect! (According to Livy and others, the Romans copied the laws of Athens, and from them formulated the twelve tables.)

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would punish any master who would smite out the eye or tooth of his maid or male servant by giving the injured one their freedom, Exod. 21:26-27. It was an ethical law that obligated the unmerciful slave holder to set the slave at liberty whose eye or tooth he had smitten out. In Biblical times, a good servant was worth their weight in gold so-to-speak, and this provision would teach the master the value of caution.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh, that if anyone of our brethren, man or woman, were gored by an ox resulting in death, that the ox was not to be eaten but rather be stoned to death, and the owner was not to complain of his loss. But if the ox had a history of pushing with his horns, and had been reported to its owner who, in turn, neglected to keep him within an enclosure, whereupon the ox killed a man or woman, the ox was to be stoned to death along with its owner, Exod. 21:28-29! Adam Clarke on this passage comments thusly: “It is more likely that a bull is here intended, as the Septuagint translate ... shor of the original by ... a bull. Mischief of this kind was provided against by most nations. It appears that the Romans twisted hay about the horns of their dangerous cattle, that people seeing it might shun them ...” Although at vv 30-36, it appears that provision was made for the owner, who knew his ox was vicious and had been informed of it, he could pay a fine in lieu of his life. No doubt such money raised by that fine was used to settle losses caused to the family whose member was killed. The fine would be the same for the death of a son or a daughter. For the death of a servant, the fine was thirty shekels of silver, and the ox was to be stoned. Ironically, Judas betrayed Christ for the same cost that was claimed for a slave killed by an ox, thus pricing Him at the same value as a dead slave.

Further at Exod. 21:33-36, provision is made that if a man left a pit uncovered, he was responsible for the loss incurred by an animal falling into it. Or if a man’s ox killed another man’s ox, both oxen were to be sold and the money divided equally between them. But if the owner of the offending ox were aware of the ox’s dangerous habits, the offending ox was to be destroyed. Then he also had to pay for the slain animal, which he could keep, but no doubt the price was high, and if not bled out properly, could not be eaten.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would, if a man stole an ox or sheep and killed it, that he shall restore five oxen for an ox or four sheep for a sheep, Exod. 22:1. A thief was required to make full restitution for what he had stolen, the amount contingent upon the nature of the theft.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh, if a thief was found breaking into our home during the night, it was our prerogative to kill him, Exod. 22:2. However, had the sun risen, there could be no shedding of blood, for then it might be determined what he had taken and lawful restitution achieved, Exod. 22:3. In those days, with no electric lights, it was pitch black during the dark of the moon. So it was kill or be killed! And how about the defenseless cattle?

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, if something was stolen by a thief and be found alive in his hand, whether ox, ass or sheep, he should restore double, Exod. 22:4. There was no blood to be shed for a thief, except when caught breaking into a house. But had the thief sold the stolen property, he was to restore it four or fivefold, v. 1.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, if someone allowed his animals to stray into another farmer’s grain field, orchard, garden, or grape vineyard, he would be made to restore the same amount from his own best field or vineyard to the farmer from whom he had taken unfair advantage, Exod. 22:5.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would discipline anyone who carelessly started a fire which got out of control. Great caution was needed to avoid crop fires, as it would take another year to replenish the food supply, Exod. 22:6. This verse simply states: “If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” In Biblical times, to their benefit, they didn’t have matches, but neither did they have fire fighting equipment like we have today. Many of the villages had a central community fire pot which they kept burning continually. Therefore, an arsonist would have to start his own flame by rubbing two sticks together, or take it from the community fire pot. It was only fair to find the guilty party and make him pay restitution! And if he cannot pay for his dastardly deed, let him serve a term of indentured servitude! It seems that every child, at one time or another in his growing-up years, is intrigued with playing with matches and setting small fires. When the parent first notices this inclination in their child, it is time to administer strict discipline. It is always a good idea, when there are very young children around the house, to take all the book and box matches and place them in a glass jar with a cap, and place it on a high shelf where the small child cannot reach. Nip-it-in-the-bud, and it will prevent problems later!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, if any property or money is left to another to keep in trust, such property or money would not be stolen. And if stolen, and if the thief cannot be found, the one holding the valuables for safekeeping would have to appear before judges to determine whether or not the holder was the guilty party. In any case, a breach of trust would require the guilty party to restore double the amount of the theft, Exod. 22:7-9. On this passage, Adam Clarke states: “This is called pledging in the law of bailments; it is a deposit of goods by a debtor to his creditor, to be kept till the debt be discharged. Whatever goods were thus left in the hands of another person, that person, according to the Mosaic [sic Yahweh’s] law, became responsible for them; if they were stolen, and the thief was found, he was to pay double; if he could not be found, the oath of the person who had them in keeping, made before the magistrates, that he knew nothing of them, was considered a full acquittance. Among the Romans, if goods were lost which a man had entrusted to his neighbour, the depositary was obliged to pay their full value. But if a man had been driven by necessity, as the case of fire, to lodge his goods with one of his neighbours, and the goods were lost, the depositary was obliged to pay double their value, because of his unfaithfulness in a case of such distress, where his dishonesty, connected with the destruction by the fire, had completed the ruin of the sufferer ...”. It should be noticed here that we are to deal in trust with our Israelite neighbor, not some Canaanite-jew!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, in such a case where an animal is held by a neighbor in trust, and if the animal die, or is hurt, or is driven away while in trust, and if the trustee had sworn an oath before Yahweh that what had happened was beyond the herdsman’s power to prevent, no restitution was necessary. However, if the animal was stolen, it could possibly be that either the herdsman might have prevented it, or that he could find the thief and bring him to justice. Should an animal be killed by a wild beast, the keeper was required to produce the mangled carcass, not only in proof of the fact, but to show that by his vigilance and courage he deprived the wild beast of his prey, Exod. 22:10-13. Adam Clarke comments on this passage thusly: “So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.” It is clear that, even though a man swore an oath in ancient times, some sort of evidence was, and should still be, required!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, if one were to borrow an animal and it became injured or killed, the borrower was responsible for making it good. However, if the owner were present when either of these two things happened, being in a position to protect the animal, no restitution was warranted. Further, in the case of an animal leased for hire, any risk of an injury or accidental death of the animal was included in the price, Exod. 22:14-15.

Matthew Poole in his Commentary states on this passage, vol. 1, p. 166 as follows: Verse 14: “Ought, i.e. any living thing, which may be hurt or die, as it follows. He shall surely make it good: this may seem hard, but all things considered is reasonable; because in doubtful cases, wherein it is not evident whether the borrower was faulty or not, as it is here, it ought to be interpreted in favour of the lender, rather than of the borrower; partly, to oblige the borrower to the greater fidelity and care in such things, which being not his own, men are commonly more careless about; partly, because the benefit being wholly the borrower’s, the loss also in all reason ought to be his, and the lender ought not to suffer for his kindness, lest he should be discouraged from such actions for the future.”

Verse 15: “If the owner thereof be with it: the law reasonably presumes, both that the borrower would not abuse it in the sight of its owner, and that the lender might and would take due care about it. He shall not make it good, except there be some manifest fault in the borrower, as if he should kill or wound the beast in the lender’s presence; which exception is easily to be understood from divers other laws of God. It came for his hire, i.e. the benefit was the lender’s, and not the borrower’s, and therefore the former reason ceaseth; and whether the master were present or absent, he that receives the gain or hire shall bear the loss, except when it came through the borrower’s gross and wilful default.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh that, if a man entice (i.e., seduce) a non-betrothed virgin maid, he was obliged to marry her and pay the customary dowry. However, if the father refused to give his daughter in marriage, the man was still liable to pay the “bride-price” to the father, as this situation greatly reduced the possibility for his daughter to marry someone else, for what selfrespecting young Israelite man would want her? (Exod. 22:16-17.) Of my many commentaries, the only one I found suitable to quote was that of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown in their six volume edition where they state on this passage:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed. The insertion of this case in a series of ordinances respecting claims to property arose from its being possessed to some extent of a similar character. A daughter was regarded by her father as property. Her suitor had to pay her father a certain sum for her; and of course antenuptial intercourse depreciated her value as a disposable subject. To seduce a young woman who was betrothed was treated as a capital crime (Deut. xxii 23). But, though, to do so in the case of an unbetrothed girl was in the eye of the law an offence of less magnitude, it was not dealt with lightly. No man, single or married, who by enticements overcame the virtue of a young female was allowed to abandon her but was obliged to make provision for her as his future wife. And should the girl’s father withhold his consent to the matrimonial union, the man was required to furnish her with a dowry suitable to her quality (cf. Gen. xxiv. 53; xxxiv. 12). But in the present case the law determined that the highest demand which could be made was that specified. Deut. xxii 29. The circumstance of no punishment being inflicted on the girl; beyond her personal and irreparable degradation, was probably owing to her being still only a minor, and a ward of her father’s house. It would be well if this law were still in force and obligatory.” We have a saying today that, “All is fair in love and war”, but we can clearly see that this was not true in Biblical times; neither should it be true today! If there is any fairness affiliated with this subject, it is through responsibility!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would, if anyone among us were caught practicing witchcraft, sacrificing to a god other than Yahweh, afflicting a widow or having sexual intercourse with a beast, treat it as a capital offense, Exod. 22:18-20. Again I will quote from the six-volume Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown where they state on this passage:

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ... a practitioner in magic and incantations; a juggler; who pretended by skill in occult science to reveal future events. The word is in the feminine gender; and although the profession of a wizard was equally proscribed, the ‘witch’ is mentioned here because, from the female taste being strongly devoted to mystic arts, witches, if unchecked, would rapidly increase in Israel, and their influence prove more seductive than that of male performers. ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’ is a strong expression, adopted apparently to prevent the interposition of any false sympathy or misplaced tenderness towards persons of such a character. They were to be exterminated from Israel as engaged in the service of idols (see further on Deut. xviii. 10, 11). ‘All manner of witchcraft, sorceries, divinations, or pretences to any of them, were an open profession and practice of idolatry; for witches pretended to a knowledge and power of doing things above human, by virtue of supernatural powers received from the deities with whom they were presumed to have an immediate and intimate connection. Now, the very profession of having received such supernatural powers from idols was an overt act of idolatry – that is, of high treason to the Hebrew Israelite government; and whether such declaration was really true or false in itself, still the treason was the same; for it openly denied Jehovah [sic Yahweh] to be the one true God, as it asserted the power of idols. It was compassing to depose Jehovah [sic [Yahweh] as King of Israel, by asserting the authority of ‘other gods before him;’ which justifies the wisdom of this law against a practice of idolatry which was so very apt to corrupt weak minds eagerly fond of knowing things to come; and of such the greater part of every nation composed.’ (Lowman’s Civil Government of the Hebrews).”

Before I address Exod. 22:19, let’s read it to become familiar with it: “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” Most commentaries speak of this verse as having sex with an animal, but it goes far beyond that! Jamieson, Fausset & Brown comments thusly on this passage: “Whosoever lieth with a beast, &c. This revolting crime was practiced by many of the Egyptians in honour of their idols: and it was mentioned thus early in denouncing other abominations of idolatry, perhaps because of its prevalence also among the Canaanites (Lev. xviii. 23-28).” While Jamieson, Fausset & Brown did fair commenting on this passage they entirely missed the main point! Of this passage, verse 23 is of special interest which reads: “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.” First of all, the “beast” of Exod. 22:19 and Lev. 18:23 is Strong’s Hebrew #929 and means “bhemah, four-footed/quadrupeds”, and translated in the KJV as “cattle” or “beast”. Now as a young boy, although my father was not a farmer, we lived in a farm district, and I never remember any four-footed/quadrupeds lying down to have sex, as they always did that standing on their feet. Secondly, the word “confusion” at Lev. 18:23 is Strong’s #H8397, and is “tebel” and means “mixture”, and I never saw a half-cow and half-man born to one of those farm animals or to one of the farmer’s wives or daughters. On the other hand, once we comprehend that Strong’s #H929, bhemah, is also a Hebrew idiom for a two-legged/biped, we see half-beast and half-man creatures throughout America and the world, and they surely are “mixtures”! We even have one for a president!

Of the three transgressions that deserve capital punishment at Exod. 22:18-20, we still have to address verse 20 which reads: “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Yahweh only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Upon reading this verse, it may not become evident the significant seriousness of such a sacrifice unto another god other than Yahweh! To make it a little more clear, I will quote Lev. 27:28: “Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto Yahweh of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto Yahweh.” To get a better handle on this subject, I will quote Adam Clarke on Exod. 22:20: “Utterly destroyed.] The word ... cherem denotes a thing utterly and finally separated from God and devoted to destruction, without the possibility of redemption.” So Exod. 22:20 is simply stating, when one sacrifices children, animals or fruit of the field to a false god, one is in essence sacrificing unto Satan’s agenda! And Yahweh, as Husband, had the best interest of His wife (the twelve tribes of Israel) at heart!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would be compassionate toward strangers, widows and children whose father had died, Exod. 22:21-24. Exod. 22:21 states: “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” There are several Hebrew words translated as “stranger” in the Old Testament which have various meanings. In some cases the Israelites were to show compassion, and at other times we were to avoid them at all cost as being unclean to us. The Strong’s numbers in the Hebrew for “stranger/s” are 1121, 1482, 1616, 2114, 4033, 4038, 5235, 5236, 5237, & 8453. The “stranger” at Exod. 22:21 is Strong’s #1616 and is “... gêyr ... a guest by implication ...” Egypt appears to have been by-and-large peopled by the descendants of Ham, however the city of On (from whence Joseph received his wife) was formerly called Beth Shemesh, or house of the people of Shem. It is my opinion that the “stranger” of Exod. 22:21 is more than likely one from Beth Shemesh, but the descendants of Ham were also White Adamites. Therefore, it is imperative, when one encounters the term “stranger/s”, to find out which Strong’s number applies; that is, its meaning and context! Surely, the house of Shem from Egypt would have been welcome guests among the Israelites! The bad guys in Egypt were the half-breed pharaohs who had been born of Hittite women who had become part of the pharaoh’s harem, due to a treaty made with the Hittite empire, or in other words, “serpent seed”!

The next three verses are Exod. 22:22-24 and they read: “²² Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. ²³ If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; ²⁴ And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.” Thus, we as Israel agreed to this as part of the nuptial agreement, but in this case it is left up to Yahweh Himself to enforce! Of course, this was and is meant exclusively for White Israelite widows and fatherless children, rather than black, yellow or mudcolored widows and fatherless children! Adam Clarke does quite well by commenting on this passage thusly:

“Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.] It is remarkable that offences against this law are not left to the discretion of the judges to be punished; God reserves the punishment to himself, and by this he strongly shows his abhorrence of the crime. It is no common crime, and shall not be punished in a common way; the wrath of God shall wax hot against him who in any wise afflicts or wrongs a widow or a fatherless child: and we may rest assured that he who helps either does a service highly acceptable in the sight of God.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would absolutely not lend money upon usury to our Israelites brethren, nor would we take our kin’s clothing on pledge without returning it before sundown, Exod. 22:25-26: “²⁵ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. ²⁶ If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down.”

One might think by reading some of the various commentaries that there is such a thing as a just amount of usury and an unjust amount of usury, but none of them draw a line in the sand and define where just usury ends and an unjust usury starts. Adam Clarke is one of them, but he does a good job describing the process and cites the words of the language thusly:

“Verse 25. Neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.] ... neshech, from nashach, to bite, cut, or pierce with the teeth; biting usury. So the Latins call it usura vorax, devouring usury. ‘The increase of usury is called ... neshech, because it resembles the biting of a serpent; for as this is so small as scarcely to be perceptible at first, but the venom soon spreads and diffuses itself till it reaches the vitals, so the increase of usury, which at first is not perceived nor felt, at length grows so much as by degrees to devour another’s substance.’– Leigh.”

But if one will peruse Deut. 23:19, there is absolutely no such thing as just usury to a kinsman, where it declares: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury.” It is true that in the very next verse, Deut. 23:20, that it permits an Israelite to loan money upon usury to a stranger (#5237 ... nokrîy ... foreign nonrelative), but this would encourage the affluent Israelite to lend to the alien rather than his own poor and afflicted people! It is my opinion that if the affluent Israelite will first of all simply lend without usury to his own brethren, he won’t have anything left over to lend to an alien!

