By the late Clifton Emahiser
It is simply amazing how nominal churchianity attempts to tell us that John 3:16 is the “golden text of the Bible”. While John 3:16 is truly in the Scripture, it is best rendered by William Finck in his The Christogenea New Testament:
“For Yahweh so loved the Society, that He gave the most-beloved Son, in order that each who believes in Him would not be lost but would have eternal life.”
“Believing” in Christ’s blood to bring we Israelites back under the Abrahamic Covenant is the key! In order to properly understand the context of this verse, it is imperative that we ask: what, when, where, why, how and to whom it pertains. Inasmuch as the whole context of the Bible hangs on Covenant Theology, the “whom” can only be Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons, and their descendants! In other words, Yahweh loved whom? or which Society? It’s not for just anyone or everyone!
When Yahweh had taken one of Adam’s ribs and created Eve, then presented her to him, he exclaimed: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh …”, Gen. 2:23. As Eve was the same race as Adam, so are we Anglo-Saxon and related peoples the same race as Christ! At Eph. 5:29-30 we read:
“29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Yahshua the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” [i.e., same race]
To rightly interpret this passage, it can only be referring to the Adamic race. And of that race, primarily Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons and their offspring. How dare nominal churchianity falsely claim that the Gospel is also meant for nonwhites! David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley never had any Biblical authority to take the New Covenant Gospel to the blacks in Africa! David Livingstone, the so-called Scottish medical missionary, once unwisely wrote, “All I can add in my loneliness is may Heaven’s rich blessings come down on everyone, American, English, or Turk, who will help to heal the open sore of the world”, A History of England by Goldwin Smith, p.658.
We can only apologize for Livingstone’s momentous failure to properly distinguish White Englishmen and Americans from racially-mixed Turks [i.e., “Kirghizes, Sarts, Kalmucks, Usbeks, Tajiks and other races in lesser numbers”, World Scope Encyclopedia under “Turkestan”]. Here we have David Livingstone bestowing “… Heaven’s rich blessings …” on a very racially corrupted people! That is why I still insist that the highest level of Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.) is Covenant Theology! The problem is (and I include myself), when we first learn C.I.I., we drag a lot of excess baggage out of the various denominations. My experience has been that I had to scrutinize everything I thought I had learned (or I thought I knew), and start all over from the very beginning!
Now to understand why Yahweh chose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons, and their offspring above all others, we will consult William Finck’s The Christogenea New Testament, Hebrews 11:1-10:
“1 Now faith is expecting an assurance, evidence of the facts not being seen. 2 For by this were the elders accredited. 3 By faith we perceive the ages to be furnished by the word of Yahweh, in which that which is seen has not come into being from things visible. 4 By faith Abel offered to Yahweh a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he was accredited to be righteous, having testified of Yahweh by his gifts, and being slain because of it he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was translated, not to see death, and was not found because Yahweh translated him; for before the translation he was accredited to be well pleasing to Yahweh. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please. Indeed it is necessary for one approaching Yahweh to believe that He is, and for those seeking Him, He becomes a rewarder. 7 By faith Noah was warned. Being cautious about things not yet seen he prepared a vessel for preservation of his house; by which he condemned the Society, and of that righteousness in accordance with faith he became heir. 8 By faith Abraham being called had obeyed, to go out into a place which he was going to receive for an inheritance, and went out not knowing where he would go. 9 By faith he sojourned in a land of the promise, as an alien having dwelt in tents with Isaak and Jakob, the joint heirs of that same promise. 10 For he was awaiting a city having those foundations of which Yahweh is craftsman and fabricator.”
