EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME XII

 

Judaism

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume XII--Judaism

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume XII--Judaism

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part JJ--Judaism

 

      168             Omission of the Jews, Revisited                                                                     6

 

      169             The Good Jews and Their Call                                                                        9

 

      170             The Talmud I                                                                                                     13

 

      171             The Talmud II                                                                                                    27

 

      172             The Talmud and the NT I                                                                                40

 

      173             The Talmud and the NT II                                                                               46

 

      174             The Talmud and the NT III                                                                              57

 

      175             Good in Judaism                                                                                              68

 

      176             The Synagogue                                                                                                79

 

      177             Some Bad in Judaism                                                                                     89

 

      178             The Temple I                                                                                                   103

 

      179             The Temple II                                                                                                  114

 

      180             Messianic Judaism                                                                                        128

 

 

Part KK--Good and Bad Jews

 

      181             Good and Bad Jews                                                                                      140

 

      182             The Delimma of Defining Jews                                                                   149

 

      183             The Two Seedlines                                                                                        154

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume twelve of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 168--Omission of the Jews, Revisited

 

 

The Jewish Problem 

 

Former chapters have discussed the dilemma which the Jews have faced for the last 2,000 years since they seem to have been partly or largely omitted in YESHUA’s great commission, described in the previous chapters (Matt 10:5-6).  But there are some further issues largely neglected when assessing this subject.  

 

 

Yes, Certain Jews Lose 

 

There is at least one relevant underlying consideration on the question of "why" is it that the Jews were certainly omitted in the definition of YESHUA's stated commission, which cannot be argued (as postulated in earlier commentary). 

 

In a sense, this undeniable factor was outlined and commented upon previously in this work in the discussion of the parable of the vineyard or absentee landowner, depending upon how it is to be characterized (Matt 21:33-41; Mk 12:1-9; Lu 20:9-16). 

 

Per that context, this one issue surfaces in a most intriguing little remark by The ANOINTED ONE when He told them, the Jews, that "The kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a nation (Greek ethnos, which was discussed at length in a previous chapter) bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt 21:43). 

 

On this mention of the kingdom, some perceptive Christian scholars and students of the Word have advanced the theory that the subject of the "kingdom" concerns the future millennium on earth under the government of The MESSIAH and does not address the overall issue of "salvation" in later time periods, per se. 

 

Frankly, this writer has "some" appreciation for this thesis--since it dovetails so nicely with the findings in this study, as well as other aspects of the Scriptures.  Obviously, space is too confined herein to broach this huge topic at this time, although it is clearly deserving of extended study. 

 

 

Dogs and Swine, Revisited 

 

Earlier chapters focused on the great wickedness of the Edomites and their Scriptural linkage to dogs (and the apparent connections of swine with the Amalekite Khazars, who are the epitome of evil and wretchedness). 

 

As noted previously, some of the Scriptures are so piercing and strong that there are good reasons to believe that either the Edomites collectively or the Amalek-Edomites particularly will not be allowed into the coming Messianic kingdom on earth. 

 

As they are dogs, they will apparently not be allowed into the kingdom (Rev 22:15).  Exclusion can also surface in the context of the possible Amalek-Edomite swine tie, broached formerly. 

 

Perhaps it was the tragic mistake by Yehudah of trying to incorporate the evil Amalekite dogs and swine into Judaism which was the real reason why The HIGHEST elected to exclude the Jews from the great commission of Matthew 10:5-6. 

 

 

The Amalekite Reason? 

 

Also, it might be that the foolishness and stupid blunders which the good Jews made in the days of John Hyrcanus and later with the Khazars proved to be the catalyst which would make them have to wait until a future time frame to have a calling and reconciliation to YHWH YESHUA. 

 

Whether it was just this cited remark by YESHUA on taking the kingdom from the Jews (Matt 21:43) or something else, the clear fact remains that the Jews collectively were not to be a part of the first century CE recipients of the Good News. 

 

Thus, Shaul seems to have written that they (evidently the good Jews) were then rejected and excluded from salvation.  But later on, they will experience reconciliation (Rom 11:15). 

 

 

Jewish Righteousness 

 

Subsequent chapters on the Jewish religion will broach the question of righteousness among the Jews in some detail. 

 

Most Christians hate Judaism and the Talmud so passionately that it is impossible for them to ever grasp that any Jew could be righteous and have a form of righteousness.  Undoubtedly, these persons will be in for quite a shock in the coming days. 

 

True, the Jews were omitted from YESHUA’s commission in Apostolic days.  And indeed, this very same thing may happen again here in the age end in terms of the coming reconciliation of the age end election (as described in former chapters).  But one must be prudent on this thing and not try to adopt any unfounded conclusions without sufficient study and research. 

 

Anyway, the following chapters will look very carefully at the entire Jewish religion (and culture) to determine whether the Christian views have merit or not. 

 

For sure, the presence of the evil Amalekites in Apostolic days must have hurt the true Jews considerably.  Surely, the same thing has happened and is happening here in the age end. 

 

But YHWH is A Great SOVEREIGN RULER of His creation.  He may begin a work of righteousness here in the age end which will completely blow our minds. 

 

Clearly, there are a lot of good Jews out there (like many of the Ultra Orthodox).  If they would just consider, address, and accept YESHUA as The MESSIAH, they offer all kinds of possibilities for good.  We just need some patience on this thing to allow The ELOHIM to work out His will. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 169--The Good Jews and Their Call

 

 

More on the Omission of the Jews 

 

As outlined in former chapters, there were some good reasons on why YHWH seems to have seen fit to omit the collective Jewish people for the great commission given YESHUA.  While we may not have all of the particulars on the “why” for the omission, the presence of the Amalekite workers of evil mixed in with the good Jews in apostolic days must surely have something to do with it. 

 

Actually, the same argument can be made now in the present situation.  Many wretched Amalekites are assuredly mixed in with good Jews.  From the human perspective, it might seem almost impossible to separate the two definitions.  Consequently, it must remain a question as to what extent the present Jews can be a part of a work of YESHUA’s righteousness in the age end. 

 

However, in looking at the book of Zechariah, there are some powerful reasons suggesting that this very thing will happen.  Therefore, maybe the world will have some surprises in the next several years.  This option will receive more commentary in this study in subsequent chapters. 

 

 

The Olive Tree Link 

 

In carrying on with this theme, Shaul correctly brought up his marvelous discussion on the olive tree (Rom 11:16-26) which was elaborated upon previously.  Here, the apostle observed that the natural branches had been broken or pruned off by YHWH (because of unbelief).  Cloudlessly, the broken off branches of the olive tree were certain Jews (Rom 11:23). 

 

Therefore, in view of this thinking, it is probable that the whole thrust of the Good News message was and is a focus only upon salvation for some aspect of YESHUA's coming kingdom and not upon the general theme of reconciliation for Adamites (I Cor 15:22) and perhaps others (Isa 56:3-7), which could materialize in an entirely different time frame and under explicitly different circumstances. 