To show the true unadulterated story on usury in the Old Testament, I will quote Jeremiah 15:10: “Woe is me [Jeremiah], my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.” Of all of the commentaries I have cited in this lesson, only Matthew Poole has adp align=p/emdressed this verse properly, repeated below:

“The prophet in this verse cannot be excused from a great measure of passion and human infirmity; he almost curseth the day of his birth, denouncing himself a woeful, miserable man, to be born a man of strife and contention to the whole world, that is, those nations in it against which God sent him to denounce his judgments; which denunciations, how true soever, and the truth of which they afterward did effectually find, yet they were not able to bear, and therefore they strove with him, and contended against him; yet it was not for his sin. Usury was forbidden the Jews [sic Israelites], Deut. xxiii. 19, and so was the more odious; but saith the prophet, I have not followed that trade, I have neither lent nor borrowed upon usury; I have done them no wrong, nor given them any occasion against me; yet they will not be reconciled to me, but speak of me all manner of evil. This was the lot of the old prophets, the lot of Samuel, of Christ, of his apostles, and of all the faithful ministers of the gospel ever since; let them carry themselves never so innocently and obligingly to people, yet if they will be faithful, and truly reveal unto people the mind and will of God, that is enough to anger a people whose wills are not subjugated to the will of God, and they will curse them.” All of these nuptial rules came not from a cruel dictator God, but from a loving Husband! Therefore, we should look upon the laws of Yahweh as a blessing rather than a curse! Consider our privation for not keeping them as we promised!

a href=

This is my one hundred and forty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. Already this subject has expended ten lessons, and we are still working on the marriage phase of this story. If you haven’t followed this composition from its inception, you might want to obtain the ten previous issues. Without a perception of Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, one simply cannot comprehend the context on which the entire Bible rests! Not only this, but without the knowledge of Israel’s Identity, this marriage doesn’t make any sense! That’s why one will hear very little about it from nominal churchianity, no matter the denomination! Christ came to die to satisfy His own law concerning divorce and remarriage, so he could lawfully restore His marital relationship with the twelve tribes; not some hottentot tribe or individual from Africa, or any other unclean racial type, or mixture thereof!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 11

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

YAHWEH’S PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL continued:

This prenuptial agreement between Yahweh and His Cinderella bride, the twelve tribes of Israel, can be found at Exodus chapters 20 through 23 (four chapters in all). With the last lesson, we got to Exod. 22:25-26 where we had to discontinue our discussion. With this issue, we will pick up the nuptial agreement at Exod. 22:28, which states: “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” If you are a pureblooded Israelite from one of the twelve tribes, your ancestors promised Yahweh that they would obey this and all the other parts of their nuptial agreement. Not only did our ancestors promise they would obey these rules for themselves, but in making these promises, they obligated all of their offspring after them forever! Being born under contract, when we took our first breath, we became as responsible for obeying these nuptial promises as they were for keeping them! Likewise, when Abraham placed Isaac on the altar to sacrifice him, Abraham, in essence, dedicated all of Isaac’s descendants on that altar after him forever! And we don’t have any choice in that matter! If you thought you had a choice, think again! So, let’s not take any of our promises to Him lightly, but rather zealously keep them! Just because some of our forefathers failed to live up to these obligations is no reason that we should follow suit! Besides, Christ provided us a way back to our former estate, and even beyond!

Comment on Exod. 22:28: The Hebrew word translated “god” in this verse is Strong’s #430, elohim, and in context means a magistrate. Here, in our nuptial agreement with Yahweh, we promised that we would not revile (make light of) or curse a ruler (cf. Acts 23:5). While we are forbidden to revile or curse a true leader over us, we are admonished at Deut. 17:15: “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” The Hebrew word “stranger” in this verse is Strong’s #5273, nokrîy, and is a stranger of the worst kind! There are several Hebrew words translated into the English as “stranger”; some in a good sense and others in a very evil sense, and we have to be aware of the difference. And to know the dissimilarity, one must study to show himself approved! The unmixed White Israelites in America have violated this nuptial agreement in all levels of government and will have to suffer the penalty for doing so. The foundation of government is the family husband-father, and he is not to be a nonwhite! Yet, it seems that almost every young White, Caucasian Israelite woman is jumping in bed with an alien not of her own race, while the satanic Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jew news agencies keep bragging about it! They bragged about it as recently as Friday, June 4th, 2010, on one of the big three TV news networks! Not to leave the reader guessing who it might be, I have documentation for this from the Internet website:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/black-women-marry-interracial-marriage common/story?id=10830719

(OR: Click here for a copy of the article and video hosted here on this website.)

“Interracial Marriage More Common Than Ever, but Black Women Still Lag ... Pew Survey Shows One in Six New Marriages Now Between People of Different Colors ... By Linsey Davis and Eric Noll ... June 4, 2010 ...

“In 1967, the boundaries were still very black and white. The film ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,’ about an interracial couple and their parents’ angst (anxiety), was considered groundbreaking.

“Americans are more likely than ever to wed outside their racial or ethnic group. Fast forward four decades and you don’t have to look to the big screen to see interracial couples. You can see the beginnings of a melting pot everywhere – just look at celebrity couples like Seal and Heidi Klum, or Tony Parker and Eva Longoria.

“And [sic] new study by the Pew Research Center found that one in six new marriages in the U.S. are interracial relationships. That makes the United States one of the most colorblind countries when it comes to saying ‘I do,’ second only to Brazil.

“Related [Articles:] ... Why Can’t Successful Black Women Find Men? Why So Many Single, Black Females? The Pitfalls of Transracial Adoption. ‘The surprising thing here is how much demographic and social change has occurred over a short time. Intermarriage was a taboo and illegal. That’s a big change in a very small amount of time,’ said Paul Taylor, Executive Vice President of the Pew Research Center. Based on the latest census data, the study showed record highs: 26 percent of Hispanics, 31 percent of Asians, 16 percent of Blacks and nine percent of Whites all married outside their race.

“‘I think the racial barriers have almost blurred to the extent of almost being socially insignificant,’ said Professor Rick Banks of Stanford Law School.

“Rates of interracial marriage among Asians and Hispanics remained steady, but there was a substantial change among black Americans, especially black men.

“‘In 2008, 22 percent of all black male newlyweds married a non-black,’ said Taylor.

“Black Women Left Out ... Only 9 percent of black women, on the other hand, married outside their race, making them the least likely of any race or gender to marry outside their race and the least likely to get married at all.

“‘We have a saying called ‘the black girl curse,’ said Chato Waters, a single black woman. ‘A lot of our white friends are married by 25, happily married with kids by 27, and we’re like, what’s the deal with the ‘bee gees’ – that’s ‘black girls ...’”

This website may not have quoted ABC anchorwoman Diane Sawyer exactly word-for-word, but any variation from what I heard her say over channel 13 from Toledo, Ohio through our local Time Warner cable service is insignificant!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would dedicate to Him the firstborn of flocks and the first-ripe of grain, vegetables and fruits, as well as the firstborn of sons on the day of firstfruits, Exod. 22:29-30. This passage states:

“²⁹ Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. ³⁰ Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.” Further insight on this passage can be found at Num. 28:26; 2 Chr. 31:5; Exod. 13:2 & 34:19:

Num. 28:26: “Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto Yahweh, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.”

2 Chr. 31:5: “And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly.”

Exod. 13:2: “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.”

Exod. 34:19: “All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.”

Of all the designated possessions of the Israelites to be dedicated to Yahweh, the firstborn sons would be the most valuable. Not that a firstborn daughter shouldn’t be highly prized, but one will notice that a daughter is not included here.

From A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 1, pages 320-321, we read on Exodus 13:1-2:

“Chap. XIII. 1-2.– The First-Born Sanctified. 2. Sanctify unto me all the first-born. To sanctify means to consecrate, to set apart from a common to a sacred use. The foundation of this duty rested on the fact that the Israelites having had their first-born preserved by a distinguishing act of grace from the general destruction that overtook the families of the Egyptians were bound, in token of gratitude, to consider them as the Lord’s peculiar property (cf. Heb. xii. 23). By that deliverance Israel, God’s son, His firstborn, was brought into a new and special relationship, which gave them a national existence to be distinguished by extraordinary religious privileges; and it was proper, therefore, in accordance with this sonship, that the first-born, as representatives of all the rest, should be sanctified to the Lord. Hence the duty was specified to the leader on the earliest possible occasion; and from the place which it occupies in the record, the enactment seems to have been made at Succoth.”

For more evidence on this subject, I will cite Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 452:

“FIRSTBORN – the first offspring of human beings or animals.

“In memory of the death of Egypt’s firstborn and the divine protection of Israel’s firstborn in connection with the Exodus, God placed a special claim on the firstborn of man and animals (Ex. 13:11-13). This meant that the nation of Israel attached unusual value to the oldest son and assigned special privileges and responsibilities to him.

“Because of God’s claim on the first offspring, the firstborn sons of the Hebrews were presented to the Lord when they were a month old. Since the firstborn was regarded as God’s property, it was necessary for the father to redeem, or buy back, the child from the priest. The redemption price, established by the priest, could not exceed five shekels (Num. 18:16).

“Early Israelite laws also provided that the firstlings of beasts belonged to the Lord and were turned over to the sanctuary (Ex. 13:2; 34:19; Lev. 27:26). The clean animals – those that could be eaten under the law of Moses – were sacrificed to the Lord. The unclean beasts were either destroyed, replaced, or redeemed at a price set by the priest.

“In Israel, the firstborn son inherited special rights and privileges. His Birthright was a double portion of the estate and leadership of the family. As head of the home after his father’s death, the oldest son customarily cared for his mother until her death, and provided for his unmarried sisters until their marriage. He was the family’s spiritual head.

“The inheritance rights of the firstborn son were sometimes transferred to a younger brother. Jacob, for example, stripped Reuben of his firstborn rights because of his incestuous conduct and transferred the birthright to his son Joseph (Gen. 48:20-22; 1 Chr. 5:1) ...”

This demonstrates one aspect of our nuptial agreement with Yahweh in which we have been remiss, and were divorced as a result! I was the firstborn in my family, and neither of my parents were aware of this provision, nor was it addressed in any church we attended!

Last of all, in Exodus chapter 22, verse 31, we promised Yahweh we would not eat any animal or bird torn to pieces or mangled by a predator for fear of disease by reason of contact with an infected beast of prey, and also to prevent the eating of blood from an unbled carcass. Unless an animal or bird is bled properly, the person eating it will ingest poisonous waste products of the animal or bird flowing from its cells to its liver and kidneys. With Exodus chapter 22 completed, we will now address chapter 23.

Beginning at Exod. 23:1, in our nuptial agreement with our Husband, Yahweh, we promised we would not invent or spread abroad a false report, a sin in violation of the ninth commandment. Further, we are implored not to receive a false report from another, or join hands with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness (Prov. 11:21). Neither be the inventor or receiver of false and slanderous reports, as both are equally criminal! More can be found concerning this at Deut. 19:16-21, where it expands on this thought:

“¹⁶ If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; ¹⁷ Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; ¹⁸ And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; ¹⁹ Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. ²⁰ And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. ²¹ And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would not “follow a mob to do evil”, which only makes good sense. We further promised we would not ally with a majority in wickedness, nor join with a multitude to shut out justice (Exod. 23:2, cf. Charles Thomson’s lxx). Adam Clarke, in his six volume Commentary, states in part: “... and is so understood by some eminent critics in this place: ‘Thou shalt not follow the example of the great or rich, who may so far disgrace their own character as to live without God in the world, and trample under foot his laws’.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would, in passing judgment, not be influenced by compassion for the needy, cf. (Exod. 23:3, cf. Charles Thomson’s lxx). Adam Clarke states in part: “Thou shalt not favour, or show undue partiality, even in the case of the poor, to the detriment of his richer opponent. Even-handed justice must be done both to poor and rich.”

We must remember that even Yahshua Christ took this very same position at John 12:3-8: “³ Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Yahshua, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. ⁴ Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, ⁵ Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? ⁶ This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. ⁷ Then said Yahshua, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. ⁸ For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.”

Here we have the stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal, socialist, communist Judas-jew Iscariot pleading his case for the poor. Judas was no different than his counterpart Kenite-Edomite-jews of today pleading for the poor downtrodden, so-called “afro-americans”, crying for more and more welfare handouts at the expense of the hard-working middle-class Whites. When are we ever going to learn that charity is to stay at home with our own racial kind? So let’s take care of the poor of our own race, and that on an “evenhanded” basis! That is what we promised Yahweh, and that is what we should do! Even our poor should be given hands up, not hand outs! As Christ said, “... For the poor always ye have with you ...” [underlining mine]

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would help return an enemy kinsman’s ox or ass safely back to him, not causing injury to it in the process. And if the enemy’s ass is lying under its burden, we would help relieve the excessive load, even if we had to place part of the overload on an ass of our own, Exod. 23:4-5:

“⁴ If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. ⁵ If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.”

Adam Clarke comments thusly on verse 4: “... From the humane and heavenly maxim in this and the following verses, our blessed Lord has formed the following precept: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you;’ Matt, v. 44. A precept so plain, wise, benevolent, and useful, can receive no other comment than that which its influence on the heart of a kind and merciful man produces in his life.” One thing that Adam Clarke overlooked is the fact that the enemy, in such a case, to receive such consideration, must be a racial kinsman!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we, as rulers and magistrates, would abstain from, and take caution against misjudgment of various misdeeds and crimes at Exod. 23:6-9, which reads: “⁶ Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. ⁷ Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. ⁸ And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. ⁹ Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, in their Commentary, state the following on this passage: “6-9. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause: These verses contain a series of cautions to rulers and magistrates to take careful heed that the fountains of justice should not be polluted, through favour and partiality on the one hand, through hasty and careless decisions, or through secret bribery and corruption. 7. Keep thee far from a false matter – i.e., as the context suggests, from unjust judgments, inflicting capital punishment upon ‘the innocent and righteous,’ while the real criminals are allowed to escape. for I will not justify the wicked – or absolve the guilty, although a human tribunal may give a verdict of acquittal. 8. thou shalt take no gift – viz., from litigants whose cases are in dependence before you, for the gift blindeth the wise ... – lit. those seeing, the open-eyed, the acute and penetrating, who, through the dazzling influence of the bribe, cannot see what their sagacity in other circumstances would easily discern. and perverteth the words of the righteous – i.e., the decisions of upright judges. Septuagint [λυμαινεται ρηματα δικαια] destroys righteous words (verdicts). The universal practice in Oriental countries still, of offering presents to magistrates to procure a favourable decision, affords a good commentary on the necessity and importance of the prohibition in this passage.” Adam Clarke simplifies it to: “Thou shalt neither countenance him in his crimes, nor condemn him in his righteousness.”

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would, as farmers, let the land rest every seventh year, Exod. 23:10-11 which says: “¹⁰ And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: ¹¹ But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.”

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, in their Commentary, state the following on this passage: “10, 11. six years thou shalt sow – intermitting the cultivation of the land every seventh year. But it appears that even then there was a spontaneous produce which the poor were permitted freely to gather for their use; and what they did not eat was to be left as a feast to the lower animals, wild beasts, birds, and insects, the owners of fields not being allowed to reap or collect the fruits of the vineyard or oliveyard during the course of this Sabbatical year. This was a regulation subservient to many excellent purposes; for, besides inculcating the general lesson of dependence on Providence, and of confidence in his faithfulness to His promise respecting the triple increase on the sixth year (Lev. xxv. 20, 21), it gave the Israelites a practical proof that they held their properties of the Lord as His tenants, and must conform to His rules, on pain of forfeiting the lease of them.”

Adam Clarke makes a very interesting observation on this Sabbatical Year, volume 1, page 420. Clarke doesn’t always come up with the right answers, but his research on many subjects goes beyond the average commentator:

“It is very remarkable that the observance of this ordinance is nowhere expressly mentioned in the sacred writings; though some suppose, but without sufficient reason, that there is a reference to it in Jer. xxxiv. 8, 9. Perhaps the major part of the people could not trust God, and therefore continued to sow and reap on the seventh year, as on the preceding. This greatly displeased the Lord, and therefore he sent them into captivity; so that the land enjoyed those Sabbaths, through lack of inhabitants, of which their ungodliness had deprived it. See Lev. xviii. 24, 25, 28; xxvi. 34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20, 21. Commentators have been much puzzled to ascertain the time in which the sabbatical year began; because, if it began in Abib or March, they must have lost two harvests; for they could neither reap nor plant that year, and of course they could have no crop the year following; but if it began with what was called the civil year, or in Tisri or Marcheshvan, which answers to the beginning of our autumn, they would then have had that year’s produce reaped and gathered in.”