From this passage in Hebrews, it is clear that Abraham was the last Adamic man that believed Yahweh. Like Noah, Abraham was singled out to receive Yahweh’s inheritance in the form of a Covenant. Had there been any other Adamic man living that believed Yahweh at the time as Abraham did, being a just Ruler, He would have had to include that other person with Abraham. There wasn’t any and He didn’t! In other words, Abraham, in his day, was Yahweh’s last chance to select a chosen people (possibly forever). We can only conclude that all other Adamic men (whether of Ham, Japheth, or the remaining portion of Shem) were excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant. Another way to put it is: The first ten chapters of Genesis concerns itself with the creation of the White Race, and the rest of the Bible pertains to one man and his family! This family was/is to be “patriarchal” in nature, not “matriarchal”. Wives are to be subject to their husband’s authority in our White Israelite society, but women are delegated authority of their own, and exercise vast influence, if they have remained pure from contamination via sexual encounter with racial aliens! As a result of Yahweh’s Covenant with Abraham, those under the Covenant become “free”, while those not under the Covenant become “tributary” or servants to the “free”. There is no possible Biblical way that anyone, on their own initiative, can willingly receive Yahshua Christ as their personal savior. The Bible proclaims quite the contrary!
THE SILLY NOTION THAT MAN CAN CHOOSE YAHWEH!
It is clearly stated at John 15:13-17: “13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.”
This should convince us that if we are not “chosen” by Yahweh, we have no hope of ever coming to Him. Here Christ personally chose His disciples. Are we to assume that somehow we are in a special class above His disciples? Additionally, if one is not “drawn” by Yahweh, there is no hope that one can be “drawn” to Him, John 6:44-45, 65: “44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. … 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
Another passage that spells this out loud and clear is 1 John 4:9-10. We shall see that Yahweh in the flesh came to us, not we to Him!: “9 In this was manifested the love of God [i.e., Yahweh] toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
Yet again, Titus 3:4-6 explains Yahweh’s “kindness” toward man, not man’s “kindness” or affection toward Yahweh: “4 But after that the kindness and love of God [i.e., Yahweh in the flesh] our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Yahshua Christ our Saviour …”
Commenting on John 6:44, Adam Clarke states in vol. 5 of 6, page 337: “… Except the father … draw him – But how is a man drawn? St. Augustine answers from the poet, Trahit sua quemque voluptas: A man is attracted by that which he delights in. So God draws man: he shows him his wants – he shows him the Savior whom he has provided for him. Unless God thus draw, no man will ever come to Christ; because none could without this drawing, [nor] ever feel the need of a Saviour. [All outward influences and inward perceptions and dispositions, which lead men to God, and all the powers by which they seek him are divine bestowments, and the salvation of the sinner is therefore purely a matter of grace on God’s part toward him ….]” [underlining mine]
When are we ever going to learn that we, as descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, can do absolutely nothing to bring ourselves to Yahweh! I have said it before, and I will repeat it again, “The highest level of Israel Identity is Covenant Theology.” I have spent many of my 85 years in churchianity, and I can attest that the churches I attended and the many sermons I have heard taught very little about the Biblical Covenants, and when they did, they twisted them up like pretzels. In the book of Genesis, we have a very abbreviated story of the creation; Noah’s flood; the tower of Babel; and starting with Genesis chapter 12, we have the call of Abraham. With the call of Abraham, and throughout the rest of the Bible, the entire context is that of one man (Abraham) and his family, and no one else! There were eight other Covenants with Adam-man, and all of Adam’s descendants will be in the resurrection. However, all those born of Sarah will be “free”, while those NOT BORN of Sarah will remain “bond”. Other than these, I believe that the priest-line from Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Kainan, Salah, Heber, Peleg, Rue, Serug, Nahor #2, and Terah, as firstborn priests of the order of Melchizedek, of which Christ became the greatest, will hold a special place among the Patriarchs, equivalent to those under the Abrahamic Covenant. (The Bible does not record the origin of the nonwhite races, nor do they fall under any of Yahweh’s nine covenants with Adam-man!) It’s sacrilege to believe otherwise!