 

Consequently, it might well be that for some definite reason, or reasons, and whether elaborated upon so far herein or not, the Jews (and vast numbers of other peoples, races and kinds as well), in the collective and general sense, were not to be the real "recipients" of the Good News of the coming kingdom in the historic sense. 

 

Therefore, regardless of whatever the cause for the omission, there was a purpose for this reality whether one can understand it or not.  YHWH knew what He was doing.  He made no mistakes in this process. 

 

Incidentally, this cutting off of the natural branches (the good Jews, discussed earlier herein) creates a situation where they too have to be grafted back to the good olive tree in order to partake of reconciliation and life (Rom 11:24). 

 

In other words, it isn’t only that the wild, olive shoots (in the lost House of Yisrael) must be grafted in; but similarly, the natural branches, which were cut off, also have to be grafted back.  Since the natural, good, branches were cut off from Second Temple Judaism, it is apparent that this is where they must be grafted back to--in order to achieve redemption.  This issue will be broached in the succeeding chapters. 

 

 

To The Jew First? 

 

Yet, the Good News did go to the Jews initially in the first century CE, and then to the other tribes, as already has been stated.  In fact, by the time of the death of Stephen, it seems clear that the message had went only to the Jews.  Was it for a witness only--fully realizing that many of the supposed Jews were nokri/nekar aliens who would actually reject the Truth? 

 

In this context, it's worth observing that except for Judas Iscariot, who was a Judean Jew (perhaps an Edomite, racially, as suggested in "The Other End of the World" by the earlier mentioned Dr Roger Rusk, brother of the well known Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under John F Kennedy), most, if not all, of the other early disciples were Galileans (Acts 1:11; 2:7). 

 

If the people living in the Galilee area (the Hasidim stronghold, described earlier) were mostly of Binyamin and/or Levi, in contrast to the false Jews living in the Jerusalem area, it might be that these Galilean disciples were not racial Jews at all.  Of course, they were religious Jews and that fact is not under dispute.  Perchance, many of them were Binyaminites, as was Shaul the apostle.

 

 

The Nucleus of the Apostolic Assembly 

 

This then opens up another possibility in that SALVATION comes from or out of the Jews.  So possibly, this text is saying that YESHUA went to the (true) Jews in order to raise up an immediate body of disciples, preachers, ministers, evangelists, apostles, missionaries, etc who would become the nucleus of teachers that would, in fact, go to the lost House of Yisrael in the Diaspora. 

 

Maybe, YESHUA and the twelve apostles went to the (legitimate) Jews first to reach these called out missionaries.  This possibility seems to gain some credibility when one goes back and looks at some of the presentations in the book of John and particularly those associated with discussions on who were and are the people of The ELOHIM and of YESHUA’s sheep fold, as elaborated upon previously herein. 

 

 

Some Jews Did Believe 

 

In the context of the bad Jews who could not or would not hear YESHUA and hence were not of His sheep, Yohanan saw fit to point out on several occasions the presence of some number of believers in YESHUA among the Jews (Jo 8:31; 10:42; 12:11, 42).  What distinguished these believers from the non-believers?  Perhaps the answer lies in their racial backgrounds (in being true Israelites), as previously described. 

 

In an earlier discussion on the law and its permanence, focus was directed on the time when Shaul decided to go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16) and to see Yakov and the Jerusalem brethren. 

 

At that late date, perhaps around 60 CE or so, Shaul found that the Jerusalem congregation consisted of “thousands” of Jewish believers (Acts 21:17-27).  Certainly, these believers were religious Jews and Hillel Pharisees (Acts 15:5), who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:20); and not necessarily racial Jews at all. 

 

While there was this presence of thousands of believers among the Jews in Palestine, the NT writings would seem to suggest that their numbers (certainly, from a racial perspective) may have been limited in terms of the totality of the Apostolic Assembly, as it eventually developed over the Roman Empire. 

 

In terms of racial Jews, they perhaps were limited to 12,000 or so (Rev 7:5); and many, or most, of these could have come from racial Jews of the Assyrian captivity. 

 

Except for the immediate missionaries who did respond, the Jews generally rejected YESHUA's message back then and as well subsequently, although that condition will evidently change here in the age end (Zech 8:6; 12:10). 

 

If the reader of this study is a person believing in the sovereignty of The ELOHIM and the issues about election and calling, it appears evident that for whatever reason, the Good News was not sent to the Jews, generally, for salvation, at least in the then and thereafter context to modern times. 

 

Perhaps the Good News message of the New Testament was sent to the Jews first only to provide a witness or perhaps to merely raise up the initial missionaries to go later to the lost House of Yisrael out in the Diaspora. 

 

Regardless of why, the fact remains that true Israelite Jews will ultimately have their calling.  We can be sure of it as being an absolute certainty. 

 

 

The Sects of Judaism Once More 

 

Also, in trying to assess the qualities present in the likely good Jews, who were the pruned off branches of the olive tree, one must bring to mind the previous discussion on the different philosophical sects in Judaism and YESHUA's comments and dealings with them, as well as their possible racial and ethnic origins. 

 

Per this earlier presentation, there are some facts surfacing and present which might lead an open minded person to suppose that the Pharisees of the Hillel School (to include the Hasidim) were very close in religious persuasion to The ANOINTED ONE and the Nazarenes. 

 

Plus, from a study of the New Testament, there are no apparent Scriptural complaints leveled against the Karaites (if their beginnings were, in fact, present in first century, CE Judaism, in contrast to their alleged later origin in the eighth century) or of the Essenes.  Thus, there is reason to believe that these sects may have also had some "good" attributes along with the Hillel Pharisees. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 170--The Talmud I

 

 

The Christian Problem 

 

In the remarks on the Torah, in the prior chapters, there has always been a hang-up among Christians because they inevitably confuse YHWH’s righteousness, as defined and communicated in His Torah, with the so-called righteousness found in Christian denominations. 

 

Jews, particularly secular or non-observant Jews, who are often Amalekites, have the same problem somewhat with Judaism (although the Jews are not as bad as Christians in substituting their own ideas as righteousness). 

 

Invariably, both the Jewish and Christian forms of righteousness open the door to a discussion of the concept of the Talmud (at least, in the vein of the Jews).  But what most of the world fails to understand is that there are Christian Talmuds as well (yes, plural Talmuds because Christendom has many Talmuds).  This backdrop creates a need to now look at the idea of the Talmud. 

 

In mentioning the Jewish Talmud versus the Christian Talmuds, there is one key point of demarcation separating the two that deserves mention here at the very start. 

 

The Jewish Talmud, however good or bad it may be, is effectively a commentary upon the Torah (based upon traditional interpretations of Jewish sages over vast centuries); while the Christian Talmuds, however good or bad they may be, represent the ideas and beliefs of the different Christian teachers which may or may not relate to the Torah. 

 

 

Christian Rage Over the Talmud 

 

In bringing up the issue of the Talmud, it must be recognized that this subject to Christians is much like the reality of saying anything bad about the Jews (which throws many Amalek-Edomites [as defined earlier], in particular, into a fit and rage). 