Just because there is little record of the Israelites keeping it is no sign that it was not kept for a significant amount of time, as when things were going well, little was recorded. But Clarke is correct, for in time the practice of keeping the Sabbatical Year was completely discontinued. The two basic reasons for keeping the seventh year was for the revival of the strength of the land and the freeing of slaves. This makes an interesting combination, as the year that the sowing and reaping was paused was the very same year the servants were not needed, and let go. It would appear, under this circumstance, the land owner really had a problem getting started in the eighth year. But, on the other hand, in those ancient days the land was full of poor people who were willing to sell themselves as servants for another seven years.

Another thing that was a problem in those days was preserving the food for nearly two years, and the only method they had was to dry it, which meant sun drying. And once they had dried the food, they had the problem of storing it for two years, and the only thing they had to store it in were hard baked clay jars that the rodents couldn’t chew through, with a heavy lid on the top, never to be removed, except when removing the food from them. Forget to cap the jar for one night, and there goes a good portion of one’s food supply! Being they had large families in those days, how many jars of olive oil, grain, and dried fruits and vegetables would it require to feed a family of, say eight, for two years? This doesn’t even take into account the amount of animal feed that one would have to put in storage for two years, although they were allowed to graze in the unsown fields! All of this was part of our nuptial agreement with Yahweh!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would keep and honor the weekly Sabbath, Exod. 23:12, which states: “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.”

There are two important parts to this verse which we should comprehend which Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, in their Commentary make clear in volume 1, pages 372-373:

“12. Six days thou shalt do thy work. This law is repeated (see on ch. xx. 9, 10), lest any might suppose there was a relaxation of its observance during the Sabbatical year. As it was necessary that the benefits of so wise and benevolent an institution might be universally enjoyed, the command respecting its observance was repeated in terms as precise and minute as those in which it was originally given. It secured to all classes – the freeman, the slave, and even the cattle, otherwise in danger of being overborne by incessant labour – a temporary suspension of daily toil – ‘rest’ for the beasts of labour, a release from the yoke, an interval of repose and ‘refreshment’ for the working man – not to his body only, but to his mind also, by affording him an opportunity for meditation, religious instruction, and devotional purposes (Lev. xxiii. 3; Deut. v. 15). the son of thy handmaid ... The offspring of foreign [kinsmen] slaves, male and female, who had come into the possession of any master belonged to him (see on ch. xxi. 4). It was a person of this latter description that is meant by ‘the son of thy handmaid’ (cf. Ps. cxvi. 16), apparently in distinction from those of the former, who are designated in general terms, ‘the sons of the house’ (Gen. xv. 3; Eccl. ii. 7), and ‘house-born’ (Gen. xiv. 14; xvii. 12, 23). The preceding laws, of which justice, humanity, charity, and a spirit of general kindness form the prominent features, were given at the commencement of the national life of the Israelites, and the promulgation of them at so early a period was intended by the Divine Lawgiver to furnish a solid basis of good principles for the formation of their character as a people. Those precepts – all of them great moral axioms, the truth and importance of which commended them to the understanding and the hearts of all who heard them – were calculated to refine and elevate the tone of public sentiment, and, by inculcating on all classes, rulers as well as people, a conscientious regard to the relative duties and proprieties of life, to train them to the love and practice of that righteousness which exalteth a nation.” [“kinsman” in brackets mine]

I will not go into the debate on which day of the week that the Sabbath should be kept, except to say that Sunday would be the last day I would consider for it, as it’s the holy day of Mithraism, and Mithras is not to be confused with the Persian Zoroaster. In the two volume work Forerunners And Rivals Of Christianity, by Francis Legge, vol. 2, page 232, the author states: “It [Mithras] is not, however, in the religion associated with the name of Zoroaster that we must look for the origin of Mithraism. The date of the sacred books of Mazdeism and the historical existence of Zoroaster himself have recently been brought down to as late as the 7th century B.C. and the appearance in Asia of the Persian tribes as conquerors, whereas Mithras was, as we have seen, worshipped in Asia Minor nearly a millennium earlier ...” This is important, as the Persian Zoroaster had a teaching that parallels the Biblical Two-seedline doctrine of Genesis 3:15, and it’s not Mithraism! The only Sunday that is important for Israelites to keep is the Day of Pentecost! So count 50 days (49+1) back from that!

Francis Legge shows how the Romans accepted Mithraism to spite Persian Mazdeism, vol. 2, pp. 270-271, thusly:

“It was probably its rise to imperial favour under the Antonines, when Commodus and many of the freedmen of Caesar’s House were initiated, that first suggested to its votaries the possibility of using it as an instrument of government; and henceforth its fortunes were bound up with those of the still Pagan State. Its strictly monarchical doctrine, using the adjective in its ancient rather than in its modern connotation, must have always endeared it to the emperors, who were beginning to see clearly that in a quasi-Oriental despotism lay the only chance of salvation for the Roman Empire. Its relations with Mazdeism in the strict form which this last assumed after the religious reforms of the Sassanian Shahs have never been elucidated, and M. Cumont seems to rely too much upon the later Avestic literature to explain everything that is obscure in the religion of Mithras. If we imagine, as there is reason to do, that Western Mithraism was looked upon by the Sassanian reformers as a dangerous heresy, the Roman Emperors would have an additional reason for supporting it; and it is significant that it was exactly those rulers whose wars against the Persians were most successful who seem to have most favoured the worship of the Persian god. When Trajan conquered Dacia, the great province between the Carpathians and the Danube now represented by Hungary and Romania, he colonized it by a great mass of settlers from every part of the Roman Empire, including therein many Orientals who brought with them into their new home the worship of their Syrian and Asiatic gods. It was hence an excellent field for the culture of a universal and syncretic religion such as that of Mithras, and the great number of Mithraea whose remains have been found in that province, show that this religion must have received hearty encouragement from the Imperial Court. From its geographical position, Dacia formed an effective counterpoise to the growing influence upon Roman policy of the Eastern provinces, and it might have proved a valuable outpost for a religion which was always looked upon with hostility by the Greek-speaking subjects of Rome. Unfortunately, however, a religion which allies itself with the State must suffer from its alley’s reverses as well as profit by its good fortunes, and so the Mithraists found. When the [Israelite-] Gothic invasion desolated Dacia, and especially when Valerian’s disaster enabled the [Israelite-] Goths to gain a footing there which not even the military genius of Claudius could loosen, Mithraism received a blow which was ultimately to prove fatal. The abandonment of Dacia to the [Israelite-] Goths and [Israelite-] Vandals by Aurelian in 255 A.D., led to its replanting by a race whose faces were turned more to Constantinople than to Rome, and who were before long to be converted to Christianity en masse. Diocletian and his colleagues did what they could to restore the balance by proclaiming, as has been said above, the ‘unconquered’ Mithras the protector of their empire at the great city which is now the capital of the Austrian Empire; but the accession of Constantine and his alliance with the Christian Church some twenty years later, definitely turned the scale against the last god of Paganism.” [words in brackets mine]

This is my one hundred and forty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I give a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. Already this subject has expended eleven lessons, and we are just working on the marriage phase of this story.

Before I continue with the prenuptial agreement between Yahweh and the twelve tribes of Israel, in preparation for their marriage, I need to stress the importance of marrying kind after kind! I bring this up, as there are those in Israel Identity who are claiming that the Father/Son as One was not genetically whole; that His Spirit contributed only one chromosome instead of the normal 23 on the part a male. Those who are claiming this are following the liar, Ron Wyatt, a pretended archaeologist. Here is Ron Wyatt’s story from website:

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/aoc-2.htm

“Mr. Wyatt removed a sample of Christ’s blood from the Mercy Seat of the Ark in the cave and paid a lab in Israel to do an analysis of the blood. They put the dark dried-out substance in saline solution for 72 hours. Mr. Wyatt asked them to do a chromosome test, but they informed him that he was wasting his money since you can’t do a chromosome test on dead white blood cells. They proceeded with the analysis and said, ‘It’s your money.’ As they began viewing the cells under the electron microscope, they saw cells dividing before their eyes! They could tell it was human blood, but ‘This blood is alive!’ They couldn’t believe what they were seeing! They continued with their tests and found the blood to be unique from any other human blood! Each cell contained only 24 chromosomes compared to the normal count of 46 that you and I have. Christ received 23 chromosomes from Mary, and one ‘y’ chromosome from His heavenly Father to designate a male child. Others in the lab were asked to come see for themselves. With tears in their eyes they asked whose blood this was, and Mr. Wyatt replied, ‘It is the blood of your Messiah.’ Then they asked who the Messiah was. They began wailing and shouting. No other male human being has ever had this same chromosome count! Christ’s blood is alive and unique to prove His divinity to the world before He returns to this earth. [Pile it higher and higher!] When these tests are repeated for all the world to see, everyone will learn that Jesus was more than a preacher, He was and is the Son of God!”

First of all, no Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jew would ever “wail” and “shout” remorsefully over finding Christ’s blood! When Yahweh presented Eve to Adam, he said: “... This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh ...” This is proof positive that both Adam and Eve each had the normal 23 matching chromosomes, or a total of 46 for reproduction. Therefore, it is blasphemy to claim it was any different between Yahweh and Mary (the mother of Christ, the second Adam!) as Ron Wyatt did. This is important, for when Yahweh married the twelve tribes of Israel, the consummation took place when the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant, and unless both parties contributed the normal 23 chromosomes, it wasn’t kind after kind, breaking Yahweh’s racial LAW! Not only this, but it was a requirement by Yahweh for the priests officiating in the Temple, that none have any physical defects as they PREFIGURED Christ! To show the reader this, I will quote from Unger’s Bible Dictionary, page 882:

“3. Priests. (1) Selection. God selected as priests the sons (descendants) of Aaron (Exod. 6:16-19; 28:1), but two of his sons, Nadab and Abihu, died without issue, having been put to death for burning strange fire upon the altar (Lev. 10:1), the priesthood was invested in the descendants of Aaron’s two other sons, Eleazar and Ithamar (10: 6). The selection went still further, for among these all were disqualified who had any physical defect or infirmity – the blind, lame, flatnosed (q.v.), limbs unduly long (unshapely), broken-handed, crooked-backed, lean and stunted, blemish of the eye, affected with scurvy, scab of any kind of eruption, stones [testicles] broken. These, however, were supported, as the other priests (21:17-23); for no one whose legitimate birth entitled him to admission could be excluded.” [underlining mine]

From this it should be quite clear, if Yahshua Christ didn’t have the full complement of 46 chromosomes (23 from Yahweh and 23 from Mary), He wouldn’t have been eligible to become our High Priest! It is nothing short of blasphemy to declare otherwise! The following is a copy of an E-mail I sent to one of the people in Israel Identity promoting the lies of Ron Wyatt: [Beginning of E-mail.]

June 8, 2010, Dear Eli, If you think that Jonathan Gray can make me swallow Ron Wyatt’s lie about Christ’s 24 chromosomes you are badly mistaken. It doesn’t measure up to Scripture whatsoever!

Hebrews 2:16-17 (which Paul wrote) states: “¹⁶ For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham [a male with 46 chromosomes]. ¹⁷ Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

What is there about “made like unto his brethren” that we don’t understand. If we are His brethren, then He had 46 chromosomes the same as we do! Why don’t you ask this so-called renowned Jonathan Gray to answer this. Pardon me, I’ll believe Paul any day over Jonathan Gray!

Hebrews 2:11 also states: “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”

If Christ didn’t have the full allotment of chromosomes, He is not our Brother! Thus, Ron Wyatt is a FOOL!

Romans 8:29 states: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

Again, if Christ didn’t have the full complement of 46 chromosomes, He is not “the firstborn among many brethren”!

Eli, I have already sent my first two brochures, “Ron Wyatt, Honest?, Or Deceitful Fraud?”, to my proofreaders, and you can be sure I am going to address the content of this email in #3, and I’m not about to drop the subject! Clifton. [End of E-mail.]

Eli’s answer to me was “O ye of little faith.” Question: Should I be condemned because I believe Holy Writ? Besides, 2nd Maccabees 2:4-8 declares that Jeremiah hid the Ark of the Covenant at Mt. Nebo, not in Jerusalem as Ron Wyatt falsifies!

Now continuing with Yahweh’s prenuptial agreement with the twelve tribes of Israel where we left off in lesson #147 at Exod. 23:12:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 12

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

YAHWEH’S PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL continued:

At Exod. 23:14-17, we promised Yahweh we would faithfully keep three specific feast days each year consisting of: (1) Passover, (2) Pentecost, and (3) Tabernacles. There are many opinions on the keeping or not keeping of these three feast-days today. Not only that, but there are probably 20 to 30 calendars out there, with everyone claiming his is the only one! So, I will give you my opinion, and it’s only an opinion, and I don’t ask you to agree with me. Some say that after the crucifixion of Christ, all feast days were fulfilled. If that is true, we would never have had the Advent of Pentecost at Acts 2! On the other hand, it is my belief that we are still to have Pentecost, but we are in a different phase of it. (I’ll cite Passover & Tabernacles later) The following is part of what I wrote in my paper Early Rain vs. Latter Rain:

The Advent of Pentecost at Acts 2 was the Early Rain, and the Latter Rain is still coming. We find reference to this topic at James 5:7: “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Master. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.”

Here the early and latter rain represent firstly the rain of seed time at planting and secondly the rain of ripening before the harvest: The first fell in Judaea about the beginning of our November after the seed was sown; the second toward the end of our April as the ears began filling out in preparation for the full harvest, as their crops developed during the winter and early spring. It is obvious that this passage typifies the beginning of the ekklesia period and extends until the time of Yahshua’s Second Advent, with a long dry season between the two rains. Most good farmers are aware that a moderate dry spell after the seed has been planted can be beneficial, causing the plants to develop a vigorous root system so that when the rains finally come the crop will produce an abundant yield.

This may seem a strange perspective from which to look upon the history of the ekklesia, but this is what James and the prophets before him were intending. The reader needs to differentiate between the early and latter rain, as each is different in its respective nature. In other words, we are not instructed to reenact the events at the Day of Pentecost as a pattern for our worship. While there were miraculous phenomena at Pentecost, as recorded in Acts (such as speaking in tongues), it was only an earnest (down payment) of the Spirit. At the Day of Pentecost there were gathered many good-fig-Judahites from many lands speaking diverse languages, and a miracle was provided in both the speaking and the hearing for that event to be a success. The present-day Pentecostal and charismatic movements have made a mockery of the original happenings recorded at Acts 2. Nor do the present-day Pentecostals and charismatics allude to Old Testament passages in order to explain why there is a Pentecost in the first place. Pentecost in the Old Testament was a feast day mandated for Israelites only, whereas today’s Pentecostals and charismatics invite every unclean race to gather with them.

While Pentecost was a very important event in our Israelite history, it served only as a beginning. We Israelites, as a people, had been divorced and completely separated from Yahweh with no hope. Yahweh had married the twelve tribes of Israel, but Israel proved to be unfaithful to her Husband, whereupon He could only divorce them. By law the only way He could remarry them was that one or the other spouse had to die. This is the very purpose for which Yahweh came in the flesh as Yahshua, to die so he could purchase them back as their [46 chromosome] Kinsman Redeemer. But that purchasing back could not take place until His death officially took place. Pentecost was the beginning of that process, but as yet there was not a messenger to take “the good news” to the formerly divorced twelve tribes. To accomplish this objective, Paul was chosen to take the Gospel to the lost Israel nations (mistakenly translated by the Latin term “Gentiles”). And by the way, Paul was one of the twelve apostles, as at 2 Corinthians 11:5: “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” 2 Corinthians 12:11: “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” Thus, if Paul was not behind the very chiefest apostles, he became one of the twelve.

Not only did Yahshua Christ personally choose his twelve apostles, but it was to them (and not to today’s Pentecostals and charismatics) that He gave “power against unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease”, Matt. 10:1. It is true that elsewhere in the New Testament, others are called “apostles”, as at 1 Corinthians 12:28, but they are called “apostles of the church”, a nondescript term with a general meaning. It is one thing to be an apostle of Yahshua Christ personally sent by Him, but quite another to be an apostle of the church sent by a body of believers. Scripture lacks any record of miracles having been done by any apostles of the church.