From my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #35, February 2001, I wrote: “If the oldest living patriarch was the family priestking, Abraham probably paid his tithes to Nahor #2, his brother, rather than Shem. Also, it was found in the Masoretic text that Heber was born before Abraham, and died after him. This is highly unlikely as Heber was Abraham’s great, great, great, great grandfather. Genesis 11:26-27 tells us that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. Inasmuch as Nahor #1 (Abraham’s grandfather) died, and Terah became pagan, the priest-king office was probably left to Nahor #2; Haran having died before Abram and Terah left Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:28). Therefore, I believe it is possible that Nahor #2 may have been Abraham’s priest of the order of Melchizedek.
“Because many use Ussher’s chronology, they believe that Shem was contemporary with Abraham, and that Shem was the one to whom Abraham paid his tithes. I was also under the same mistaken impression until I took the time to check the Masoretic text against the Septuagint. After making a chart of both chronologies, I found that the Septuagint has Shem dead for about 650 years before Abraham was born. There is a total discrepancy of 1486 years between the Masoretic and Septuagint chronologies.”
Howard B. Rand’s Destiny Magazine for April, 1947, he published a continuing periodical entitled “The March Of History”, and under the subtitle “Truth Is Eternal”, the following was written:
“EVERY WORTHWHILE MOVEMENT IS troubled with those who, because of the ‘loaves and fishes,’ make a pretense of following and advocating its tenets of belief. The propagation of the truth concerning the modern identity, responsibility and destiny of Israel is no exception. It is the peculiar twists given to the truth which we are proclaiming by certain mentally unfortunate individuals, as well as the quacks and impostors, which our opponents delight to quote against the truth itself. Of course the opponents who do so are dishonest for they are fully aware of the source from which they secure this misinformation; nevertheless, they use it because such false statements serve their purposes in the campaign of misrepresentation.
“After all, the Church itself has been afflicted with charlatans who have used the Gospel of personal salvation for purposes of personal gain, but no one today would think of condemning the truth proclaimed by the Church because of such misuse of the message. Why, then, should the Gospel of the Kingdom which we proclaim be condemned because certain individuals have not only misused that Gospel for personal gain but have also added to it doctrines of their own personal making or of questionable origin? Because a man, through his egotism, proclaims himself a prophet, or even a messiah, that in no way militates against the truth though it should immediately discount his personal standing and integrity. [underlining mine]
“The truth is eternal and at times even fools may utter words of wisdom but men do not need to acclaim such a one as a wise man or condemn the truth because a fool by chance has given voice to it. Truth stands apart from the individual through whom it may be proclaimed. If the statements of supposedly wise men cannot stand the test of being separated from the one making them, their utterances will bear careful scrutiny.
“Let us not make the error of rejecting truth because there are those who misuse it, whose activities should bring them as individuals into disrepute.”
I have in my personal library almost everything that Rand ever published. I rate Rand about 50% overall, but he is 100% right on the money with this excerpt from this publication! I have to marvel, as in 1947 I was only twenty years old and knew absolutely nothing about Christian Israel Identity (C.I.I.). Here sixty-five years later, I find myself being a critic of his endeavor. In this case a confirming appraisal. I would point out that sixty-five years ago Howard B. Rand had the same identical position that I am presenting in this paper on Covenant Theology vs. personal salvation!
Rand also wrote a 15 page pamphlet entitled The Glory of the Emerging Kingdom. On pages 1 & 2 he stated, in part:
“THERE IS a pernicious endeavor, which is in widespread evidence today, to eliminate all expectations concerning the restoration of the Kingdom of God and its reestablishment upon the earth. Those who object to the fact of the coming earthly reign of Jesus Christ misuse, misquote and misapply the Scriptural pronouncements pertaining to His Kingdom, its universality and its perpetuity. There seems to be a concerted drive to this end, with laymen, ministers and evangelists cooperating in the nefarious repudiation of the proclamation of the Kingdom Gospel which heralds the ultimate emergence of the restored Kingdom of God in righteousness upon the earth.