 

The May-Jun 2002 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 4) quoted the Christian understanding of the Talmud from the “Christian News” (v. 40, p, 10) as follows: 

 

“The Talmud, the highest authority for Jews and which they consider to be the Word of God, teaches that Jesus Christ is a bastard and Mary a prostitute.  Some Jews want Christians to remove what they consider to be anti-Semitic sections in the New Testament.  Christians have not asked Jews to remove the anti-Christian statements in the Talmud.  They should be left in the Talmud to show that the Talmud is a book of lies.” 

 

The importance of this quotation is that neither the “Christian News” or the “America’s Promise” ministry has any idea whatsoever about the true nature of the Talmud. 

 

As an illustration of this reality, the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 11A; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 1:4) provides that “He who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death” (as quoted by Harold Hemenway, “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 6, whose work is mentioned elsewhere herein). 

 

Moreover, per Hemenway (ibid, p. 6), the Talmud even links Bet Shammai with Satan--as cited in a prior chapter (Yevamot 16A), and calls the Jewish Zealots murderers (Mishnah Sotah 47A).  It is very interesting that YESHUA would probably agree 100% with some of these words on Bet Shammai and possibly even the Zealots (as established at length elsewhere herein). 

 

 

Criticism Was Common with the Pharisees 

 

The prior chapters noted the historical record which proves conclusively that YESHUA’s criticisms/condemnations of certain Pharisees of His time were much like those emanating from other Pharisaical teachers of that day. 

 

Many of the words/criticisms (or correctly opinions) of the Pharisees found their way into the Talmud (which was never subjected to the prevalent editing that commonly occurs in today’s controlled society). 

 

Consequently, the Pharisees commonly criticized and condemned themselves (each other) over their own sins, failures, and shortcomings (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 13, p. 366)--as well as calling various people dogs, pigs, vipers, children of the Devil and of Satan (as discussed elsewhere herein).  Yes, YESHUA, Himself, publicly participated in the same “name calling” actions.  He even called Herod “that Fox.” 

 

In terms of attacking (some) Pharisees (apparently of the School of Shammai) for their hypocrisy, Judaica says that YESHUA was “far meeker” than the Essenes and “not sharper” than similar utterances found in the Talmudic sources (ibid, v. 10, p. 13).  This is a most important point.

 

Judaica (v. 13, p. 366) illustrates some of the things Pharisees said about themselves from the Talmud in the context of condemning their own sins and shortcomings.  For example, the Talmud (Sot. 3:4 and 22b) mentions the “sore spots” and “plagues of the Pharisaic party.”

 

The point is, in the sense of opinion, the sages behind the Talmud were free to criticize and condemn whomever they chose to address--both enemies and friends (even including one of the most famous Jewish teachers of the first century BCE--Shammai). 

 

 

Today’s Controlled Society 

 

In today’s controlled and “tolerant” society, where there are hate crimes and thought crimes to contend with (as envisioned in George Orwell’s “1984”), it is unthinkable that anyone would dare publicly criticize, condemn, or speak in bad terms of anyone--except politically incorrect people who are not in harmony with today’s social gods (which will be defined later in this study). 

 

It is socially and legally permissible in 2003 in America to condemn right wingers and other politically incorrect people as being racists, White supremacists, homophobes and male chauvinist pigs.  Many Christian Churches and Christian leaders regularly condemn and attack politically incorrect persons with names of derision and disrespect and no one seems to get excited over it. 

 

With the huge presence of lawyers throughout the modern Christian world, one must walk the extra mile in talking or writing about others for fear of generating a libel or slander lawsuit.  The only people who can be successfully criticized and condemned today are politically incorrect people who dare to say something that is “unauthorized” in today’s controlled and mesmerized society (like the famous “n” word). 

 

So, why is it and how is it that so many modern Christians become so angry when Second Temple Jews were allowed freedom of speech to condemn and criticize whomever they wanted to in the vein of free speech and without fear of retribution.  For sure, the Jews of 2,000 years ago would be in trouble in today’s America if they chose to speak out, as they did in their day (unless their words are politically correct). 

 

 

But Positive Remarks as Well

 

Importantly, The NT MESSIAH quoted the Talmud positively 32 times or so (per Harold Hemenway, “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” appendix).  Manifestly, His attitude toward the Talmud was and is considerably different than the position of Christianity over the Talmud for the past 2,000 years. 

 

Admittedly, in the vein of opinion, the Talmud says a lot of things which some persons will disagree with (along with some things which many people can agree with).  So while these pro and con cited words, references and allusions are present, that’s not what the Talmud is all about. 

 

This and the following chapters will lay out some understanding about the Talmud which is simply void and blank within Christianity.

 

 

Christian Ignorance 

 

When one says anything good about the Talmud, Christians immediately go into a mad frenzy, perhaps because they know so little about it.  The difficulty is that Christians know little about the Talmud, other than having some idea on the above reported Talmudic quotations about YESHUA and Miryam. 

 

Thus, of all of the extant Hebrew documents and writings over the years, it is significant that the Talmud infuriates Christians the most.  During the dark ages of the dominion of the Roman Church, Catholic Christians sought out and destroyed Hebrew writings by the wagons-full.  Certainly, the Talmud was one of the most important writings that they sought out to burn and destroy. 

 

The Roman Catholic Church has made a particular effort through the years to burn and destroy Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic writings (as discussed in prior chapters).  The Talmud has been an important focus of this quest. 

 

As late as Aug 1553, Pope Julius III ordered all copies of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds confiscated and burned (Aug 24, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 23). 

 

Despite this intense hatred and opposition to the Talmud and Hebrew writings, the Talmud, as well as the Hebrew Tanakh, survived--primarily because of the dedication and perseverance of many conscientious Jews (proving that The MOST HIGH made the right decision is committing His Word to the Jews for preservation--Rom 3:2). 

 

It seems to be a strange thing about human nature, but people are afraid of things which they don’t understand.  Rather than be forthright and honest and simply say that they don’t understand the Talmud, many Christians will just respond with bitterness and hatred about it because they are ignorant and uninformed. 

 

True, “maybe” some of the wicked disobedience among certain Jews can be traced to certain Talmudic teachings, likely introduced and promoted by the bad figs (as described elsewhere herein), although many of the bad fig Amalek-Edomites and Kenites were and are alleged atheists and could care less one way or the other about the Tanakh or the Talmud. 

 

Factually, the bad figs don’t care about religion one way or the other (beyond secretly serving Satan), as was proven herein in previous discussions. 

 

 

The Religion Was Basically Good 

 

Nevertheless, the truth remains that the basic Hebrew or Israelite religion was evidently sound and commendable.  Perhaps the problem in Judaism was only over “some” portions of the Talmud and not over all of it.  This reality seems to be what one can comprehend from a fair study of the New Testament. 

 

There is another consideration which is extremely profound to recognize and evaluate in any study or contemplation of Judaism as a religion and the Talmud as one of its primary source documents.  For this assessment, it must be pointed out that since the days of the early first century CE, a lot of water has run under the bridge in terms of Judaism. 