The Pentecostals and charismatics make fools of themselves in their attempt to relive Acts 2 all over again, mistakenly believing that the latter rain is but more of the same. Rather, the latter rain is as different from the early rain as harvest is from sowing, or as sowing is from harvest. The Pentecostals and charismatics, by trying to resurrect Pentecost, are like gardeners in Ohio or Michigan trying to plant tomatoes in their garden in September, or a farmer trying to harvest wheat before the kernels are fully developed. Solomon said that there was a time and season for everything, and the time and season for the early rain is in the past, but now we must wait patiently for the latter rain. I believe that we are experiencing it today in the Israel Identity Message!

To demonstrate that the phenomena of speaking in tongues at Pentecost was unique to the early apostolic age, I will quote from the “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John”, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff ed., vol. 7, where Augustine states his understanding:

“In the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues,’ which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when we laid the hand on these infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so wrong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother the Spirit of God dwelleth in him.”

Augustine further wrote at “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John”, Ibid., 195:

“How then, brethren, because he that is baptized in Christ, and believes on Him, does not speak now in the tongues of all nations, are we not to believe that he has received the Holy Ghost? God forbid that our heart should be tempted by this faithlessness. Certain we are that every man receives: but only as much as the vessel of faith that he shall bring to the fountain can contain, so much does He fill of it. Since, therefore, the Holy Ghost is even now received by men, some one may say, Why is it that no man speaks in the tongues of all nations? Because the Church itself now speaks in the tongues of all nations. Before, the Church was in one nation, where it spoke in the tongues of all. By speaking then in the tongues of all, it signified what was to come to pass; that by growing among the nations, it would speak in the tongues of all.”

Therefore, when one reads the 12th chapter of 1 Corinthians, one should consider to whom, why, when, where, and under what circumstances it was written. It should be obvious that the instruction of 1 Cor. 12 was written for people shortly after the Day of Pentecost, and that these experiences were fresh in their minds.

We need now to go to Joel 2:23, where Joel prophesied in part of the Day of Pentecost: “²³ Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in Yahweh your singular-Elohim: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month. ²⁴ And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. ²⁵ And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you. ²⁶ And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of Yahweh your singular-Elohim, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed. ²⁷ And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Yahweh your singular-Elohim, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. ²⁸ And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: ²⁹ And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.”

As I stated before, the early rain at Pentecost was only an earnest (partial payment) of all of these things, and Peter was not incorrect for citing Joel, but the greater part of Joel’s prophecy has not yet come to pass, and that is where most Bible students miss the point. Notice how Joel states, “... he hath given you the former rain moderately ...” It says here: “... the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil ...” Yes, we have this situation, but our enemy controls all the markets, with the farmer getting little more than a token for his labor and investment, while the bad-fig-jew takes all the profit. And now that the supermarkets have put the mom and pop stores out of business, the b-f-j’s control the price at both ends. Not only that, but having complete control of the food business, they raise the prices for the Whites and then give food stamps to the beasts of the field. This is not only happening in the area of food, but also medicine, energy, education and housing. As yet we haven’t realized “... I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.” Once the jew-locust, jew-cankerworm, jew-caterpillar, jew-palmerworm is no longer with us we will be able to experience the latter rain. This will amount to 2,700 years worth of restoration.

But the greatest restoration will be: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all [Israelite] flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” This blessing is already being realized in the Israel Identity movement to some degree and will continue as we are sprinkled with clean water. We are told at Ezekiel 36:25:

“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”

Though we realized a limited purification with the Reformation, it is only through the Israel Identity movement that we can observe any great progress in this type of cleansing. Therefore, I am convinced that the Israel Identity movement is the very essence of the prophesied latter rain. The people coming into the movement are all muddied up with the errant doctrines of nominal churchianity, and when subjected to Yahweh’s sprinkling, the moist dirt starts to roll down with clean streaks alternating with streaks of mud.

As a result, there are mud-streaks of universalism, mud-streaks of single-seedline, mud-streaks of no-Satan dogma, mud-streaks of outright disapproval of Yahshua’s name to mention a few. And, in addition, there are mud-streaks of pride. It should be quite apparent that Peter’s reference to Joel was only to the early rain and not to the latter rain. That the early rain was only an earnest as stated at 2 Cor. 5:5: “Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.” Therefore, the recent charismatic movement and the Pentecostals of the last 150 years have little comprehension of either the former or latter rain foretold by Joel. When we finally experience the latter rain in its fullness it will dwarf the early rain in comparison, and be received only by Israelites. Others need not apply.

The Pentecostals and charismatics make the claim that Peter believed as they do, and if living today, he would be one of them. They will usually start with their perverted concept of the baptism of the Spirit. They will demand that one experience various phenomena, such as speaking in tongues, feelings of euphoria, visions, and emotional outbreaks of various kinds, and those who have not experienced such accompanying phenomenon are not considered Spirit-filled, but rather immature, carnal, disobedient or otherwise incomplete Christians.

Pentecostals and charismatics will demand their experiences take precedence over the Bible, and if the Bible doesn’t support their experiences, the Bible be damned. If one examines magazines, books and TV programs sponsored by these movements, he will find they emphasize “visions”, “dreams”, “words of knowledge”, “private messages from God” and other personal experiences, often out-of-context with Scripture, or entirely obliterating its truths in the process.

But is this the kind of demeanor that Peter promoted? We find the answer 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.”

Notice here the words “sure word”, which are 180 degrees opposite of experience theology. A belief system based on experience theology would be better left to mysticism, which essentially it is. “Experience theology” is akin to the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy similar to the sex orgies under every green tree spoken of in the Old Testament and which is so prevalent among many of today’s Pentecostals and charismatics. [Last of quoting Early Rain vs. Latter Rain]

We are still on the subject of Yahweh’s nuptial agreement with the twelve tribes of Israel at Exod. 23:14-17, and now we will take up the matter of dates. There is one very important point to make: unless one can establish the time for keeping Passover, one cannot establish the dates for all the other feast-days during the year. I can’t exactly pin it down, and I don’t believe anyone else can either. So what I will do is give you some of my conjecture. The best reference I have on it is found in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, page 692 under the heading:

“PENTECOST ... 3 Reckoning the feast. In ancient Palestine, the grain harvest lasted seven weeks, beginning with [the] barley harvest during the Passover and ending with the wheat harvest at Pentecost. The offering of the sheaf fell on the day after a sabbath; reckoning this as the first day, the feast was celebrated on the fiftieth day. Disagreement has arisen as to the meaning of ‘sabbath.’ Is the weekly sabbath meant? Is some other day of rest (Israel has several sabbaths) indicated? The words ‘after the seventh sabbath’ (Lev 23:16) argue for the first possibility. If this is true, the festival would always fall on the same day of the week, namely, Sunday. This has its counterpart in the Christian Day of Pentecost. According to rabbinical judgment, the ‘sabbath’ in question was not the weekly sabbath, that is, the one which came in the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; rather, it was the fifteenth day of Nisan, described as a day of ‘holy convocation’ and of rest from work (23:7). The Day of the Sheaf then fell on the subsequent day, the sixteenth of Nisan. The Jews [sic Judahites], therefore, celebrated the feast on the basis of this reckoning. The Sadducees always started counting on a Sunday; so Pentecost always fell on a Sunday. The Pharisees understood the ‘sabbath’ of Leviticus 23 as the first day of Passover (the fifteenth of Nisan). Thus, [to them] Pentecost always came fifty days after the sixteenth of Nisan, and the day of celebration varied from year to year. This view prevailed after A.D. 70. In later Judaism it was considered as the concluding feast of the Passover.”

There appears to be a discrepancy between the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the timing of the wave sheaf offering. It has always been my opinion that Pentecost would always fall on Sunday. My reason for taking that position is because it accords with several passages of Scripture. Let’s bring a third party into the hassle, and see if we can make any sense of it! The romish church has used every occasion to support their holy day of Mithraism (that being Sunday)! Here is how they have done it at:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, Section IV., “From the Books of the Hypotyposes”, Part XI., “Fragments Found in Greek Only in the Oxford Edition”:

“Suitably, therefore, to the fourteenth day, on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the passover in the evening. With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the Gospels harmonize. The resurrection also attests it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf.” [The romish church used this to support their sun-day!]

This is substantial evidence that Bowen’s Chart on Three Days And Three Nights is correct on the last nine days of Christ before His Resurrection. More evidence can be found from A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Lev. 23:9-22, vol. 1, pp. 497-498:

“9-14. – THE SHEAF OF FIRST-FRUITS. 10. a sheaf of the first-fruits – a sheaf ... an omer of the first-fruits of the barley harvest. The barley being sooner ripe than the other grains, the reaping of it formed the commencement of the general harvest season; for previous to that no Israelite could begin his harvest nor eat of the new grain. The offering described in this passage was made on the sixteenth of the first month (Abib or Nisan), the day following the first passover Sabbath, which was on the fifteenth (corresponding to the beginning of our April), and the second day of the festival, the sixteenth of the month (Josephus’ Antiquities, book iii., ch. x., sec. 5); but it was reaped after sunset on the previous evening, by persons deputed to go with sickles and obtain samples from different fields. These being laid together in a sheaf or loose bundle, were brought to the court of the temple, where the grain was winnowed, parched_, and bruised in a mortar. Josephus mentions that it was ... (v. 14) parched or dried before the fire, because the corn might not be generally ripe. 11. the morrow after the sabbath – i.e., the day after the Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath, but the first day of unleavened bread, which was to be kept as a Sabbath; for upon it there was to be a holy convocation, and no servile work was to be done. After some incense had been sprinkled on it, the priest waved it aloft before the Lord towards the four different points of the compass, took a part of it and threw it into the fire of the altar, all the rest being reserved to himself. It was a proper and beautiful act, expressive of dependence on the God of nature and providence – common amongst all people, but more especially becoming the Israelites, who owed their land itself, as well as all it produced, to the Divine bounty. The offering of the wave-sheaf sanctified the whole harvest (Rom. xi. 16: see on Deut. xxvi, 5-10). At the same time this feast had a typical character and pre-intimated the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 20), who rose from the dead on the very day the first-fruits were offered.

“15-22. – FEAST OF PENTECOST. 15. ye shaII count ... from the morrow after the sabbath – i.e., after the first day of the passover week, which was observed as a Sabbath. 16. number fifty days. The forty-ninth day after the presentation of the first-fruits or the fifteenth including it, was the Pentecost (see also Exod xxiii: 16; Deut. xvi. 9). 17. Ye shall bring out of your habitation, &c. As the presentation of these loaves would take place, not in the dark, but certainly in daylight, this may explain the peculiar expression, ‘the day of Pentecost was fully come’ (Acts ii.) – i.e, in the morning of the day, which commenced on the preceding evening. These loaves were made of ‘fine’ or wheaten flour, the quantity contained in them being somewhat more than 10 lbs. weight. As the wave-sheaf gave the signal for the commencement, the two loaves solemnized the termination of the harvest season. They were the first-fruits of that season, being offered unto the Lord by the priest in name of the whole nation (see on Exod, xxxiv. 22). The loaves used at the passover were unleavened, those presented at Pentecost were leavened – a difference which is thus accounted for, – that the one was a memorial of the bread hastily prepared at their departure whilHere the early and latter rain represent firstly the rain of e the other was a tribute of gratitude to God for their daily food, which was leavened. ‘The feast of Pentecost prefigured the mission of the Holy Spirit – the first-fruits of the Spirit which followed that sacred day on which the law was given, and by which the spirit of bondage was introduced, as it also prefigured the first-fruits of the new Church (Acts ii.), and of the ministry of the apostles, and of that new bread with which the Jews [sic Judahites] first, and then the Gentiles [sic Israelites], were to be fed’ (Spanheim, ‘Chronol. Sac. Par.,’ i., cap. 15). 21. ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day ... an holy convocation. Though it extended over a week, the first day only was held as a Sabbath, both for the national offering of first-fruits and a memorial of the giving of the law.”

If one will check Josephus’ Antiq. 3.10.5, one will find that he indicates that the 7 day feast of unleavened bread followed immediately after the Passover on the 15th of Nisan, and the wave-sheath of barley was offered on the 16th day, which is contrary to the Bible. Josephus was a Pharisee, and it is evident that the Pharisees had changed the procedure, no doubt to spite the Sadducees. There is evidence that the Kenite-Edomite-jews changed the chronology of the Patriarchs by 1486 years to prove Christ was not the Messiah, so why couldn’t they have changed the day the wave sheaf was waved?

Christ announced to those interlopers at Matt. 21:43: “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

My conjecture is: If the kingdom changed location, and that location was surely Great Britain, we should keep Passover and time the subsequent feast-days from the month of “green ears” (or the first ripe barley) according to the location Yahshua Christ had reference to. Britain gets that warm Gulf of Mexico current, and no doubt it is very similar to the weather in Palestine. Besides, and it is probably no coincidence, that today’s time is measured from Greenwich, England. Until clear evidence is found, I decline to take a rigid position on this.

This is my one hundred and forty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. Many people read the Scriptures believing that redemption is an invitation by the Almighty to all the races on Planet Earth to join in the Kingdom as equals simply by believing in Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth, for Amos 3:2 declares: “You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” It should be made very clear that the name “Israel” includes only the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob (son of Isaac and grandson Abraham)! It is also very important to notice from this verse that it is only the twelve sons of Jacob-Israel and their progeny that can be lawfully “punished”! The object of this series is to show why the children of Israel were punished in the past, and are still being punished today! Hopefully, this punishment will soon end! Now continuing with Yahweh’s prenuptial agreement with the twelve tribes of Israel where we left off in lesson #148 at Exod. 23:14-17:

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 13

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

YAHWEH’S PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL continued:

Actually with lesson #148 we left off with the mandatory observance of three annual festivals for the twelve tribes of Israel. We will learn more concerning these festivals with this issue. Therefore, what we addressed in the last lesson will overlap this one.

At Exod. 23:18, we promised Yahweh (our prospective Husband) we would not offer a blood sacrifice with leavened bread, nor would we let the fat of the sacrifice remain until the following morning. For comment on this passage, I will cite Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s abridged Commentary on Exod. 23:14-18 thusly:

“14–18. Three times … keep a feast … in the year – This was the institution of the great religious festivals – ‘The feast of unleavened bread,’ or the passover – ‘the feast of harvest,’ or pentecost – ‘the feast of ingathering,’ or the feast of tabernacles, which was a memorial of the dwelling in booths in the wilderness, and which was observed in the seventh month (Exo. 12:2). All the males were enjoined to repair to the tabernacle and afterwards the temple, and the women frequently went. The institution of this national custom was of the greatest importance in many ways: by keeping up a national sense of religion and a public uniformity in worship, by creating a bond of unity, and also by promoting internal commerce among the people. Though the absence of all the males at these three festivals left the country defenseless, a special promise was given of divine protection, and no incursion of enemies was ever permitted to happen on those occasions.”

I would advise the reader that the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown 6-volume unabridged Commentary goes into greater detail on nearly every passage of the Bible, and Exod. 23:14-18 is no exception:

“18. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread – lit., upon leavened bread; i.e., until all leaven has been completely removed from your houses. Many refer this to the passover, which was pre-eminently the Lord’s sacrifice. Leaven being regarded as an emblem of impurity or corruption, was, in preparing for this national feast of communion with Jehovah [sic Yahweh], to be carefully removed; unleavened bread only was to be eaten during the continuance of the feast; and this typified the necessity of sanctification to the people of God in the prospect of sacred communion with Him in the feast of the Christian passover (1 Cor. v. 7, 8). neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning – (see Exod. xii. 10). This, as well as the preceding clause, is commonly understood, from a comparison with Exod. xxxiv. 25, as referring to the sacrificial lamb of the passover. There is no mention, however, of fat in that parallel passage; and hence, as not the fat only, but the whole carcass of the paschal lamb, even the purtenance thereof, was to be eaten, without any portion being left until morning, Keil interprets the words [חלב חגי], not the fat of my sacrifice, but the best and richest of my feast – viz., the passover. This, however, seems a forced interpretation; and a more natural one seems to be to consider the general terms which are employed in both clauses susceptible of a wider application to all the three great feasts spoken of in the preceding context. For every sacrifice was accompanied by a mincha, a meat offering or cake of flour, into the composition of which it was expressly forbidden that leaven should be introduced (Lev. ii. 11). And the occurrence in the second clause of [] the common word for a feast, seems to furnish an additional warrant for giving this extended import to the verse. ‘Neither shall the fat of my festive offering (Ps. cxviii. 27; Mal. ii. 3) remain until morning;’ for the fat of every sacrifice was consecrated to God by being wholly consumed on the altar (Lev. iii. 16).”