“Furthermore, there is an attempt to completely discount any possibility of the return of Jesus Christ to reign over such a Kingdom. While admitting that the Second Advent of our Lord is to be an actuality, it is denied that, upon His return, He will, as a descendant of His father David, occupy the Throne of David, reigning over an earthly Kingdom in accordance with the annunciation to His mother Mary:
“‘… the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.’ (Luke 1: 32-33.)
“In the light of this announcement to Mary, vouched for by her Divinely-sent informer, the Angel Gabriel, it is preposterous to contend that, after the Lord’s triumphant return, there will be no Kingdom on earth over which He may reign. The Satanic endeavor, throughout the ages, has been to annihilate the people of the Kingdom so that the promised reign of Jesus Christ as King, over the House of Jacob, can never come to pass. The failure to attain this objective has spawned a second-choice Satanic attempt to spread abroad the lie that there is to be no actual Kingdom on earth and thereby thwart the proclamation of the Kingdom evangel, which includes the necessity for the Kingdom people to acknowledge their identity and fulfill the requirements for readiness to receive their coming King. The Psalmist stated:
“‘Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power …’ (Ps. 110: 3.)
“In order for the Kingdom people to be willing in the day of the manifested power of the Lord, there must be an acceptance of the proven identity of the people originally constituting the House of Jacob and their modern representatives in the world today. Without this knowledge, no one is in a position to even approach a discussion of the subject of Jesus’ reign and His Kingdom.”
While Rand did quite well in the introduction to this pamphlet, I have to highly disagree where he wrote, “… its universality and its perpetuity …” While the Kingdom will be “perpetual”, it absolutely will not be universal in any sense of the word! Now, if Rand meant universal only with the twelve tribes of Israel, it would be truly universal, as it is written that all Israel will be saved. But he didn’t make that as clear as he should have.
Immediately under the title on page 1 of Rand’s pamphlet, he quoted from Psalm 102:15-16, but he rejected the King James Version, and after checking these two KJV verses, I could understand why. Rather, Rand used The New English Bible which reads:
“Then shall the nations revere thy name, O Lord, and all kings of the earth thy glory, when the Lord builds up Zion again and shows himself in his glory.”
I would amplify this passage thusly for a better understanding: “Then shall the [Israel] nations revere [T]hy name, O [Yahweh], and all [the Israel] kings of the earth thy [G]lory, when [Yahweh] builds up [new] Zion and shows [H]imself in [H]is [G]lory.”
As Abraham had faith and believed, so are we to do the same, Hebrews 11:6: “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
Rather than being “born again” (John 3:3), we must be “born from above”. It was only Nicodemus who didn’t understand, as v. 10 so clearly substantiates. Churchianity has taken the same mistaken position as Nicodemus did! Rather, we as Israelites should reverberate the words of Hosea 2:7, “… I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.” That “husband” was no other than Yahweh, who came as Yahshua in the flesh! Being “born from above” is no other than being born of the Heavenly White Adamic race! The first part of Hosea 2:7 reads:
“And she [Israel] shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find …” Thus it becomes incumbent on all Israelites to identify just who or what Israel’s other lovers were/are, and fully reverse course! To expound on all of which “her lovers” consist of would require quite an extensive study by itself, and goes beyond the scope of this paper.
The doctrine of “personal salvation”, as promoted by nominal churchianity, is founded on the false premise that somehow Christ came to sacrifice Himself on the cross to give the whole world, no matter what race, an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to accept Him and enjoy the benefits of His Covenant. Such an assumption immediately makes Yahweh a 2nd class god! Poor old God, can’t do anything right!
As I demonstrated in paper #1 on this subject, if one will only read John 15:13-17; John: 6:44-45, 65; & 1 John 4:9-10, he will discover that it is Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) who does the “choosing”, “drawing” and “loving”, and He chose only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his twelve sons, and their offspring. Therefore, it is impossible to have both “personal salvation” and “Covenant Theology” in the same Bible!