 

Consequently, modern Judaism is not exactly the same religion that it was in Second Temple times during the lives of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.  Most Christians and Jews alike incorrectly assume that Judaism has not changed over the past 2,000 years.  That’s a bad assumption because Judaism and Jewish attitudes toward Talmudic teachings have changed considerably. 

 

While many readers of this study may not initially appreciate it, or be able to readily grasp the just made charge and its extraordinary importance, an abundance of proof will be offered in later chapters.  The student of truth is asked to just be patient and the following comments on Judaism and the Talmud will all make perfect sense in time. 

 

 

The Oral Law 

 

Per “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 750), talmud is a Hebrew word meaning “study” or “learning.”  The Talmud was originally called the “Oral Law” because it was handed down orally from generation to generation.  In Jewish eyes, some of it came directly from Moshe at Sinai (but per Josh 8:35, this cannot be true on halakhah/legal law--as proven herein) while other parts of it were added as interpretations through the years. 

 

Many Christians feel that the Talmud arose during or after the Babylonian exile (which, on halakhah/legal law, is also impossible, in view of Deut 4:1-2 and 12:32).  Christian scholar John Lightfoot dates the beginning of the Oral Law or Tradition at the close of the OT canon (with Malakhi) when the Jews realized that prophecy had ceased (“A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica,” v. I, p. vii). 

 

In any case, of whatever the actual start date might be in history, a fair assessment of the Talmud’s origin and dating surely leads to the time of Ezra, Nechemyah and/or Malakhi. It is therefore very ancient, and it is extremely important for study and contemplation--for purposes to be shortly demonstrated. 

 

To whatever extent Talmudic ideas began being developed at this early time, just after the Babylonian exile, it must be observed that from then on more and more teachings and positions were added to it until it was largely edited, written and codified in the 3d to 5th centuries CE.  Consequently, Talmudic teachings were still under development in the first century CE during the life of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

This condition goes a long way in explaining why the Talmud is so incredibly important to an understanding of the New Testament.  There are many ties and links between the Talmud and the NT, as will be outlined in some detail in later chapters herein on the Talmud and the NT.  There is evidence to believe that much of the NT can only be understood in the context of what the Talmud says. 

 

 

The Need 

 

John Lightfoot (ibid, v. I, p. vii) offers the reason for the development and perpetuation of the Talmud as being the need for the establishment of precedents to deal with questions of ethics and applications (interpretations) of the law that came up within Judaism in the ensuing years.  This need is quite manifest and should not shock anyone. 

 

All Christian denominations and individual Christians make interpretations and decisions on the application of YHWH’s Word in their lives and conduct.  Certainly, the Jews had the same need.  For example, the Torah does say to rest and not work on the Sabbath.  However, neither rest or work are always precisely defined in the Scriptures. 

 

Consequently, both Jewish and Christian believers and supporters of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue sometimes have questions about what can be done or what should be forbidden on the Seventh day Sabbath.  Inevitably, organized faiths and beliefs attempt to lay down some rules and guidelines in terms of definitions on not only the Sabbath, but likewise a host of other Scriptural subjects. 

 

Is it wrong for Jewish or Christian entities to establish rules and interpretations of the Word to guide them?  Of course not!  Various groups do this all of the time, to include Christianity, Pharisaical Judaism and even the Essenes, to be shortly described. 

 

The need for such rules and definitions arises because in YHWH’s Torah He routinely commands that His mitzwot (commandments) be kept.  This word keep is from the Hebrew “shamar” which means “to keep, to guard, to observe, to give heed to” with a strong emphasis on watching, guarding and protecting (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” and Brown, Driver and Briggs’ “Hebrew and English Dictionary of the OT”). 

 

 

A Fence 

 

Certainly, the gist of the Oral Law is a desire to build a fence around YAH’s commandments so that they can be protected and safeguarded.  In an article on “Where’s Your Fence,” appearing in the “Search the Scriptures” Newsletter for February 1998 (p. 2-5), Norman A. Brumm focuses on this idea of shamar and its application in Judaism. 

 

Norman notes how the Jews “shamar” the Sabbath.  To protect it and not allow any possibility of improper encroachment upon it, they have a short ”kiddush” ceremony to set the Sabbath apart some 18 minutes before sunset (per Deut 5:12).  They also keep the Sabbath past the next day until it’s dark enough to see three stars and close it then with a ceremony called “havdalah.” 

 

The problem Norman points out is that these arbitrary time definitions and ceremonies are not Scriptural.  In other words, they represent traditions which have assumed the status of laws in Judaism that have to be obeyed virtually on the level of the Torah. 

 

A former chapter addressed Colossians 2:16 and the authority which the Body of The MESSIAH had to establish discretionary things relevant and needed in order to obey The ELOHIM.  There is no need to repeat that material.  But it should be recalled in this context of establishing traditions, rules, procedures and guides to obey the Torah. 

 

The presence of this discretionary authority, clearly granted to the Apostolic Assembly (in the vein of binding and loosing, briefly cited earlier and to be further described in later comments), brings up the fact that some of YAH’s laws are very general and specifically do not reflect necessary details to allow their fulfillment. 

 

 

Qumran, Revisited 

 

On this, one can turn to the Essenes (who rejected the Talmud) and their apparent beliefs, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

 

In order to maintain order and discipline, the Qumran people seem to have had a whole host of traditions and internal rules, just as one finds in Christendom and in the Talmud of historic Judaism.  The Manual of Discipline and a number of legal texts (including those on the Sabbath) can be first mentioned.  But there is more to come. 

 

Scrolls’ scholars have found a series of documents which they have labeled as “Ordinances” that specifically focus on some laws which do not state the necessary particulars to allow their fulfillment (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 204-207).  Exodus 30:13-14 and Leviticus 15:13 are examples of such a dilemma.

 

The Torah says that each Israelite was to pay a half-shekel to support the Tabernacle (Ex 30:13-14).  The question arises, was this a one time payment or was it intended with some frequency?  In NT days, the established procedure in mainline Judaism was an annual payment (which YESHUA authenticated--Matt 17:24-27).  One Qumran document broached this issue and stated that the payment was a one time event. 

 

More questions arose over the uncleanness of a man with a discharge and the needed process for him to become clean over a period of seven days (Lev 15:13). 

 

For example, does the man bathe and wash daily during the seven days or one time only at the end of the period.  And during the seven days, what is the ritual status of the man from the standpoint of eating food and having contact with others.  The Qumran people fixed ordinances (laws, rules and guides) to answer these questions. 

 

As the writers of “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation” noted, the people believed that The EL cared about His laws and having His people obey them correctly.  In this sense, there were right and wrong ways of performing His commandments and performing them precisely in a way to please and serve Him. 

 

Obviously, the group assumed authority to specify the details and particulars.  More will be said about this course in the context of binding and loosing, as is further assessed in other commentary herein. 