Keil has to be correct, as Lev. 3:17 commands us, “... eat neither fat nor blood.” The reason for this is because half of the blood in the sacrificial or other clean animal carries all of its contaminants, and the clean blood cannot be separated from the contaminated, except through bleeding. Likewise, the fat of an animal (about ½ to ¾ inch next to the hide of a bovine, called “tallow”, contains its sweat glands) with more contaminants! Today, all the contaminated fat next to the hide (or tallow) is ground up with the clean lean red meat into hamburger by our grocery stores and restaurants, and we as Israelites promised Yahweh (as His wife), we wouldn’t eat that! These contaminants are very similar to what today is running through our sewers! I should also point out, though, that the marbled fat (other than the tallow ½ to ¾ inch next to the hide) is clean of contaminants. Happy eating!

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk, Exod. 23:19. This is probably one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible! Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary cites several doctors of divinity on Exod. 23:19, and only one is worth citing: “... Calmet (Taylor’s ‘Fragments’) suggest a different translation of the clause. ‘Thou shalt not cook a kid while it is on its mother’s milk’ – i.e., during the period necessary for its own nutrition, as well as for the ease of the dam; for it is well known that the females of all creatures, after parturition, are oppressed with their milk ...”. Calmet did quite well on his translation, although I believe his reason is flawed. But what more can we expect from the 1800’s?

Twenty-five to thirty years ago, I read an article that was in The Spotlight newspaper concerning homogenized milk. The author explained that cow’s milk had a very strong toxin in the fat that was perfectly healthy for the calf, but not for man! However, the author explained as long as the fat globules were not broken down in size (through the homogenization process), the fat globules would simply go on through the digestive tract without being absorbed. For that reason raw milk was safe for consumption. Now, although I have several large boxes of old Spotlight papers in my basement, I decided to go to the Internet for a second witness. I had to search quite a while before I found the documentation I was looking for at:

http://authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=16&id=18866

“The Real Culprit: Cows milk is usually nutritious. However, when it is tampered with by way of homogenization, it becomes a type of slow poison for the circulatory system. Homogenization was introduced into this country in 1932. It is a process that breaks down the fat into very small globules to keep the fat from separating. The primary purpose is to extend the shelf life of the product.

“Milk fat contains a substance called Xanthine Oxidase (XO). This XO is usually not a problem in our system, but homogenization causes some of this XO to pass through the wall of the intestine into the circulatory system. There it creates havoc by attacking specific targets in the artery walls as well as heart tissue, causing lesions. The body responds to this attack by attempting to heal the damaged areas. Fatty tissue and cholesterol are laid over the ‘body bandaids’ that build up over the damaged areas and eventually cause obstruction.

“If this hypothesis is correct then the heart disease rate should be highest in the countries with the largest consumption of homogenized milk containing this active XO ingredient. Statistics from around the world confirm that this is exactly the case. Finland is the only country in the world that consumes more homogenized milk than the United States. It is interesting to note that exercise has little effect on the problem because the Finns are very active people.”

Butter is milk fat, and is perfectly healthy for men and women to consume as long as it is not homogenized. But the descendants of Cain have entered our dairies and polluted our dairy products, and we should be mad as hell! Dairy products are Bible foods, and used by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! But Satan (i.e., Cain and his descendants) have slithered their way into our society, and changed all of our food and water into poison, big time!

Some time before I had read that Spotlight article on homogenized milk, I was aware that Exod. 23:19 was a mistranslation; that it did not mean to refrain from seething a kid in his mothers milk. After reading the article, it didn’t take me very long to figure out, as long as the calf was on its mother’s milk, his whole body was saturated with Xanthine Oxidase, and wasn’t safe to eat. I used to really love veal, but today we can’t trust the bad-fig-jew meat companies or the butchers. Once the calf is weaned from its mother’s milk for a reasonable amount of time, veal is safe and healthy to eat! The only way to eat veal safely today would be to confirm the calves were weaned and the Xanthine Oxidase abated from their system before slaughtering them.

What we can see from all of this is the fact that nearly 3000 years ago our Almighty gave us the principle whereby we could avoid poisoning ourselves by refraining from using the flesh of an unweaned bovine calf as food. Yahweh never (and I reiterate never) breaks any of His own natural physical laws, regardless of what Ron Wyatt claims about chromosomes to the contrary. Therefore, we can either wean the calf from its mother’s milk before we kill and butcher it or suffer the consequences by getting sick and dying. Likewise, we can either stop homogenizing our milk which will require our shaking the bottle to mix the cream with the skim milk each time we take it from the refrigerator, or get sick and die. It’s that simple! To obey Yahweh’s natural laws is life and health, not sickness and death! For the time being, why doesn’t someone invent a harmless additive we could drop in each bottle of milk to return it to its original consistency, so the fat globules with the Xanthine Oxidase could pass harmlessly through our digestive systems?

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would obey the Angel that was to lead us against the Canaanite tribes in our new home in the promised land. There we were to set up housekeeping with our Husband, Yahweh. Exod. 23:20-23 reads:

“²⁰ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. ²¹ Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. ²² But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. ²³ For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.”

There is a very important principle concerning this passage along with a copyist problem. I will address both. There has been a lot of speculation as to the identification of the Angel mentioned here, but Matthew Henry’s Commentary identified it correctly. We find in Matthew Henry’s unabridged Commentary on “The Book of Joshua”, vol. 2, page 2, the following explanation in part:

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

A few things should be noted here. Particularly that the Joshua of the Old Testament saved the Israelites from the Canaanites of that day (attempted to give them rest). Matthew Henry almost gets it correct here, as our Joshua (Yahshua = Yah saves, and not Yeshua = he saves) will also save us from the modern-day Canaanites. Paul the apostle made it clear at Romans 16:20 that the Romans would tread, or “bruise Satan under your feet shortly”, and the Romans (who were Zerah-Judah Israelites) being of the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) sure beat the daylights out of the Canaanite-Kenite-Edomite-jews at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But that’s not the end of the story, as at Yahshua’s second advent “the seed of the woman” (in the person of Yahshua-Christ) will do it again and permanently (Zech. 14:21). Without an understanding of the two “seeds” of Genesis 3:15, the Bible makes little sense! Churchianity has made a big thing out of so-called “personal salvation” while completely overlooking the seed of the serpent vs. the seed of the woman. Note: I do not fully endorse Matthew Henry’s comments, but he did fairly well here, if in fact it was him who wrote this excerpt. We need also to take note that within the name of Joshua is found “salvation” whereas in its later corrupted form “Jesus”, “salvation” is missing.

It is very clear that at Exod. 23:20-21 it says in part: “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way ... my name is in him.” Therefore it can only be Joshua. All those who have been having a hard time accepting the true name of our Almighty, might want to reconsider their position in light of this passage.

Now to address the copyist problem found in Exod. 23:23. Matthew Henry in his Commentary was the one who caught the problem with this verse where he states:

“Verse 23. Unto the Amorites] There are only six of the seven nations mentioned here, but the Septuagint, Samaritan, Coptic, and one Hebrew MS., add Girgashite, thus making the seven nations.”

This is a very important observation on the part of Matthew Henry for anyone who believes in, and studies Two Seedline doctrine! The first place in Scripture where the nations inhabiting the land of Canaan are mentioned is Gen. 15:19-21, and ten are named. What the serious Bible student must realize is that there was so much race-mixing going on between those ten nations that three of them were completely absorbed by the other seven, and from that point forward they were referred to as the seven Canaanite nations, even in the New Testament. I checked my copy of the Septuagint, and sure enough, it had seven nations listed at this verse! So all of those people who believe that the King James version of the Bible is God-breathed and therefore flawless should reconsider their position. I have checked The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text from the b-f-jewish Publication Society of America and they also show only six of the seven Canaanite nations. We shouldn’t be surprised at this as the KJV was translated from Masoretic Text. I personally use the KJV, but I am very careful to avoid its many errors such as demonstrated here!

Under our nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh (our Husband) that we would not bow down to the gods of the Canaanites, but would rather obey the voice of Yahweh our Almighty, Exod. 23:22-25, which reads: “²² But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. ²³ For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. ²⁴ Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. ²⁵ And ye shall serve Yahweh your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.”

For comment on the above passage, I will use Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary and I will edit “Jehovah” to read “Yahweh”: “22. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak – i.e. , to you directly, or by Moses. His voice is my voice. In His speaking I speak. – The bright history opening upon them as a people was contingent on their obedience. On condition of their faithful and continued compliance with the terms of the national covenant, all the promises it held out to them would be redeemed – all the rich blessings it guaranteed would be realized. (The Septuagint here re-inserts vv. 5, 6 of Exod, xix.) ... then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries [צרריד] to those distressing, harassing, persecuting you. It is a stronger word than “enemies.” 24. 25. Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, &c. The connection is, that when the Canaanites should be dispossessed, and the people of Israel established in the possession of Canaan, which would be accomplished by the unmistakable interposition of Divine power, the latter, as a covenanted people, would still have to obey. thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images (cf. Exod. xxxiv. 12-16; Deut. v. 7), This prohibition was particularly directed against the heathen superstition which regarded the gods as closely bound to the land, and the land as belonging to them; and so, in cases of any public calamity, or of invasion, the protection of the gods of the country was propitiated. Thus, in later times, the invading heathens, the progenitors of the Samaritans; honoured Yahweh, together with their own deities (2 Ki. xvii. 24) (Gerlach). There was no room for tolerance as to the cruel and obscene paganism of the idolatry in that land. They would have to extirpate every vestige of it; and by consecrating themselves to the service of Yahweh as their God, they would secure both a longcontinued tenure of the land, and an uninterrupted course of prosperity and peace (cf. Exod. xv. 26; Ps. cxliv. 12-15; Isa. iii. 16[-17]; lxv. 20.”

From all of this it should be quite clear that there can never be any coexistence between Israelites and Canaanites no matter the circumstance, individually or as a group! You will notice this quotation said in part: “The Septuagint here re-inserts vv. 5, 6 of ch, xix.” Let’s check Exod. 19:5-6 and determine whether or not it is important:

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

Again, I will use Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary to review Exod. 19:5-6. While they did quite well for the most part, I found a few of their blind spots that needed editing. I am sure that had they known Israel Identity, they would have approved:

“5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice ... and keep my covenant. God had entered into a special covenant with Abraham, guaranteeing the promise of [physical and] spiritual blessings; and if a large portion of his posterity did not secure an interest in that promise, the fault was their own. God, notwithstanding, for His love to their fathers, and for many wise and important reasons, saw fit to allow them the benefit of an external covenant. This new covenant entered into at Sinai did not make void the former covenant; – it was intermediate [conditional], and national; and as God can have no intercourse with sinners without sacrifices and without a Mediator, so this Sinai [marriage] covenant was founded on sacrifices (Heb. ix. 15, 18), and had a Mediator, Moses (Gal. iii. 19). And in an outward, typical covenant, securing temporal prosperity, so great a display of the Divine holiness was not necessary as in a covenant securing an interest in God’s special loving-kindness. Therefore, as a Mediator of less value sufficed for the former, a typical Mediator was most suitable to a typical covenant. then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me [מכלה, property, wealth, from מכלה, to get, to acquire, what is carefully stored up (1 Chr. xxix. 3) and highly prized (Ecc. ii. 8). So the Israelites were chosen as the objects of Divine favour, redeemed from bondage, and trained under the Divine care for high ends (Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi. 18; Ps. cxxxv. 4) [The Septuagint has λαὸς περιούσιος ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν] – a, people peculiar (separate) from all the nations (cf. Titus ii. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9), in which Christians are represented as the full inheritors of the [physical and] spiritual blessings [they] typically held [formerly as Israelites.], for all the earth is mine. Yahweh added this immediately after declaring that in the event of their ‘obeying His voice and keeping His covenant,’ they would be ‘a peculiar treasure unto Him,’ to show that if He chose them from amongst the nations, to confer upon them special privileges and tokens of His favour, it was not because He stood in need of them, or could derive any advantage from their services; for as ‘all the earth was His,’ in any other place He might have established His worship – to some other people He might have communicated the knowledge of His will and His worship. Hence His doing so to them was an act of pure grace. But the phrase, ‘for all the earth is mine,’ was undoubtedly used also to intimate that the import of the covenant now being made with the Israelites was not the introduction of a national religion, or for the worship of a local deity, but was designed for the ultimate benefit of the whole [Adamic] world. kingdom of priests. As the priestly order was set apart from the common mass, so the Israelites, compared with other people, were to sustain the same near relation to God – a community of [physical and] spiritual sovereigns. a holy nation – set apart to preserve the knowledge and worship of God. That this phrase directed the minds of the people to the sacerdotal order in Egypt as a privileged and consecrated body, especially as the tribe of Levi had not yet been set apart to the service of God, has been suggested by Michaelis and others. But from the sacred functions which, amongst other privileges, belonged to the eldest sons in families, they must have been perfectly able to form an idea of the meaning of the declaration that they were to be a kingdom of priests; which implied, that, as contrasted with the [non-Adamic] nations, they were to be taught by direct revelation a knowledge of the character and worship of the true God, and to stand to Him in a relation peculiarly near.” While not perfect, this commentary does help us with our research.

Considering all of this commentary, we are forced to ask the question: Is Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary correct where they stated, “The Septuagint here reinserts vv. 5, 6 of ch, xix” (or Exod. 19:5-6)? There is one thing about it, it is either a ‘re-insertion’ on the part of the translators of the Septuagint, or a deletion on the part of the custodians in charge of the Masoretic Text! And if a deletion on the part of the Masoretes, it is a very serious one! For comparison of the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text, my copy of the Septuagint by Charles Thomson reads thusly at Exod. 23:22-23:

“[22] If you will hearken diligently to this voice of Mine, and do whatever I command thee, and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a peculiar people above all the nations; for the whole earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a royal priesthood and a holy nation. These words you shall deliver to the children of Israel – If you will hearken diligently to My voice, and do all that I command thee, I will be an enemy to thy enemies, and an adversary to thy adversaries; [23] For My angel shall go before thee as thy leader, and conduct thee to the Amorite and the Chettite and the Pherezite and the Chananite and the Gergasite and the Evite and the Jebusite, and I will exterminate them.” [Correct, there are six.]

Yes, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s six volume unabridged Commentary appears to be correct where they stated, “The Septuagint here re-inserts vv. 5, 6 of ch, xix” (or Exod. 19:5-6)!

Now let us consider this prenuptial agreement by Yahweh with His Cinderella bride-to-be; that she would become to Him a royal priesthood. By the way, this same topic is addressed by the fisherman, Peter, at 1 Peter 2:9: “But ye are a chosen race, 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 ...” When Peter wrote this, he could have been addressing only the descendants of the Israelites at Exodus, chapter 23! But just who are these Israelites going to become a royal priesthood to? Each man was to be priest to his own household! Surely not to any non-Adamites, as anyone not of pure Adamic blood is slated for extermination, and those already dead are never to be resurrected! That leaves only the pure Adamites who were never under the Abrahamic covenant, yet will be resurrected under Yahweh’s promise at Genesis 3:22. But these last mentioned will not qualify to enter the city mentioned at Rev. 21:2, as they never became Yahweh’s wife, This verse reads: “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Just what or how the noncovenant pure Adamites fit into the hereafter is not entirely clear. But everyone from Adam through Terah, plus all the pureblooded descendants of Japheth and Ham are among them, and we surely don’t want to leave them out of the picture. I hope the reader is beginning to comprehend the terrible responsibility that is going to be placed in our (the Cinderella bride of Yahshua’s) hand.

Under the nuptial agreement, we promised Yahweh we would serve Him, and in return He would bless our bread and water and thereby remove sickness from us, while at the same time, our women and cattle would be fertile without the misfortune of miscarriage, and we would live to a ripe old age, Exod. 23:25-26. Before we critique these two verses, it would be advisable to read them:

“²⁵ And ye shall serve Yahweh your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. ²⁶ There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.”

About the only good observation that I could find on verse 25 is from A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole, vol. 1, page 170: “Thy bread and thy water, i.e. thy meat and thy drink, that they shall be able to nourish thee, and give thee comfort, which without my blessing they will never be able to do.” I am sure that a lot of these Englishmen writing commentaries in the 1800’s were eating pork, and very lightly passed over anything related to Yahweh’s dietary laws. But Matthew Poole points out one very important thing; that being “bread and water” represents “meat”, as well as all the foods we eat, and “drink”, as all the liquids we consume. So this verse is not just addressing “bread and water”, but our entire diet! All of Yahweh’s cursings and blessings concerning sickness and health hinge on Exod. 15:26 where we read:

“And [Moses] said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of Yahweh thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am Yahweh that healeth thee.”