Now, I won’t condemn any White Israelite who has made a decision for Christ, but I would remind him that Yahweh in the flesh (as Yahshua) decided on him when He purchased him on the cross, before he ever made such a determination! Nominal churchianity would have us believe that we first accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, and after we have done so, then second, He will purchase us. That elevates man’s decision over and above Yahweh’s decision! That’s why I said, “that makes Yahweh a 2nd class god!”
At this time I will critique an article that appeared in Destiny Magazine for March, 1949 entitled “The Interdependence of the Two Testaments”, by Henry D. Houghton. I will not quote from it, but I will use important views drawn from him. If you have that particular issue, you may read it for yourself.
There are ideas spread abroad among the various denominations of nominal churchianity that the New Testament not only supersedes the Old, but also revokes many of Yahweh’s national promises so clearly recorded therein. Not only this, but Israel’s status or standing in the New Testament is altogether altered in nature from that of the Old. They would have us to believe that the Old Testament was made with the converso Edomite-jews, while the New Covenant, or as we know it, the “New Testament” was made with some people wrongly identified as “Gentiles”. By this false assertion, they make the claim that the New Testament repeals the Old. Nothing could be more damnably false and overwhelmingly disastrous. Yet unfortunately, many believe such nonsense!
How these strange suppositions were spawned by the clergy and absorbed by the laity is incomprehensible, if not completely dumbfounding in nature, for there is not a solitary passage in Scripture which supports such an invalid determination. The New Covenant is nothing more than the renewal of the Old Covenant mentioned at Jeremiah 31:31-32, and repeated at Hebrews 8:8-9:
“31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh …”
Notice how the New is a renewal of the Old Covenant, and an uninterrupted working out by Yahweh of His one complete preordained plan. Observe also that, the beneficiaries remain the same, i.e., “… the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah …” Nothing about “Gentiles” here! The Latin word “Gentile” is correct when properly applied, but the definition of this word IS NOT nor EVER WAS a “non-jew”. At Jeremiah 31:31-32, the New Covenant was a future promise, and at Hebrews 8:8-9, it is recognized as a Covenant fulfilled!
It is alleged by some, however, that Yahweh, long after the time of the prophets, disinherited the twelve tribes of old Israel for their sins, and brought in a new spiritual Israel – the Christian church – to take the place of the literal physical line of Israel, which Yahweh had finally given up on and forever cast off! This allegation, however popular it might be, is altogether false, and directly opposed by all Scripture, especially Jeremiah 31:37, which reads:
“Thus saith Yahweh; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Yahweh.”
I would point out to the reader at this very time, July 5, 2012, that astronomers are testing out a new system of 66 telescopes in Chile to measure the universe, which leads them to believe that there are many universes, not just galaxies or solar systems, but many other universes besides our own with their own galaxies and solar systems. So, we can be quite safe in believing that the twelve tribes of Israel will NEVER be permanently “cast off”! For all those who reject the Old Testament (and many do, especially romish catholics), let’s consider Paul’s words at Romans 11:1:
“1 I say then, Hath Yahweh cast away his people? Yahweh forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Yahweh hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to Yahweh against Israel, saying, 3 Yahweh, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of Yahweh unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time [during Paul’s lifetime] also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
This passage demonstrates that no matter how great the sins of the twelve tribes of Israel, Yahweh was not going to cast them off without providing a way back to Him! It should be pointed out that Jeremiah’s prophecy at 31:37 was made 115 years AFTER the northern ten tribes of Israel were banished out of their land for their sins. This shows that Yahweh resolved that under absolutely NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER would He disinherit or cast off Israel forever! If one will but read the entire content of Jeremiah chapter 31, he will find it contains wonderful promises and predictions for all of Israel, some of which are absolutely unconditional. This chapter covers a lot of subjects which demand our careful attention. Probably the most important fact that every serious Bible student should understand is that it was written in regard to the twelve tribes of Israel, and not to the converso Edomite-jews, as nominal churchianity so falsely contend. It’s about time that we respect the Words of our Almighty Yahweh to be carried out in to-to (i.e., in the whole), and applied to the correct people!