 

 

Complicated Issues 

 

Manifestly, it is verity that there are a number of quite complicated and difficult themes in the Word which seemingly have required extensive scholarship over many years to begin to ferret out comprehension.  Some persons would argue that this is the precise situation with prophecy--which is admittedly extremely complicated to understand. 

 

There are also profound questions which are very difficult to attempt to broach with any measure of certainty--like the purpose of life (which was addressed in a preceding chapter herein) and even the afterlife (which received some revelation in the NT). 

 

The question of the afterlife has been one of the most important and prevalent of all in the history of Christendom for the past 2,000 years.  A whole variety of teachings about heaven, hell, purgatory, resurrection, reincarnation, salvation of all, salvation of some, etc have dominated Christianity sufficiently for ages to cause whole splits and divisions in the various segments of Christendom. 

 

Judaism has had some similar problems.  But frankly, she has actually addressed the issue in a far more responsible and intelligent fashion.  Jim Myers focused upon this theme in his issue Number 8, 1999, of his “Discovering the Bible” newsletter (p. 6-9).  Myers correctly notes that Rabbinic Judaism (based upon Talmudic teachings) does not consider that death is the end of human existence. 

 

But conversely, within Judaism, the focus is upon life in the here and now and not necessarily upon death and the afterlife.  However, questions of the afterlife exist and there are any number of opinions around supporting the different views (just as is true within Christianity). 

 

Some religious Jews believe that the dead spirits of righteous persons go to a place like the Christian heaven while others accept the grave as the temporary depository of people to await a future resurrection.  Some Jews believe in reincarnation while others do not.  Some believe that the wicked are totally destroyed at death and have no future while others do not. 

 

 

The Millennial World Tomorrow 

 

With the primary focus upon life, Rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud have focused upon living this life so that one can enjoy and participate in the afterlife.  In any case, Jews place a great emphasis upon the study of Torah and the performance of good deeds to partake of the afterlife (which, in the Hebrew, is called Olam Ha-Ba, meaning the World to Come, to be discussed later). 

 

Orthodox Jews even add a little stipulation on the good deeds requirement.  They argue that those who reject the Oral Law (the Talmud) will be excluded from the afterlife or Olam Ha-Ba.    

 

They see this Olam Ha-Ba as the place for the regathering with their righteous ancestors, in the sense that when the righteous died, the Book says that they were gathered to their people (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:33; Deut 32:50; II Kg 22:20).  Many religious Jews accept these teachings as a bringing together of themselves and their righteous ancestors in the context of an event beyond physical death and burial. 

 

Per Myers, the essence of Judaism believes in the resurrection during the Messianic age in the context of the Olam Ha-Ba (Dan 12:2; Neh 9:5). 

 

 

The Demon Issue 

 

One most interesting Jewish teaching on the afterlife concerns the Jewish approach to the question of demons in this life (as was covered in prior chapters).  Some Jews believe that every sin which we commit here in the flesh creates an angel of destruction (a demon) that attaches to us.  After we die, we are punished by these demons which we have created or allowed to attach to ourselves. 

 

Some Jews believe that they are punished by these demons while in Gehenna or sheol (the grave).  In this sense, they believe in a hell like existence made by our own evil deeds and actions. 

 

Others see a future time and place when they will be resurrected to see the harm and hurt that they have done and the opportunities missed, and experience remorse for their actions.  Once repentance is realized (which will occur within one year in this temporary place), the judged person can later enter into Olam Ha-Ba.  This intermediate place could be thought of as a type of purgatory in terms of Christendom. 

 

Although some of these beliefs are complex and may have some similarities to traditional Christian beliefs (which are absolutely false and pagan to the core, as will be addressed in later chapters herein), there are some extraordinarily important ideas associated with them which hold enormous truths about the future. 

 

Previous chapters herein have assessed in some detail the whole reconciliation and redemption processes and the great punishment, trial, trouble and hurt which the election must go through in order to be granted the free gifts of faith and repentance by YHWH.  While Christians have made this process extremely simple, per their false ideas on truth, the reality is that it is quite difficult. 

 

In any event, this thinking about demons attaching themselves to us when we sin must not be ridiculed or made light of.  This is a strong possibility.  This Jewish thinking may contain some fantastic revelations, as was broached in the former chapters on reconciliation and redemption. 

 

In the earlier discussion on reconciliation, the demon issue opened the door to the difficulty of true repentance--without the gift of repentance from an intervention of YHWH.  These earlier chapters on reconciliation also communicated that Adamites must deal with the sin question here in this life, or they will have to deal with it in a future age, time and place--in either case, before man can truly enjoy the Olam Ha-Ba. 

 

The point of these comments is that Talmudic scholars have wrestled with many of these very complicated questions over the centuries.  The Talmud has recorded their ideas (actually opinions) for the benefit of not only the succeeding Jews, but also for each and all of us to gain from the thinking of religious people of 2,500 years ago (who lived in Ezra’s day and later in YESHUA’s day). 

 

Of course, some of this thinking became formalized as traditions which have persisted for the centuries and still have merit for the student of truth today, just as it did for YESHUA and His followers in the first century CE. 

 

 

To Avoid Confusion 

 

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with traditions because the Apostle Shaul, himself, issued some instructions about holding fast to the traditions handed down in the Apostolic Assembly (II Thes 2:15; 3:6). 

 

Quite often, it is the presence of traditions and customs which allow groups of people to find common ground on complicated issues and avoid a state of pandemonium and confusion in social intercourse. 

 

Manifestly, the typical Sabbathkeeper needs to shamar the Sabbath and have a time before actual sunset when secular work and activities cease and the Sabbath actually commences. 

 

Should one wait to the last second at sundown and expect to complete this transition?  How about one minute before sundown or five minutes or the Jewish practice of 18 minutes?  In fact, should there even be a ceremony or procedure to recognize the beginning and ending of the Sabbath? 

 

The question of Sabbath ceremonies and timing will be further addressed in later chapters.  Significantly, the Scriptures seem silent on these issues and evidently YHWH has seen fit to not legislate the exact time or procedure.  However, all Sabbath keepers are faced with having an exact time, as a minimum, in order to keep/shamar the Sabbath and protect it and not allow a violation or infringement to occur. 

 

It appears that the exact time becomes optional or open for different people or groups of people (in the case of a family or an assembly) to decide for their own purposes.  For some, maybe 18 minutes is best while for others, maybe 5 minutes is proper.  Maybe the time can vary depending upon what activity a person may be involved in as the Sabbath approaches. 

 

The point is that we all likely need a time as a custom, practice or tradition.  It’s just that this time decision evidently should not be established as law and sin on the level of the actual fourth commandment.  Too often, this is what has happened in Judaism.  These customs, practices and traditions became laws (causing alleged sin) on the same level as YHWH’s laws. 

 

 

Christians Have Traditions 

 

This same condition occurs in the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps all of the 32,000 different Christian denominations and a host of other worldly religions.  All of them establish traditions which “must be” obeyed on the law and sin level within the denomination.  It is not unusual or unique that the Jews have done this as well. 

 

Josephus defined this practice by saying “The Pharisees have imposed upon the people many laws taken from the traditions of the fathers...which are not written in the law of Moshe” (“A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” division 2, v. ii, p. 11). 