You will take note here that the safeguard against disease depends wholly upon listening very carefully to Yahweh’s food and health laws, and then putting them into action. For instance, we in northwestern Ohio have a sarcastic saying that goes: “If the people in Fremont want a drink of water, they should call all the people upstream in Upper Sandusky and Tiffin to flush their toilets.” However, both Scripture and nature tell us that such waste should be returned to the land rather than our bodies of water. Any good gardener is aware that in order to build up the soil, he needs to have a compost pile. Even the trees in our forest and woods recycle their leaves by returning them to the ground. It used to be that any good farmer saved the waste generated by his farm animals, and periodically he would incorporate it into his fields, saving a lot of money buying fertilizer. When the farmer did this he was composting the animal waste to let nature recycle it with no ill effects when done properly!

While I was unable to find any worthwhile critique on Exod. 15:26 from several of my commentaries, I did locate a related comment from Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s 6-volume unabridged Commentary on the same subject at Deut. 7:14-15:

“14. Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, &c. In the covenant into which God entered with Israel, He promised to bestow upon them a variety of blessings so long as they continued obedient to Him as their heavenly King, and pledged His veracity that His infinite perfections would be exerted for this purpose, as well as for delivering them from every evil to which as a people they would be exposed. That people accordingly were truly happy as a nation, and found every promise which the faithful God made to them amply fulfilled, so long as they adhered to that obedience which was required of them. ... 16. the evil diseases of Egypt – (see Exod. xv. 26) But besides those with which Pharaoh and his subjects were visited, Egypt has always been dreadfully scourged with diseases; and the testimony of Moses is confirmed by the reports of many modern writers, who tell us that, notwithstanding its equal temperature and sereneness, that country has some indigenous maladies which are very malignant, such as ophthalmia, dysentery, small-pox, and the plague.” We should look upon these provisions of our nuptial agreement with Yahweh as a blessing rather than a hindrance!

 

 

This is my one hundred and fifty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. In the last lesson we concluded with Yahweh’s prenuptial agreement with the twelve tribes of Israel in preparation for their eventual marriage. In this letter, we’ll take up the subject of Moses taking Israel (the bride) hand-in-arm and walking her down the aisle to where her marriage to her intended husband Yahweh will take place. Those who have been following this series to this point will remember that I have continually referred to Israel as Yahweh’s Cinderella ‘bride-to-be’. And isn’t it an appropriate metaphor, as all the twelve tribes of Israel, as a people, were a slave-girl in Egypt!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 15

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

ISRAEL’S TRACK OF THE EXODUS FROM RAMESES TO WHERE THE WEDDING WAS TO TAKE PLACE, MT. SINAI:

To get a good start on this topic, I will have to repeat some excerpts from a brochure I wrote entitled, Ron Wyatt, Honest? Or Deceitful Fraud, #5. If you want to fully comprehend these excerpts, it would be advisable to get a copy of that paper:

If you thought the problem with the eight-spoked chariot wheel was detrimental, wait till you hear that Wyatt and associates searched at the wrong location in order to find any archaeological evidence that Israel ever crossed the Sea of Reeds! So the reader will understand that I’m not just spouting empty words, I would point out that I have a book entitled On The Track Of The Exodus by Lieut.-Colonel C.C. Robertson, D.S.O., with a forward by Rev. E.H. Thorold, C.B., C.B.E., M.A., D.D., Chaplain-General to the Forces, a reprint of the 1936 edition by Gale & Polden, LTD. - London, was published by Artisan Sales, by the late E. Raymond Capt. Capt who was an accomplished archaeologist would have been quite careful not to handle any books that would be misleading in his field of endeavor. So what I’m about to reveal, one might entitle ‘E. Raymond Capt vs. Ron Wyatt’.

“From the Publisher’s Forward we read in part: ‘On the Track of the Exodus, is a well-written book, deserving a wide readership. The author has studied the question of the Exodus in minute detail. He has succeeded in solving many difficulties and problems arising in respect to the traditional route of the Exodus and Mount Sinai. The result of his research presents the most probable location in which the Israelites sojourned during their long stay in the wilderness.’

“From the Author’s Preface we read in part: ‘... My acknowledgments are due to the Admiralty, for permission to publish the sketch map of a section of the Gulf of Suez based upon British Admiralty Chart No. 757; and to the War Office for their reproduction of the map entitled Elim – Zin – Sinai, from a section of Sheet 4 of the 1/250,000 Sinai Peninsula series.

“‘Mr. G.W. Murray, M.C., Director of Desert Surveys, Cairo, has given untiring help to questions regarding the physical geography of Egypt and Sinai. The topography of the country north of Aqaba is the subject of reports from the Assistant Director of Desert Surveys, Palestine, and the Director of Lands, Transjordania.’ ...”

“Now the British might do many things wrong, but one can be quite certain the British Admiralty will have up-to-date maps with every land topography properly named and located, as well as all navigation obstacles mapped-out perfectly to assure safe sailing. Knowing this, we can be quite sure that the author of this book has used only the best maps available to him. In quoting all of this from this book, you can understand my consternation when I compared Robertson’s maps with those of Ron Wyatt’s on his Internet website. Wyatt has errors all over his map.

“What Charles C. Robertson did in his research, which I am not aware of anyone else doing, was that he took into account the day-to-day movement of the 2½ to 3 million Israelites, and carefully identified potential campgrounds with Scripture, and then verified those locations by the topography of the area as best he could. When one contemplates these 2½ to 3 million Israelites moving along on foot with their cattle and pack animals, some pulling two-wheeled carts with the supplies they would need, the problem with logistics is mind boggling! For anyone who would want to simulate such an experience, I suggest that they plan to walk sometime to a nearby town about 25 miles away, with no rest stops or restaurants along the way.

“Now the body of water we often refer to as the ‘Red Sea’, if properly translated from the Hebrew, would be the ‘Sea of Reeds’. Robertson, on his map, shows that in ancient times both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba were designated as the Sea of Reeds. The traditional view, which was also the view of Wyatt, was that the Gulf of Aqaba was the Biblical ‘Red Sea’. But Robertson, in his meticulous research, determined that it rather had to be the Gulf of Suez. The question at this point is: Upon what information has Wyatt concluded his estimate of where Israel crossed the Sea of Reeds?

At this point, I would invite everyone interested in this subject to obtain a copy of Robertson’s book and compare the contents with the allegations of Ron Wyatt and come to their own conclusions! I will point out, however, if the Israelites crossed through the Gulf of Aqaba at the location Wyatt identifies (according to his map), they could very easily have marched around the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba to the other side. On the other hand, if the Israelites crossed through the Gulf of Suez, as Robertson suggests, it was because they had no place where they could escape from the Egyptians, as the Biblical account verifies. The formidable ‘Wall of the Ruler’ divided Egypt from Arabia roughly along the line of the modern Suez Canal (ANET. p. 19). Hence, in short, under Wyatt’s hypothesis, the Israelites were not trapped and could have escaped the Egyptians, but under Robertson’s premise, the Israelites were trapped without any prospect of escaping the Egyptians, other than the intervention of Yahweh. Now I wouldn’t suggest that Robertson is correct on every account, but he displays a whole lot more scholarship than Ron Wyatt!

Also, the factor of a ‘strong east wind’ at Exod. 14:21 is important, as it is compatible with the Gulf of Suez and incompatible with the Gulf of Aqaba. Robertson stated, p. 70: ‘The Hebrews observed four points of the compass only – north, south, east and west. The east covered all bearings between north-east and south-east. A wind blowing straight up the Gulf of Suez would be termed an east wind. The ‘strong east wind’ of Ex. 14:21, may therefore have driven the sea up the gulf without affecting the coast lands.’ In other words, an east wind at the Gulf of Suez would blow the water lengthwise up the channel, while at the Gulf of Aqaba, it would blow crosswise from shore to shore. A little detail Ron Wyatt and company completely overlooked! There are many other holes in Wyatt’s story!”

Then in Ron Wyatt, Honest? Or Deceitful Fraud, #7 I wrote:

With this paper we cover another phase of the intrigues of Ron Wyatt and company. With this issue we will consider that the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites involved travel by both land and water. In fact, had there not been a nautical route as well as a land route, the whole expedition could not have happened! To demonstrate this, I will quote chapter 2 entitled ‘The Nile Influence’, from the book On The Track Of The Exodus, by Charles C. Robertson, which I purchased from E. Raymond Capt’s Artisan Sales:

“‘The rise to power of the foremost kingdoms in early history, those of Egypt and Babylon, resulted from their similar control of a great river highway with its outlet to the sea. This is clearly expressed by F.J. Atkins’ How Europe Grew, as follows:

“‘Water is the great carrier. The river stream floats loads which could never in early days have been moved by land. The paths traced out through hills and mountain ranges by rivers and their tributaries are the easiest paths through these barren regions. With the importance of water thus well in mind we shall turn naturally to great water-courses as the seats and centres of our oldest and most stable civilizations; and of all the rivers of the earth, none springs more readily to our minds than that great river of North Africa, the Nile.

“‘Commerce was then, as now, the main factor in national prosperity; and where trade was water-borne commerce flourished exceedingly. But the great river highways served more especially the purposes of national defence. By their means only could large forces be moved with rapidity over the whole extent of the kingdom, to meet attack at any threatened point.

“‘The rise to power of Egypt may be attributed to these two great sources of national prosperity, commerce and security, afforded by the Nile. But to further safeguard the kingdom, and to obtain access to the southern seas also for their commerce, a ship canal was constructed joining the Nile with the head of the Gulf of Suez.

“‘From the guide to Egyptian Collections in the British Museum (p. 386) – Necho (609-593 B.C.) – ‘He recut and enlarged the old canal which in the time of Seti I joined the Nile and the Red Sea.’

“‘The actual construction of the ship canal appears to have been one of the great works of the Old Kingdom.

“‘In Breasted’s Records of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, p. 102, he deals with the voyage of Queen Hatshepsut from Thebes to Punt (c. 1494 B.C.) wherein the same ships which sailed from Thebes down the Nile appear also on the voyage down the Red Sea [by way of the Gulf of Suez]. Breasted infers the existence at this early period of the ship canal joining the Nile with the Gulf of Suez. [inside of brackets mine]

“‘In Egypt and Syria, by Sir J.W. Dawson C.M.G., LL.D. F.R.S., a clear appreciation may be gained of the value of Goshen to the Israelites: ‘The land of Goshen where Jacob and his sons settled extends eastwards from the Nile to the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. One of the numerous branches into which the Nile divides in the Delta ran eastward along the Wady Tumilat [through Goshen].

“‘In this district the Israelites had not only a rich agricultural country but open pastures on either side and were in a position to control much of the trade and intercourse of Egypt with the East, and to act as carriers between the former and Palestine and Arabia.

“‘The recent surveys of the British Military Engineers also render it certain that this valley once carried a branch of the Nile, which discharged its waters into the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. This branch, or a canal representing it, must have existed at the time of Moses.

“‘Goshen was separated to a great degree from the rest of Egypt, and was eminently suited to be the residence of a pastoral and agricultural people. At the date of the Exodus the Court of Pharaoh was in Zoan, or Tanis, about 30 miles north of Goshen.

“‘Moses and Aaron passed to and fro from Rameses to Zoan.

“‘It also seems certain that in the time of Moses a large volume of the Nile was, during the inundation, sent eastwards to the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez].

“‘I attach much importance to the fact that the extensive deposits of Nile mud in the Wady Tumilat [through Goshen] prove the flow in ancient times of a considerable branch of the Nile eastward into the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez]. This conclusion which I had reached independently from a study of the district my friends Col. Ardagh and Col. Scott Moncrieff, who are the best possible authorities, informed me they considered certain.

“‘But a very slight elevation or silting up of the Red Sea [sic Sea of Reeds or Gulf of Suez] would obstruct this arm of the Nile and impair the water communication, and the fertility of the district. Of such results we have no evidence till the reign of Seti I, some time before [sic after] the Exodus, when it became necessary to cut a canal through the Wady Tumilat, and this canal had to be reopened and extended to the southward by successive rulers down to the Roman period, as the difficulty of maintaining it increased.’

“‘By their settlement in Goshen, the Israelites had access to the Mediterranean Sea by the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, now nonexistent. According to Prince Omar Toussoum, who has made a study of the ancient branches of the Nile, the Pelusiac branch crossed the line of the Suez Canal about 12 miles north of Kantara. (Memoire sur les anciennes branches du Nil – époque ancienne – ch. iii and plate xi.)

“‘Through communication was this possible between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, by means of the Wadi Tumilat Canal linking the Pelusiac Nile with the Gulf of Suez.

“‘The Israelites had every opportunity to develop a fishing fleet both in the Mediterranean and in the Gulf of Suez, of which the upper waters came within their territory. They were in a position to carry on overseas trade, north and south, to the full extent of what maritime enterprise they possessed [during their period of freedom in Egypt].

“‘Life on the Nile Delta meant for them a complete change from that of a nomadic people concerned mainly with flocks and herds. If the Israelites failed to become a great nation under such favourable conditions for expansion, the cause could not lie in any territorial disadvantage.’

“The interesting part of this story is about the voyage of Queen Hatshepsut from Thebes to Punt circa 1494 B.C., where the same ships which sailed from Thebes down the Nile appear also on the voyage down the Red Sea to Punt. Punt was located on the east shore of the Red Sea about 400 miles south of where the Gulf of Suez joins the greater body of the Red Sea. If there were no canal at the time of Queen Hatshepsut’s voyage, she would have had to sail downstream on the Nile to the Mediterranean Sea, and then west to the present day Strait of Gibraltar; then turn south in the Atlantic Ocean to South Africa; around the Cape Of Good Hope; then northward up the east coast of Africa past present-day Somalia; enter the Gulf of Aden; enter the Red Sea and sail northward up to Punt. Either that, or she sailed on a magic carpet over the desert sands from Thebes to Punt. So, if it was a boat trip from Thebes to Punt, there must have been a canal! Inasmuch as the Nile is higher in elevation than sea level, it would be interesting to know how they controlled the flow of water in ancient days. When I was doing my research on Egypt, I remember reading about a canal, and there was some conjecture that it was built under the direction of Joseph, and even possibly named after him. I briefly mentioned that canal in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #33. I will continue later in Robertson’s book where he again comments on this theme, in chapter 15, entitled “Review From Tor” (a town on the east side of the Gulf of Suez where the Israelites probably crossed what was then known as the Sea of Reeds), pp. 78-79:

 

 

“‘Water is the great carrier.’

“‘The conduct of the Exodus from the land of Goshen north of the Gulf of Suez to the land of Midian north of the Gulf of Akaba (Aqaba) brings into prominence the fact that there is a perfectly good navigable waterway without interruption between Suez and Akaba. The distance by sea is 320 miles. By land, straight across the Sinai Peninsula, the distance is 200 miles.

“‘The problem of transport between Goshen and Midian may be considered apart from conditions of strategy. Let us suppose that no restrictions were imposed as to ‘the way of the land of the Philistines’ being barred; that there were [at that time] no Egyptians, Canaanites, nor Amalekites; and that Moses had nothing to consider beyond means of transport for the Israel migration from one country to the other.

“‘Having assembled the Israelites at the head of the Gulf of Suez, with the open choice of water or land transport for baggage and supplies, would Moses avail himself of the opportunity to make use of water as the great carrier? The alternative methods of transport were by camel, or wagon, and pack ass.

“‘Add to the Land Transport figures the extra transport for food for men and animals for a march of twenty days.”

“Then Robertson used a chart created by Captain A.H.F. Young, R.N.R., comparing the various methods of transportation in ancient times, which I won’t reproduce here, but only show his results which are beyond criticism by any reasonable, thinking person:

“‘The table is explained as follows: one sailing barge, suitable for river and canal work, length 73 feet, bretext-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 50%;p style=Arial, sans-serifArial, sans-serif align=adth 14 feet (depth 9 feet), will carry 90 tons weight of goods by water. The land transport required for the same weight of goods is 360 camels, or 45 ox wagons, or 900 pack asses.

“‘One sea-going sailing barge, length 90 feet, breadth 22 feet (depth 9 feet), takes I80 tons burden; for which 720 camels, or 90 ox wagons, or 1,800 pack asses are required.