In spite of all of this evidence to the contrary, for one reason or another, there has grown up in the rank and file of the clergy, along with much of the laity in nominal churchianity, the mistaken idea that the two separate Testaments are made with two different peoples, and that somehow the authority passed away and ceases to belong to whom it was originally promised, and somehow another people – the Gentiles (a Latin term found nowhere in the original Bible text) – have superseded them and inherited the New Testament, making void Yahweh’s unconditional, everlasting Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his offspring – implying that Yahweh lied, making Him an indian-giver. Is there no end to the length people will go to twist Holy Writ?
Other people regard the New Testament as a hasty standby device to meet the embarrassing and unexpected emergency situation that the Old Testament had failed Yahweh’s expectations. On that failure the New Testament was made necessary by Yahweh’s sudden unforeseen change of plans. In fact, the dispensationalists claim the Almighty has changed His plans time and time again. They claim He tried His first plan for a thousand years, and when it didn’t work out, He tried a new plan for another thousand years. In fact, such people as these claim that the Almighty has now changed His plans six times, and when He returns at His Second Advent, it will be His seventh change.
No true conception of the Scriptures can correctly be arrived at while such errant views are held, for they are violently opposed to the Word of Yahweh, and are in direct conflict with both the Old and New Testaments. To show this glaring conflict, it must be demonstrated that the whole of the conception and operation of the New Testament comes out of the Old. To reject the Old Testament would be like bulldozing the foundation out from under one’s house. That house would no longer be livable! Remove the Old Testament out from under the New Testament, and the New Testament would no longer be livable! Secondly, removing the authority of the Old Testament would be like building a house from the top downward. Try doing this sometime by taking an extension ladder and anchoring it some way so it won’t fall over; put on a nail sack and take some nails and a hammer to the desired height of the roof, and start nailing shingles on the thin air, and see how far you get! These illustrations might seem to be quite foolish, but it is no more foolish than removing the authority of the Old Testament leaving the New Testament without any foundation!
When are nominal churchianity ever going to learn that Yahweh doesn’t have a new plan or purpose, but He is continuing with His original plan and purpose in the New Testament? It is not a new plan; it is the old. It is not with a new people; it is with the old. It is not a new device; it is the old. This was made very clear when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary the birth of Christ, who would become the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, at Luke 1:32-33:
“32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and Yahweh shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” If the Old Testament lost its authority with the arrival of the New, then the angel lied to Mary! Zacharias, filled with the Holy Spirit at Luke 1:68-72, prophesied saying:
“68 Blessed be Yahweh, the Mighty One of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant …” If the Old Testament lost its authority with the arrival of the New, not only did the angel Gabriel lie, but most, if not all, of the Old Testament prophets lied also! When are all of these false allegations going to stop?
It now becomes apparent that the New Covenant DID NOT destroy His Holy Covenant. Simeon, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke of Christ as, “A light to lighten the [lost Israel nations], and the glory of the people of Israel” (Luke 2:32). This text is correctly understood as meaning: “A light to lighten the [lost Israel nations – not the converso Edomite-jews] and the glory of Thy people, the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.” On the converso Edomite-jews, check Josephus’ Antiquities, book 13, chap. 9, par. 1:
“… Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews [sic Judaeans]; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their [Edomite] forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” [underlining mine] A footnote on the same page makes the following comment on this passage:
“This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod was derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew [i.e. half Judahite and half Edomite]. Ammonius, a grammarian, says:— ‘the Jews are such by nature, and from the beginning, whilst the Idumeans are not Jews from the beginning … but being afterwards subdued by the Jews [sic Judahites] and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says:— ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many as embrace their religion, though of other nations’.” Therefore, I use the phrase, “the converso Edomite-jews”, and now you know the reason why! The term “converso” is from the Latin, meaning “to turn around”. You’ll not find the definition in most English dictionaries. An alternate phrase might be, “the impostor turn around Edomite-jews.” No sooner had the Edomites been converted to Israeliteism than they began their evil effort to subvert the context of our Holy Scriptures to suit their wicked cabalism called today, The Babylonian, or Jerusalem Talmud. Christ Himself designated this corruption of the Bible as “the traditions of the elders”! Not the Judahite elders, but the converso Edomite-jew elders! There’s a big difference! Although the converso Edomite-jew Masoretes did a hatchet job on our Holy Scriptures, they failed to corrupt every truth, and we must be very careful to divide the truthfulness from their intentional fraud. Remember, the ultimate sin is to MIX good with evil, and it begins by mixing truth with a lie!