 

Evidently, the Shammai Pharisees and Haverim (as defined and discussed in some detail in former chapters) became quite passionate over these traditions which were on the law level.  R. Eleasar of Modein said:  “He who interprets Scripture in opposition to tradition has no part in the world to come” (ibid, division 2, v. ii, p. 12). 

 

As will be shortly shown, YESHUA and members of the Apostolic Assembly did follow numerous traditions and customs outlined in the Oral Law.  It’s just that they accepted them as customs and not necessarily as law on the level of the Torah.  Once they were put on a law level (like the written Torah), YESHUA naturally criticized them (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:3-13). 

 

Thus, as Norman argues, both YESHUA and Shaul were against traditions which would set aside YHWH’s laws and conflict with Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and 12:32--which specifically commands that man not add to or diminish from YHWH’s commands.  More will be said about traditions shortly. 

 

 

Yes, Opinion 

 

Having mentioned that much of the Talmud is nothing but opinion, it should be noted that it is often such opinion which has led many Christians to have such a bitter hatred toward the Talmud.  In other words, many Christians tend to grab hold of some “opinion” of an ancient Jewish sage and try to attach some importance to it. 

 

If a Christian analyst disagrees with some of this opinion in the Talmud, he attacks the overall Talmud--never understanding that the particular remark is nothing but opinion and carries no weight or authority at all even in Judaism.  It’s just that--opinion! 

 

The two schools of Jewish thought--Hillel and Shammai--were cited earlier and will be discussed at length in later chapters in the context of their many differences.  The Talmud lays out these differences in some detail.  Interestingly, YESHUA not only agreed with Hillel (except for divorce), but He typically obeyed the Hillel positions on the issues (as they are now illustrated in the Talmud). 

 

In “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?” (p. 7, 11), Christian writer Harold Hemenway cites a host of things which YESHUA obeyed from the Talmud and some things which He disobeyed.  It appears that He typically obeyed the Hillel positions and disobeyed the Shammai positions.  Manifestly, as proven from the NT, He was a Hillel Pharisee (or as Hemenway believes, He was a Hillel Pharisee in the midst of Shammai Pharisees). 

 

Too, it is verity that in Second Temple days, much of the Oral Law was nothing but opinion; although the Shammai Pharisees were pushing their traditional views hard as authoritative halakhah/legal law, as was wrong (per Deut 4:1-2; 12:32; Josh 8:35). 

 

But things were to subsequently transpire which motivated Jewish leaders to succumb to the Shammai mentality and change some of the former Second Temple opinions (aggadah) into authoritative laws on a level with the Torah (thus, halakhah).  This reality will be broached in later chapters focusing on changes in Judaism. 

 

 

The Talmud Was a Part of Second Temple Judaism 

 

In Second Temple Judaism, the Oral Law was a part and parcel of the life style and culture of the Jews in Palestine, in general, and particularly of major significance to religious Jews (like YESHUA and so many of His early disciples). 

 

Thus, the NT has many, many passages which clearly link to the Oral Law (as pointed out above).  Talmud haters need to appreciate that YESHUA was a Pharisaical RABBI and One much like the others of His day--certainly, in some respects, like in practice and style of teaching, etc (as was established in a former chapter). 

 

In previous comments, the point was made that The MESSIAH’s teachings and conclusions paralleled that of the famous Rabbinic teacher Hillel.  Some students of truth believe that YESHUA was a Hillel Pharisee--just as was Shaul the apostle and thousands of other believers, as discussed earlier. 

 

As a minimum, it must be acknowledged that neither YESHUA or Shaul, or any of the other disciples for that matter, ever attacked or condemned the overall Oral Law (Talmudic) teachings, per se.  In fact, and as noted in earlier chapters, Luke goes to some length to quote Shaul as saying that he was not against the law of the Jews (evidently including the Oral Law) or the Temple (Acts 25:8). 

 

As the book of Acts was drawing to a close, Shaul spoke to the Jewish leadership in Rome.  As mentioned previously, he told them that he had not committed any offense against the Jewish people or the “customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17).  This word customs must include the customs outlined in the Talmud.  Assuredly, Shaul never spoke against any of them! 

 

Interestingly, as well, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 13) indicates that YESHUA did not oppose any prescriptions in the Written or Oral Mosaic Law, and that He even performed Jewish religious commandments.  This fact is clearly brought out in all four of the histories of His life (Matthew to John). 

 

 

Freedom of Thought and Expression 

 

Yes, even the Talmud provides criticism for Jewish hypocrites as well as others.  Over the centuries, preceding the time when the Talmud was committed to writing, Jewish sages were free to express their opinions and criticize and condemn whomsoever they wanted to--to even include each other and YESHUA The MESSIAH as well.  This is called freedom of speech. 

 

That free environment and allowance for genuine free speech and thought was far different than what one finds today in the modern world where Slick Clinton has been pushing a so-called hate crimes agenda (so that free speech and free thought will be able to send a person to jail for a long term). 

 

Just ask any number of people (Mark Fuhrman and others) who have spoken an unspeakable, politically incorrect word (i.e. the above cited “n” word, which is unspeakable by Whites, but perfectly allowable by Blacks and in Hollywood movies made by Edomite producers and directors).  Hollywood can clearly use words that are forbidden to the general public. 

 

The careers of numerous people using politically incorrect words have been immediately wiped out.  Since Luke used the politically incorrect “Niger” word in Acts (13:1), he would be in serious trouble in modern America.  Even the KJV translators would be called racists in today’s culture. 

 

 

Some Contrary Opinion? 

 

Beyond a few critical remarks (some of which were briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter) about YESHUA (actually, only five references to YESHUA are in the Talmud), the Talmud seems to also have several comments critical of the Nazarene sect of Judaism, collective Christianity by allusion, and of so-called heathen goyim (in the context of non-Jewish peoples). 

 

As one proceeds in this study at hand, he will find a number of other persons (including some Christians and non-Christian believers in YESHUA) who share some of the exact same feelings.  The gist of this is that criticism and complaints about the pagan practices of the goyim and Christianity are not limited to the comments of ancient Jews in the Talmud.  Some real people of faith still do it today! 

 

Interestingly, some Christians will get all excited and will cite and complain about these “few” Talmudic references to the first century CE YESHUA, Messianic Jewish believers, Christians, or the goyim generally, which are critical, demeaning, derogatory and/or blasphemous. 

 

In terms of the goyim (at least, the nokri/nekar/mamzer/arav peoples, which will include much of Christianity), many of these Talmudic remarks are prompted by the Torah itself and its focus upon the requirements for maintaining a kodesh state by the rea Israelites in their relationship and contact with non-Israelite outsiders.  It is the Torah which spells out a distinction between Israelites and others (to be proven later herein). 

 

Correctly, such critical remarks are few, and possibly some were formed after the fall of Jerusalem (at least, in terms of those addressing YESHUA and/or the Messianic Nazarenes).  Moreover, some of them probably were expressed by evil Amalekites (like the Herodians--many of whom pretended to be Jews, though they were not Jews), and not necessarily by true (good) Jews who may not have shared in them at all. 