“‘This table of water transport was kindly supplied by Captain A.H.F. Young, R.N.R., and is of utmost value in demonstrating the astonishing advantage of water over land transport. Nothing can be more convincing to prove how water is the great carrier, and if any doubt still exists as to whether water or land transport for supplies was adopted for the Exodus, it must rest solely on absence of direct statement in the narrative. But – given a flotilla of ships and barges at the head of the Gulf of Suez – there could be no necessity for great convoys of supplies by land.

“‘And, if the route west of the Gulf of Suez is accepted, then such a flotilla was a necessary factor for the transport of the migration to the east side of the gulf at the Tor crossing.

“‘It is not too much to say that, with regard to the great number of three million [of Israelites] under consideration, the transport of baggage and supplies would have been impossible had water transport not been available.

“‘In their eagerness to facilitate the departure of the Israelites, according to the narrative, the Egyptians would have [previously] placed all their available shipping at Moses’ disposal; to be ‘returned empty’ doubtless after the [sea route] disembarkation at Akaba.

“‘If passage is desired from Africa into Asia, this can only be effected by land across the line of the Suez Canal. If this is impracticable, then the sea must be crossed, either over the Gulf of Suez or the [greater body of the] Red Sea.

“‘The existence of shipping for the transport of the Israelite migration, though not apparent in the Bible narrative, was an absolute necessity and therefore an actual factor of the Exodus.

“‘In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the conclusion is that Moses conducted the Exodus as a ‘land and sea’ operation; by taking advantage of the sea route, or the southern trade route, between Egypt and Midian.

“‘Of course, this is ‘not in the Bible.’ But why should it be? The transport of supplies and baggage was an auxiliary service, requiring no specific mention in the record of the migration.”

The reader will notice that I have slightly edited Robertson in order for a better understanding of his narrative. While we may not agree entirely with Robertson, we have to give him credit for showing us the logistics of moving 2½ to 3 million people 400 miles just to get to the location for crossing the Sea of Reeds (the Gulf of Suez). No doubt the Migdol-Tor crossing was the intended crossing, even had the Egyptians not pursued them to force them to return to Goshen. Now the Israelites didn’t simply pack themselves a sandwich and a canteen of water and start marching off into the desert! Had they tried such a thing in our day, just think how many porta-johns they would have had to rent. Just consider what you might do if you were going to have 2½ to 3 million hungry mouths to feed three times a day for twenty days. Just sit down with pencil and paper and figure the grocery list you would have to shop for (and they didn’t have any grocery stores back then). And how many camp stoves one might need to cook that much food (and they didn’t have camp stoves back then). And while you are at it, figure how many camels, or ox wagons, or pack donkeys one might need to carry all of that food and water, plus the food and the water the animals would consume! Under these circumstances, wouldn’t you, if possible, try to ship most of this by water? If you agree, then you need one more thing; a waterway beside the road you are going to take. And it was there in the form of a canal, two lakes and the Gulf of Suez. If Queen Hatshepsut could use that waterway, so could Israel! And if Israel did go that route, it rules out Ron Wyatt’s Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis! Even at the Migdol-Tor crossing, Israel still had about 200 more miles to go! Not only that, but the proposed route by Wyatt would have left Israel out in the middle of the desert without anything to eat!

Now we shall investigate another serious problem with Ron Wyatt’s theory of Israel’s crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez. I will cite pages 81-82 of Robertson’s book, chapter 16 entitled ‘From Tor To Akaba’:

“‘The conclusion arrived at in this chapter may be stated at once: ‘The Israel nation as a whole never penetrated the Sinai Peninsula’ [yet Ron Wyatt claims they did, C.A.E.].

“‘Their next objective was to establish the base at the head of the Gulf of Akaba (Aqaba). The same procedure could have been observed had the country been open; the marching columns, pack and wheel transport, with the flocks and herds by land; the supplies flotilla by sea. But it can be confidently stated on the authority of the Director of Desert Surveys that the movement of large columns over the Southern Sinai country is impracticable. The case against the multitude of the children of Israel crossing Sinai could not be better stated than in Doughty, Arabia Deserta, p. 61: ‘The breadth of our slow marching motley lines, in the plains might be an hundred paces. What may we think of the caravan of Moses? if we should reckon all Israel at 2,500,000 souls and four camels abreast, which, according to my observation, is more than might commonly pass in the strait valleys of Sinai encumbered with fallen quarters of rocks. The convoy of Israel should be four hundred times this Haj train, or more than two hundred leagues long; and from the pillar of cloud or fire to the last footman of Jacob would be more journeys than days in the longest month of the year.’

“‘From Mr. Murray’s personal knowledge of every route, track and pass over the Sinai Peninsula there is only one practicable route for a cross-country march from Tor to Akaba; and this route, though possible for a marching column with the flocks and herds, would be difficult; and the movement of the whole Israel nation, with ox carts for the women and children, and vast supplies of food over this route an absolute impossibility.

“‘The only route considered passable leads from Tor by the plain El Gaa into the Wadi Feiran; and thence by the Wadi es Sheikh over a low pass into the El Hezin country, where the Wadi Zelega affords a route to the coast a few miles below the head of the Gulf of Akaba.

“‘On the western coast of the Gulf of Akaba the mountains come down abruptly to the sea. There is no shore road. An examination of naval charts shows no submerged shore line similar to that of the Gulf of Suez. The Israel migration as a whole could neither have traversed the Sinai Peninsula, nor could they have followed a coastal route.

“‘It becomes apparent that the second stage of the migration, from Tor to Akaba, was effected mainly by sea transport. Half the shipping required for supplies was now empty, and available for transport of personnel and vehicles. The voyage onward to Akaba could be completed by relays. The landward march formed a convoy for the flocks and herds by the route indicated.

“‘We have to follow the narrative as best we may, and it must be borne in mind that the records are very ancient; they are not an absolutely connected statement; the text is sometimes interrupted and resumed later after a digression on a totally different subject. Throughout Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy these difficulties occur and the student may well feel baffled at times in trying to make any sequence of events. Bits of history are mixed up with law and ceremony, which may give place for no obvious reason to a genealogical table. Repetitions of the same event are presented apparently by different writers. The whole construction is dealt with in Literature of the Bible, by Driver.

“‘Num. 33 gives an itinerary of marches which agrees generally but not exactly with the rest of the text.

“‘In certain passages a change of meaning has resulted from translation, and some Hebrew words or expressions lose their value entirely if rendered exactly into English. The expression, for instance, ‘three score and ten palm trees’ in Ex. 15:27, denotes a vast number, not the figure 70. In the same verse, ‘twelve wells of water’ is unfortunate. ‘Wells’ should be ‘springs,’ indicative of running water; and therefore of water courses. The passage denotes a well-watered and thickly wooded country.

“‘If the Bible is read with the exact text word for word, insisted on there is a loss in value. One commentator, writing on some spot in the desert he thinks must be Elim (Ex. 15:27), says: ‘There are only nine wells left, the others being filled up with drifts of sand. But the seventy palm trees have become a thousand.’ And what use would twelve wells be to the thousands of Israelites and great herds of cattle? ...”

The main paragraph to be noted from this last quotation is: ‘On the western coast of the Gulf of Akaba the mountains come down abruptly to the sea. There is no shore road. An examination of naval charts shows no submerged shore line similar to that of the Gulf of Suez. The Israel migration as a whole could neither have traversed the Sinai Peninsula, nor could they have followed a coastal route.’ [contrary to Ron Wyatt].

What is important for the reader to comprehend is the fact that had Israel taken the route proposed by Ron Wyatt of crossing the Gulf of Aqaba rather than the Gulf of Suez, when they supposedly would have arrived at the western shoreline, they would have had to be prepared immediately to climb mountains. Can anyone really believe that 2½ to 3 million Israelites, with all of their animals, could do such a thing? It is true that just a few short miles over those mountains to the east was the land of Midian, but the way the Israelites got there was by going around the northern apex of the Gulf of Aqaba rather than through it.

Sure, there might be roads there today, but in Moses’ time, they had no explosives to blast their way through the mountains! Not only that, but the chariots of that day could not maneuver over mountains, or even rough, rocky surfaces on the level!

For those who are on my U.S. Postal mail list for Sept-Oct 2010, I included a map from On The Track Of the Exodus by C.C. Robertson showing his view on the matter. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Walvoord & Zuck, who generally do well on Old Testament history but very poorly on prophecy, seems to support Robertson’s thesis where they state in Numbers:

“33:1-5. Among the records Moses kept at Yahweh’s command was a complete itinerary of the journey of Israel from Egypt to the plains of Moab. ... It is impossible to know if this list is absolutely comprehensive or notes only the places considered important in their travels. Also most of the place names can no longer be identified or correlated with modern names and places. They set out from Rameses (perhaps a later name for Tanis, the Hyksos city, Ex. 1:11; 12:37) in the Egyptian Delta on the day after the first Passover (Nisan 15) and made their first encampment at Succoth. This first stop was perhaps the present Tell el-Maskhutah, about 40 miles southeast of Rameses.

“33:6-8. They next went to Etham, on the edge of the desert (cf. Ex. 13:20). They turned back north to Pi Hahiroth ... east of Baal Zephon, and Migdol (‘tower’), where they camped. Here the Israelites seemed to be trapped by the Egyptians between the sea and the desert. Apparently they suddenly headed east or southeast, crossing one of the bodies of water (... ‘Reed Sea’ or ‘Sea of [Papyrus] Reeds,’) mistakenly called the Red Sea. ... After three days ... they camped at Marah in the Desert of Etham (or Shur, Ex. 15:22). Marah cannot be located precisely’.”

From A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, volume 1 of 6, p. 324, a little more light is shed on this incident:

“Exodus 14:1-4 God Instructs The Israelites As To Their Journey: 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp – The Israelites had now completed their three days’ journey, and at Etham the decisive step would have to be taken whether they would celebrate their intended feast and return, or march onwards by the head of the Red Sea into the desert, with a view to a final departure. They were already on the borders of the desert, and a short march would have placed them beyond the reach of pursuit, as the chariots of Egypt could have made little progress over dry and yielding sand. But at Etham, instead of pursuing their journey eastward with the sea on their right, they were suddenly commanded to diverge to the south, keeping the gulf on their left; a route which not only detained them lingering on the confines of Egypt, but, in adopting it, they actually turned their backs on the land of which they had set out to obtain possession. A movement so unexpected, and of which the ultimate design was carefully concealed, could not but excite the astonishment of all, even of Moses himself, although, from his implicit faith in the wisdom and power of his heavenly Guide, he obeyed. The object was to entice Pharaoh to pursue, in order that the moral effect, which the judgments on Egypt had produced in releasing God’s people from bondage, might be still further extended over the nations by the awful events transacted at the Red Sea.”

Within 20 miles south of the Bitter Lake, Moses had to decide whether to proceed south along the east shore of the Gulf of Suez, or continue south along the west shore, but Yahweh chose the west shore so the Egyptians would fall into a trap of their own making! This would suggest the Migdol-Tor crossing. In fact, there is no possible way for an incident such as this to have happened had the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba rather the Gulf of Suez!

This is my one hundred and fifty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my thirteenth year of publication. Since lesson #137, I have been presenting a series entitled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. I had given a general overview before starting the seven stages of this story, which are as follows: (1) the courtship, (2) the marriage, (3) the honeymoon, (4) the estrangement, (5) the divorce, (6) the reconciliation, and (7) the remarriage. It is a fact that the most neglected story of the Bible is the marriage of Yahweh to His chosen people, the twelve tribes of Israel (not to be confused with the proselytized Kenite-Edomite-Canaanite-jews of today falsely claiming to be Israelites). Once haven taken Yahweh as our Husband, things went well for a while, but as time proceeded, we started to break our marriage vows with Him, thus becoming unfaithful to Him. Therefore, He had only one alternative, and that was to give us a bill of divorce. Although He provided a way for us to return to His favor, it is not an easy one, and has taken quite some time to transpire!

THE GREATEST LOVE STORY EVER TOLD, Part 16

“THE MARRIAGE” continued:

ISRAEL’S TRACK OF THE EXODUS FROM RAMESES TO WHERE THE WEDDING WAS TO TAKE PLACE, MT. SINAI:

Sometimes there are particular subjects so important they bear repeating. At the end of the last lesson I had quoted from A Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, volume 1 of 6, p. 324, where it shed some light on the route of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt thusly:

“Exodus 14:1-4, God Instructs The Israelites As To Their Journey: 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp – The Israelites had now completed their three days’ journey, and at Etham the decisive step would have to be taken whether they would celebrate their intended feast and return, or march onwards by the head of the Red Sea into the desert, with a view to a final departure. They were already on the borders of the desert, and a short march would have placed them beyond the reach of pursuit, as the chariots of Egypt could have made little progress over dry and yielding sand. But at Etham, instead of pursuing their journey eastward with the sea on their right, they were suddenly commanded to diverge to the south, keeping the gulf on their left; a route which not only detained them lingering on the confines of Egypt, but, in adopting it, they actually turned their backs on the land of which they had set out to obtain possession. A movement so unexpected, and of which the ultimate design was carefully concealed, could not but excite the astonishment of all, even of Moses himself, although, from his implicit faith in the wisdom and power of his heavenly Guide, he obeyed. The object was to entice Pharaoh to pursue, in order that the moral effect, which the judgments on Egypt had produced in releasing God’s people from bondage, might be still further extended over the nations by the awful events transacted at the Red Sea.”

It should be noted that this source places the Israelites at Etham, or at the head of the Red Sea, which is very reasonable as the distance traveled from Rameses would be about 100 miles. Also, this could not have been the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt claims, as that would place the Israelites near Eloth, and they would have had to traverse mountains on either side of the gulf. Besides, it would have to be a location where Israel would be trapped were it not for the miracle of the parting of the waters. Only the Gulf of Suez fits the criteria for Israel’s crossing! Also, only the Gulf of Suez fits the criteria for Yahweh instructing Moses to guide the Israelites where “they were suddenly commanded to diverge to the south, keeping the gulf on their left”. Therefore, the Gulf of Aqaba is completely out of any reasonable consideration, making Ron Wyatt and company into clowns!

THE TIME FACTOR INVOLVED

Not only can we establish the Gulf of Suez as the place where the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds, but Scripture gives us a timetable for the first three months of their track on the Exodus. For this timetable I will follow the outline of James L. Porter in his The Sabbaths Of God, chapter 3, entitled “Pentecost”, pp. 75-78, except I will write it in my own words. This strategy lets you exclude unnecessary reference, as it is Biblically based.

First of all, in order to get a handle on this timetable, it will be necessary to quote a couple passages of Scripture:

Lev. 23:15-16: “¹⁵ And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: ¹⁶ Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto Yahweh.”

Lev. 23:21: “²¹ And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.”

We should understand that there was an original day of Pentecost which was to be commemorated annually, along with two other required feast days in Israel’s calendar. Many Christians today are aware that it was at an annual observance of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on what was to become Christ’s Holy Assembly (or called-out ones), as recorded at Acts 2:1. Those who call themselves “New Testament only Christians” completely overlook this very important fact. If they haven’t researched what the original Pentecost was all about, they shouldn’t even be given an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject! To entirely comprehend just what Pentecost commemorates, it is paramount that one carefully analyze the events that transpired from the original day of Passover in Egypt until the original day of Pentecost at Mount Sinai fifty days later! As the original day of Pentecost was for Israel only (and no other people), likewise every Pentecost since then is for Israel only!

Yahweh has so scheduled Pentecost so that it must be kept on the same weekday each year, always falling on the first day, or our Sunday. This is determined by counting fifty days from the weekly Sabbath in the week of Unleavened Bread. To understand how all of this fits together, one must examine Israel’s journey leaving Egypt and come to a knowledge of what occurred on the first day of Pentecost. In order to accomplish this, we will need to take into account:

ISRAEL’S JOURNEY TO MOUNT SINAI: It may come as a surprise for many, but the calendar for the first three months of the year that Israel left Egypt can be reconstructed from the evidence contained in the book of Exodus:

Exod. 16:1: “¹ And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.

It can be determined that the fifteenth day of the second month was a Sabbath based upon the events that began at eventide. It was at that time that Yahweh demonstrated to Israel which day was His Sabbath. That evening, He gave them quail for meat, and the next morning He started providing them with manna for bread which continued for forty years during their sojourn there. To identify the weekdays very clearly, on the sixth day a double portion was given, while on the seventh day none was provided. It is stated that Yahweh’s purpose for doing this was a test by Him to see whether or not Israel would walk in His laws.