Nominal churchianity continues to insist that all of the Old Testament laws “have been done away with”, but should they carefully examine Scripture, they would discover it was the ritual laws only that were discontinued at Christ’s crucifixion, for He fulfilled all of the ritual laws. Some laws can be fulfilled while other laws cannot, and there are a lot of differences between the two. Colossians 2:13-14 explains how some of the laws were fulfilled:
“13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross …”
Please notice this passage is speaking only of “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us”, not the entire law. It is highly dishonest to interpret this passage to mean such a thing! What, then, was the “ordinance” that was against the twelve tribes of Israel? The answer is: It was the law of remarriage of Israel’s former Husband after being divorced from Him. This ordinance is found at Deut. 24:1-4:
“1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance.”
It is imperative that we understand that Yahweh is not going to break His Own Law! Yet Hosea 2:7 declares:
“And she [Israel] shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”
How, then, is it possible for Israel to return to her first Husband, Yahweh? The answer is: The only way that Israel can return to her first Husband is if Yahweh would come in the flesh as Yahshua and offer Himself on the cross, and suffer death on behalf of Israel. This He did, and by doing so “Blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us …” Nominal churchianity by-and-large are blind to this “blotting out”, and teach personal salvation in its place. Yahweh never married anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel; nor did He divorce anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel, nor did He offer Himself on the cross for anyone other than the twelve tribes of Israel! When are we ever going to learn that we can’t even have a 1% comprehension of the New Testament without first having an allinclusive understanding of the Old!
Christ’s red-letter words speak loud and clear on this subject at Matt. 5:17-19: “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
This is not voiding the law; it is confirming the law; it is not revoking, but fulfilling. This demonstrates beyond all doubt that those old Israelite prophecies and promises are backed up by Christ’s authority and are still in force! Nominal churchianity today, for the most part, ignore this straightforward declaration of our kinsman Redeemer as the sole purpose for His coming!
It is a very dangerous proposition to sit in judgment of Almighty Yahweh, or attempt to dictate to Him on what terms His favors shall be dispensed or who has the right to receive them! The only hope for those under His Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his offspring lies in establishing the truth of that legal instrument! Not doctored or altered truth rearranged to satisfy men’s play-pretty doctrinal theories. Altered truth is unmitigated error; gross and shameful, and can never take the place of Yahweh’s genuine Truth! A good example of this is Paul’s statement at Rom. 9:3-5:
“3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of Yahweh, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, Yahweh blessed for ever.”
Generally speaking, nominal churchianity would spiritualize this passage, while its meaning is definitely literal! Think about it! Are we really to believe that Paul’s “… kinsmen according to the flesh …” are “spiritual”? This is not “spiritual” seed that Paul is speaking of. “My brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”, said he. To this same fleshly brethren he says, “Pertaineth the adoption [present tense] and the covenants … and promises.” Lest again a spiritual seed be imagined here, he adds, “Whose are the fathers”, thus plainly and definitely fixing all of these great possessions upon a literal seed. This absolutely does not favor the casting-off theory, nor yet that of a displacement by a so-called “Gentile church”! It is evident that if Yahweh were going to permanently cast off Israel, Paul knew absolutely nothing about it, for he distinctly asserts, in unmistakable terms, quite the contrary! My hope is, with this essay, the reader is now more aware of the difference between “personal salvation” vs. “Covenant Theology”, for without the Covenants, we surely have nothing!