 

Many Christians and philosophers all over the world would readily agree with many Talmudic presentations without dissent.  Nevertheless, Christians often use those few critical remarks to support their hatred and opposition to the Talmud, never understanding that these words are opinions (meaning little or nothing) expressed by free men (to perhaps include some Amalek-Edomites who were not true Jews at all)! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 171--The Talmud II

 

 

Christian Opinion 

 

The prior chapter discussed the huge presence of early Jewish thinking, opinion and ideas in the Talmud.  But how about the Christian world? 

 

No one would dare think it wrong if Christian writers express their opinions and criticize and condemn great Jewish sages like Hillel, Maimonides and the others.  Christians don’t get excited when Christians criticize Judaism or even each other. 

 

But let someone come along and complain about this Christian hatred and venom being spewed out on Jews and Judaism and Christians would immediately cry out about freedom of thought, expression and religion (which a free society grants them). 

 

Of course, Jews, like Christians, have also been allowed to have opinion and to freely express that opinion.  Yes, even Jewish and Christian Amalekites have been allowed freedom to express their opinions and they do so regularly even to the present era of the early 21st century, in both secular and religious literature. 

 

While many persons may not be aware of it, but numbers of top Christian theologians are actually Amalekites (like the elsewhere mentioned Pope Paul VI).  Christians frequently read their (talmudic) Christian writings and never get excited.  Consequently, if some Jewish Amalekites did express some opinion which became a part of the Jewish Talmud, why do Christians go to pieces over it? 

 

People like Robert Schuller, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham and on and on may or may not be Amalekites (one can’t be sure since they all teach and advocate so much rebellion toward YAH’s Torah and diabolical wickedness in general), but it’s hard to imagine that any Amalek-Edomite remarks in the Jewish Talmud could be much different or worse. 

 

Hence, one must in fairness recognize that Jewish scholars, past and present, have opinions which freedom of religion and freedom of speech allow in many existing secular states.  When the millennial rule of YHWH YESHUA commences, some things “may” change on this issue.  But for now, reality must be accepted as it exists. 

 

Without this privilege of freedom of thought, words, expression and beliefs, people would quickly become robots in a “thought control” society--one much like Slick Clinton has been anxious to impose on the US with his so-called hate crimes agenda (cited earlier and to be described in later chapters). 

 

While many people may never get the point, but if there was no freedom of thought and expression in the sinful world of man, little or no truth would ever come out--as was true when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the secular world for 1,260 years with a threat of death and persecution for anyone wanting to oppose Catholicism. 

 

Millions died at the hands of Rome in the Protestant Reformation to allow freedom of thought and expression in religious matters.  Be assured that when the beast man and false prophet of Revelation take over in the age end, they will impose speech, thought and opinion control on the world’s population--just as Slick Clinton has been trying to push in the US. 

 

 

A Jewish Religious Dictatorship 

 

In an article on “The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” William F. Dankenbring quotes scholars like Ray A. Pritz (previously quoted herein) and notes that before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Second Temple Judaism allowed different opinions in the context of freedom of religion. 

 

While Josephus mentioned the three primary religious groups (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes), it is important to note that the Talmud suggests that there were actually 24 different sects in Second Temple days (“The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect,” by David Flusser, p. 15).  For example, the Pharisee definition and perhaps the other major groups must have included a number of sub-sects or components. 

 

Thus, there were definite differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees and even among the Pharisees of the Hillel and Shammai beliefs among the various divisions.  In fact, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 4, p. 738) puts the number of differences between the Shammai and Hillel people at 350 in Second Temple days. 

 

Consequently, the NT and the Talmud itself demonstrates many of these sharp differences of opinion between these major groups.  But these differences did not produce an authoritarian dictatorship over the people in Second Temple days (although the early Shammai people may have wished for such domination). 

 

In fact, the collective people could theoretically attend the same Jewish synagogues together and enjoy common fellowship and worship (although they always didn’t commingle since the Sadducees perhaps did not attend synagogue and the Essenes were separatists). 

 

William F. Dankenbring indicates that with the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE), all of this religious freedom and allowance for disagreement ceased (“Prophecy Flash,” Sep-Oct 1994, p. 11).  This course will be broached in a later chapter. 

 

Of course, The Anointed ONE had some problems with “some” of the Pharisees of His time (evidently, those Pharisees of the School of Shammai; and obviously, also of the wicked Amalek-Edomites, called Judeans, in the so-called Gospels--some of whom apparently identified with the Shammai beliefs). 

 

Furthermore, YESHUA would usually disagree with the Sadducees and scribes as He apparently did not hold them in much esteem either.  In fact, Yohanan specifically observed this division of religious opinion in first century Judaism (Jo 9:16).  Thus, differences of opinion on Scriptural matters should not surprise anyone. 

 

 

Same Today 

 

In today’s modern world, one can find about the same thing as just alluded to above.  Among the Jews, there are sharp differences between the Orthodox, the Ultra Orthodox, the Hasidic, the Conservatives, the Reform, the Reconstructionists and the Karaites (Karaim).  Of course, the leaders in these different factions criticize each other and the differing beliefs. 

 

As noted previously, the “rabbis” in Second Temple days criticized the same things in each other that YESHUA criticized in them (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 70).  YESHUA was much like the other “rabbis” of his day in offering criticism for sin and hypocrisy. 

 

As pointed out in the former chapter, the reader must take note of the reality in today’s world where people (including religious leaders) are hesitant about publicly criticizing or condemning other persons by name and specific identifications for wrong-doing or sin because of the prevalence of lawyers in today’s society and the possibilities of facing a libel trial in court.  In YESHUA’s day, there was little concern over libel trials. 

 

Moreover, as one approaches truth, it becomes manifest that worldly religious leaders (like those YESHUA criticized) are often deserving of criticism because they are frequently barriers to or enemies of truth.  This problem with religious leaders is much like that of doctors, lawyers and politicians--all of whom are not held in much esteem in most of YHWH’s Word. 

 

 

Christians Are Also Divided 

 

One finds precisely the same situation throughout all of Christendom (except it is far worse).  One denomination attacks the doctrines of another denomination.  One leader attacks others.  Some people go bonkers over the writings of Ellen White while others are obsessed with the works of Joseph Smith and on and on. 

 

In a sense, the writings of Ellen White have come to be a talmud for the Seventh-day Adventists.  Likewise, the works of Joseph Smith (i.e. the book of Mormon) are certainly a type of a talmud for Mormons.  

 

In fact, one could put “all” Christian writings together in one production and could properly label them a “Christian talmud,” since the Hebrew word talmudh can actually mean “instruction” (“Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 690). 

 

As bad as the Jews might be over their Talmud, there is one interesting feature that stands out in any comparison with the different Christian groups and their talmuds. 

 

True, religious Jews do attach some authority and importance to some portions of the Talmud in the context of law.  But for the rest of the Talmud, they are acutely aware of reality that it constitutes only opinion which certainly carries no authority. 