It just so happens, if we reconstruct a calendar where the first month has thirty days while the second has twenty-nine, and the third month thirty, all the dates in Exodus coincide perfectly, which is substantial evidence that Israel was using a lunar calendar! I will reproduce a somewhat similar calendar to James L. Porter’s here on the next page:

First Month: 

14th = Passover lamb killed; 15th = First Day of Unleavened Bread;

18th = Potential Wave Sheaf Date Instituted at a Later Time;

21st = Last Day of Unleavened Bread.

1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

Second Month: 

15th = Quail sent in evening – next morning began six days of manna, followed by a Weekly Sabbath.

						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29

Third Month: 

4th = Israel Arrived at Mt. Sinai;

7th = Ten Commandments Spoken By Yahweh;

8th = The first Feast of Pentecost.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

Exod. 19:1-2: “¹ In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. ² For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.”

This last passage is somewhat obscure, but apparently what is meant is that the children of Israel arrived at Mount Sinai on the very same week day (within twenty-four hours) as they had left Egypt. The Israelites had been instructed to make ready to leave Egypt Passover night which started Wednesday at sunset, then in the morning they were given permission to finally leave their homes in Egypt, never to return.

The main problem with James L. Porter’s reconstructed calendar of these three months is that it doesn’t show the change of one day to another at sunset. As a result, I had to make a few minor changes, but by-and-large he had most of his entries correct. The astonishing thing about this reconstructed calendar is that it is, as far as Passover week is concerned, identical to the week (day for day) that Christ was crucified!

What is even more interesting than Porter’s commentary for the first three months of Israel’s track on the Exodus with his reconstructed calendar, is the addendum he securely glued to the back hard cover of his book after it was printed, realizing he had erred on certain pages. I really have to admire a man, who upon finding he was wrong, would humbly admit it and set the record straight. This is what Porter did in his addendum, which I will quote in its entirety:

“Addendum to The Sabbaths of God by James L. Porter, Exposition Press, Inc.

“CHANGE IN COUNTING PENTECOST: This addendum is written to revise and correct the counting of Pentecost to conform to scripture. The writer [meaning James L. Porter] was in error in counting the days to determine the day of Pentecost. Pentecost should be observed on the first day of the week instead of the second day, as originally stated in the book, (See pg. 115).

“There is no general agreement among Sabbath-observing Christians on the date of Pentecost. A large group observes Pentecost on Monday; some observe it on Sunday; and some follow the Jews and observe Pentecost on the 6th day of the third month. Surely the occurrence of such an important day to Christians can be determined without question.

“There is only one true Pentecost day that God gave to His people Israel. This was the day on which He entered into the covenant agreement with Israel, and also the day that the new covenant – the giving of the Holy Spirit – was bestowed upon the followers of Jesus Christ.

“There are three lines of evidence which show Pentecost day occurs on the first day of the week.

“SCRIPTURAL METHOD OF COUNTING DAYS: In spite of the fact that the Jews are in error in the day they observe as Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), they do use the scriptural method of counting days. This method is different than that customarily used today. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:

“‘... Hebrew numeration always includes the day which is the terminus a quo as well as that which is term ad quem.’, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Pentecost, pg. 123.

“The day from which the counting is begun as well as the day to which the counting is directed, are both counted [by Hebrews] when [they] number days. This was also the method of counting days used in the New Testament as shown by John 20:26.

“John 20:26: ‘And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them ...’

“Bible commentaries state this means that this appearance occurred on the same day the following week. Today, we would use the phrase ‘a week later’, but if the first day and the terminal day are counted as they are in scripture, ‘a week later’ is written as ‘after eight days.’ The Expositor’s Bible (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Pub. Co.) 1956; Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd) 1962 The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon-Cokesbury Press); Bible Handbook (Halley, Zondervan Pub. House).

“When this system of counting days is applied to the counting of Pentecost, the fiftieth day becomes the day to be observed, not the following day which was mistakenly given in [my] book. If fifty days are counted beginning on the first day of the week (the day following the Sabbath), the fiftieth day will occur on Sunday, seven weeks later.

“COUNTING OF JUBILEE AND PENTECOST SAME: In addition to the weekly and annual Sabbaths, God gave Israel Sabbath years in which the land was to rest in the same manner as the people rested each week on the Sabbath day. He instructed Israel to number seven Sabbath years and the following year – the fiftieth – was to be a Jubilee Year, (See pg. 198).

“The system of numbering seven Sabbath years to determine the Jubilee Year is the same system God gave for the numbering of Pentecost. Seven Sabbath days were to be counted and the fiftieth day was to be Pentecost. When the system of numbering for Jubilee is followed for numbering Pentecost, Pentecost will always occur on the first day of the week.

“SADDUCEES OBSERVED PENTECOST ON SUNDAY: The Sadduceean party was composed of priests. They were opposed by the Pharisees on a number of doctrines, the observance of Pentecost being one of the most important. Since the office of the priest was inherited, the Sadducees method of counting Pentecost represents an older and more scriptural view than that of the Pharisees. This is shown by the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Sadducees,The Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls Co.), 1901 pg. 631-632:

“‘They [Sadducees] contended that the seven weeks from the first barley sheaf-offering (omer) to Pentecost should, according to Lev. XXIII 15-16, be counted from ‘the day after Sabbath,’ and, consequently, that Pentecost should always be celebrated on the first day of the week. In this they obviously followed the old Biblical view which regards the festival of the firstlings as having no connection whatsoever with the Passover feast; whereas the Pharisees, connecting the festival of the Exodus with the festival of the giving of the Law, interpreted the ‘morrow after the Sabbath to signify the second day of Passover.’

“Note that the Sadducees observed Pentecost on Sunday and the admission that this represents an old Biblical view. It was the priests’ duty to announce the holy days and to offer the appropriate sacrifices God had commanded. After the destruction of the Temple, the priests (Sadducees) lost their position and their power to influence the Jewish people who thereafter followed the Pharisees. T/span width=td style=text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 105%;JUSTIFYherefore, today the Jews observe Pentecost on the 6th day of the third month because they begin counting the fifty days on the 16th day of the first month, not on the day following the weekly Sabbath, (See pg. 118).

“SCRIPTURAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COUNTING PENTECOST: ‘Lev. 23:15-16: ‘¹⁵ And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath from the day that ye brought the sheaf op align=font-family: Arial,sans-serif;/emf the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall there be complete: ¹⁶ Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days ...’

“Applying the scriptural method of counting days to these instructions, the fiftieth day (the morrow after the Sabbath, seven weeks later) becomes the one God designated as His holy day. This fits the pattern by which the jubilee year is counted. It is also the day the ancient priests observed when they ministered in the Temple. Therefore Pentecost should be observed on Sunday, one day earlier than the date given in the calendar in this book on pg. 352. James L. Porter, Valley Center, Kansas, January, 1969.” [End of Porter’s addendum.]

When I run into situations of finding new data like this from James L. Porter and his book The Sabbaths of God, which shed new light on a subject, I like to play the part of an investigative detective, especially when there is a conflict in the evidence. At page 75, Porter had just finished a chapter entitled “Passover and The Feast of Unleavened Bread” where he was starting a new chapter entitled “Pentecost”. In a short space between the two chapters, he had hand-printed a note “See Addendum”. I could determine from this that he, upon rereading his first book off the press, discovered his error of conflicting subject matter. In addition to this, there is another telltale piece of evidence in the last sentence of the chapter where he placed his hand-printed note. Summarizing the chapter, he stated: “Thus if a feast day fell on a Thursday, the feast would begin on Wednesday evening when the sun set, and last until Thursday evening at sunset.” This sentence conflicted with his reconstructed calendar in the next chapter, and is one of the reasons for my editing of his calendar. However, this does not completely ruin his otherwise good scholarship.

As I pointed out before, Porter’s reconstructed calendar, as far as Passover week is concerned, is identical to the week (day for day) that Christ was crucified! The following is what I wrote in my Noon To Noon Madness, (part one):

“Surely, Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James) and Salome would have known that Yahshua was crucified on the day of preparation, for their actions speak louder than words. Actually, there were two sabbaths the week of Christ’s death (the high Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath). Let’s follow these three ladies through Scripture. Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 provide us evidence of two Sabbaths.

“Mark 16:1: ‘And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that they might come and anoint him.’ (A.R.V.) [A.V. incorrectly ‘had bought’]

“Luke 23:56: ‘And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.’

“Thus, we can reconstruct the final days of Christ’s death and His three days in the grave and His Resurrection. In terms of our week, the Crucifixion fell on Wednesday. Thursday was the High Sabbath. These three ladies purchased the spices on Friday (a non-sabbath), and rested on Saturday (a weekly Sabbath). Then going to the tomb on Sunday to anoint Yahshua’s body (the first day of the week), they found the tomb empty.”

Then as I wrote in my Noon To Noon Madness, (part 5) I stated:

“Most overlook the passage at Matt. 27:62-66, that Yahshua would be in the grave three days and three nights: ‘Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.’ With this watch, the two Marys had no access to the tomb until the first day of the week, preventing the anointing of His body until that time! A Friday crucifixion would have required a Sunday purchase and preparation of the spices, falsifying Mark 16:2.

“Consulting Luke 23:55-56 we find: ‘And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his [dead] body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment’.”

It should now be increasingly clear that the original week of Passover, and countdown to Pentecost happened in identical months and days of the week as those of Christ’s crucifixion! Not only that, but this new evidence from James L. Porter, and verification from Scripture, reveal that it could only have been determined by a lunar calendar! Not a “lunar only” calendar but a “solar-lunar calendar”! How else could a reconstructed lunar calendar synchronize so fittingly otherwise? If it were a “lunar only” calendar, there is no way the account at Exod. 16:11-29 could be correct in the “second month”! It is not entirely clear whether Yahweh sent the quail shortly before or shortly after sunset on Saturday the 15th of the second month, but it is fully apparent that the next morning was the first day of the week when Israel initially received the manna. Why don’t the “lunar only” and “solar only” advocates resolve the evidence found on this in Exodus chapter 16? I would also like to know how one would establish a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th month in a solar only calendar without the moon to figure the annual feast days by!

Eli James, a “solar only” calendar advocate stated in part in his The Great Impersonation, p. 267, “... There are two lights in the sky which divide times and seasons. They are the Sun by day and the stars by night. We can navigate the oceans according to these lights, but not by the moon. We can tell the seasons by the Sun’s angles and by the constellations. The moon does not tell us seasons or times of day. Nor does the moon shine by its own light, so the moon is a non-factor. Any lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar is unbiblical and therefore unfit for true Israel.”

Is Psalm 104:19 unbiblical?

“He appointed the moon3394 for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.”

Is Psalm 136:8-9 unbiblical?

“⁸ The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever: ⁹ The moon3394 and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.”

Is Psalm 148:3 unbiblical?

“Praise ye him, sun and moon3394: praise him, all ye stars of light.”

Is Deuteronomy 33:14 unbiblical?

“And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon3391 ...” This verse implies that the moon is as important as the Sun for bringing forth agricultural produce. Also, a woman’s rhythmic cycle is governed by the moon, and we could be devoid of children without it!

Is 1 Corinthians 15:41 in the New Testament unbiblical?

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon4582, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”

Eli James boldly tells us, “The moon does not tell us seasons ...”, but Psalm 104:19 expressly declares, “He (Yahweh) appointed the moon for seasons ...”. Whom (Eli or Yahweh) are we to believe? If Yahweh is correct at Psalm 104:19, then the moon has to be one of the “lights” created at Gen. 1:14-16 for “signs, seasons, days and years”! In fact, the center reference in my KJV at Psalm 104:19 directs me to Gen. 1:14. Ditto for Psalm 136:9. In Scripture the stars are usually referred to as “the host of heaven” which cannot be classified as “two lights” at Gen. 1:16. When Moses wrote these three verses, he did not speak of the physical size of the Sun or moon, but of the quantity of light they shed directly or indirectly upon the Earth, hence “two great lights”. When he wrote verses 14 & 15, he was speaking generally of all the heavenly lights, where at verse 16, he narrowed it down to two, with the stars as an afterthought. Some may be wondering what all of this has to do with Yahweh’s marriage to the twelve tribes of Israel, but who ever heard of planning a wedding without memorializing the date for the vows to be taken?

How, then, does the “solar only” calendar advocate, Eli James, come to the conclusion in his The Great Impersonation, p. 267, “... There are two lights in the sky which divide times and seasons. They are the Sun by day and the stars by night”? It is amazing to me why anyone having an ounce of common sense would classify the billions of stars that make up our Milky Way to be a single light along with the Sun to make “two lights”! Inasmuch as our Sun is in itself one of the “stars” of the Milky Way, according to Eli’s twisted reasoning, there would be but “one light” at Gen. 1:14-16! The Sun and the stars cannot be classified as two different types of light, as they are all thermonuclear hydrogen fusion in nature, with an operating temperature of about 15,000,000 °C. Another flaw in Eli’s hypothesis is the known fact that the stars in the heaven are also shining in the daytime; it’s just that the Sun is so bright it overpowers the light from the stars! Actually, if one had a black four inch tube about twenty to thirty feet long and oriented toward the portion of the heavens one wanted to view, one could view the stars in the daytime! So whatever influence the stars have at night (with which I agree), they also have during the day.

If you will remember in WTL #151, I presented evidence that on their track in the exodus, it was quite likely that the Israelites used a sea route as well as a land route. If that were the case, it would have been necessary to utilize both routes side by side as much as possible in order to have access to their supplies of food, along with other necessary equipment. No doubt, even a large supply of ingredients for unleavened bread, would have been transported by water. I read in one commentary that fish might have been part of their diet, along with the bread. It seems reasonable, though we have no record of it, that the men on the barges could have been net fishing as they continued on their way, for about 250 miles, until they arrived at Migdol where the Egyptians had them trapped and Yahweh made a way for them to cross through the Sea of Reeds (Suez) on dry ground.

What we do have is a record that, after they had crossed the Sea of Reeds (Suez), and escaped into the wilderness on their way to Sinai, they ran short on food and water, and began to complain that they had no “flesh” to eat. Could that have been because their source of fish was no longer at hand? We can only guess, but to satisfy their craving for “flesh” (meat) Yahweh sent them enough quail to feed 2½ to 3 million Israelites, Ex. 16:13. Evidently the next morning they had exhausted their supply of unleavened bread, and Yahweh sent them manna for bread which continued for the next forty years. And it wasn’t until the bestowal of manna that Yahweh set up His system of keeping a weekly Sabbath. It is by the Almighty’s gifts of quail and manna that we can determine that the twelve tribes of Israel kept a lunar-solar calendar! So, the lunar-solar calendar wasn’t likely to be something the traditional Judahites picked up during their seventy years in Babylon! That is only conjecture! If it is true, let’s see some proof! I heard one absurd supposition that the Israelites determined the time of the first Passover by observing the shadow cast by the Great Pyramid. Sure, the Great Pyramid is a masterpiece of architecture, but where did the Israelites get a sextant and a compass to check it out?

The only clue given in the Bible of Israel’s original Passover month is found at Ex. 12:2 stating:

“This [Egyptian] month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.”

About all we can deduce from this is that Egypt had some other month for the beginning of a new year, but to both the Egyptians and the Israelites it was “months”, not equinoxes. If you’re looking for some Biblical evidence for something “solar”, why not try “green ears” at Lev. 2:14:

“And if thou offer a meat offering of thy firstfruits unto Yahweh, thou shalt offer for the meat offering of thy firstfruits green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears.”

Surely “meat” here is for some kind of grain, not a cut of an animal! It is evident here that the Israelites didn’t rely solely on the sun or moon, but upon their crops to tell them when a new year had arrived! Even today, there are gardeners who won’t plant their potatoes any other day than Good Friday, not that the pagan Good Friday is something good! By the way, I was born on Good Friday, 1927. Like one of the nurses said at the hospital where my son was born: “I haven’t seen it fail yet, a full moon, a full house”!

This has been a difficult lesson for me to put together, as I had to, at almost every turn, check and double-check various passages of Scripture and other data to make sure I was stating things correctly. Other than writing a paper Sacred Calendar Chaos, #1, I had put the subject on the back burner. I was quite happy when I obtained James L. Porter’s book The Sabbaths of God, as for the first time I had Biblical evidence to support a lunar-solar calendar. Even Porter’s errors turned out to be a blessing, as they forced me to dig a little deeper. For me, Porter’s reconstructed calendar calculated from the original Passover to Pentecost is the most important part of his book! At last now, I have Biblical conformation regarding Israel’s calendar! The reader can now decide these matters for himself!