 

 

More on the Ignorant Christians

 

Most of the different Christian groups are utterly ridiculous over their talmuds. 

 

Many Seventh-day Adventists spend more of their time, money and resources on their talmud (the writings of Ellen G. White) than they do on the works of Moshe, Yeshayahu or Yirmeyahu.  They seem to accept “all” of Ellen White as authoritative law.  They study it diligently and usually quote it more often and better than the Scriptures. 

 

The Mormons go goo-goo eyed over the talmudic book of Mormon.  They actually believe that all 100% of it is inspired and authoritative.  Like the Adventists, many Mormons spend far more time studying their talmud than they do the Scriptures.  They may be Scripturally illiterate in terms of YHWH’s Word, but they can sure quote Joseph Smith. 

 

This writer once had a good Mormon friend.  My friend knew little about the Scriptures.  But he did read and study the book of Mormon.  One day, he began quoting, as authoritative and good, some remarks from the book of Mormon which this writer understood as coming from one of the Psalms in the Word. 

 

This Scriptural link was pointed out to the Mormon man and he was surprised that it’s basis was the Word.  He didn’t realize that the remark was wonderful--not because it was in the book of Mormon; but rather, because it came from the Tanakh. 

 

What a tragedy it was that this Scripturally illiterate Mormon didn’t spend as much time and effort on learning about the Tanakh as he had with the book of Mormon.  This indictment clearly pertains equally as much to Scripturally illiterate Seventh day Adventists, mentioned above, who study and adore the writings of Ellen G. White, all the while that they know little or nothing from the Word. 

 

 

Ridiculous Christians 

 

Almost all Christian denominations are about as stupid and ridiculous over the writings of their founders and leaders.  A man named Herbert W. Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God years ago (as addressed in a previous chapter).  His followers used to study, contemplate and reflect upon his writings as much or more than Moshe or David. 

 

The Lutherans are goofy over the works of Martin Luther; the Methodists are crazy over John Wesley; the Presbyterians are insane over John Calvin; etc--all the while that virtually all denominations and groups devote themselves to reading, believing and obeying the words of their contemporary leaders in their talmudic denominational periodicals and books. 

 

Thus, as the older leaders die off, new ones take over and impose their talmuds on the dumb sheep people under their charge.  Too often, the sheep followers accept and obey the new talmuds (of the new leaders)--just as readily as they did the previous talmuds of the old leaders. 

 

Most Christians lack sufficient awareness to discern between dogmatic doctrines in these Christian talmuds and meaningless opinion which they accept as authoritative as well.  Hence, not only are most Christians grossly lacking and weak on the Word, but they misunderstand some of their talmudic opinions from their leaders and interpret them as being authoritative law.  

 

 

Jews Are Far More Informed 

 

Jews are far more informed and sensible over the Jewish Talmud.  Yes, Jews do acknowledge some of it as authoritative law.  But they generally have sufficient brains to realize that a lot of it is opinion which means little or nothing.  They know that the Talmud represents differences in doctrinal opinions of the different Jewish factions in Second Temple days. 

 

Most observers are cognizant of the huge number of splits and divisions in the historic Baptist Churches as well as in the entire Sardis Church of God and Sacred Name movements (described in other chapters herein).  Most of these people disagree among themselves--sometimes on important issues, but more often on petty things of little or no importance (except questions of who will be the boss running things). 

 

Subsequent chapters in this work will focus on denominationalism in modern Christendom.  Actually, there are some 32,000 different Christian groups with all kinds of different beliefs, opinions and interpretations.  Not only does Christendom have all of these differences; but sometimes, there is open hostility among the different factions. 

 

Christians don’t seem to get upset over all of these disagreements and conflicts in Christian writings (in the different, denominational, Christian talmuds).  Why should they criticize or be surprised over different beliefs in Judaism and the Jewish Talmud? 

 

 

Differences Between the Jews and Christians 

 

The above comments broached the issue of the huge popularity of a host of different and conflicting talmuds within Christianity.  However, on this theme, there are several fantastic truths which distinguish or differentiate Judaism from Christianity.  This point is awesome to think about--but it is categorically true as revealed in the Talmud. 

 

As pointed out, above, individual Christian denominations and collective Christianity at large all have their own Christian talmuds.  With this prevalence of numbers of Christian talmuds in existence, how is it and why is that Christians go to pieces to complain and criticize Jews because they have the Jewish Talmud.  Yes, Christians habitually play the hypocrite on this issue. 

 

But there are some differences between the Christian talmuds (plural since there are so many different ones in existence) and the Jewish Talmuds (which only exist in two forms, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and even these two are compatible and have many similarities). 

 

Christianity literally has thousands and thousands of Christian talmuds (most of which profoundly disagree and represent a mass of Babylonian confusion). 

 

On the surface, the honest student of truth, of course, would immediately recognize the difference in timing between the Christian and Jewish talmuds.  The Jewish Talmud is very ancient and was contemporary with the life and times of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.  Most of the Christian talmuds are very recent compilations with a Greek religious heritage far removed from Second Temple Judaism. 

 

With the Jewish Talmud, one is reading the opinions and ideas of people who were contemporaries of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.  Yes, the Jewish Talmud reflects the culture and mentality of the relatives, friends and acquaintances (and enemies) of YESHUA, Shaul, Kefa and so forth. 

 

With modern Christian talmuds, the reader gets none of this background data. 

 

 

Christian Talmuds Are Selfish and Biased 

 

However, as utterly important as the dating reality is, this is not the big issue in comparing the two talmuds. 

 

Almost without exception, virtually all Christian denominational talmuds present only the view of the denomination.  They expressly will not allow into print any other views.  There are no disagreements, dissents or differences of opinion in most Christian denominational talmuds.  Christian editors will not permit anything into their denominational talmuds, but their own, approved, denominational beliefs.

 

When one reads the Ellen G. White talmud, the Herbert W. Armstrong talmud or the Joseph Smith talmud, he can only read the ideas and opinions of these Christian big shots.  None of these persons would have ever allowed any contrary opinion to enter their talmudic productions.  They were very exclusive, prejudiced and arrogant on keeping other views out! 

 

Therefore, each Christian talmud individually keeps out all dissent and disagreement so that readers can never question the presentation. 

 

The reader must accept the denominational pitch (which is confused because there are vast differences between the different, Christian, denominational talmuds.  Obviously, the Herbert W. Armstrong talmud is considerably different from the Joseph Smith or the Ellen White talmuds and so forth). 

 

Now, here comes the greatness and the real point of demarcation between the Jewish Talmud and the Christian ones.  The Jewish Talmud always allowed dissenting and disagreeing opinions to be presented, though they may have differed from the majority position and the position of the later editors.  This is absolutely remarkable! 

 

It is because of this factor that the Jewish Talmud has so much of an incredible amount of opinion (yes, even opponents of YESHUA were allowed to express their hatred and opinions about Him).  It is said that whenever two “rabbis” got together, there would be three different opinions.  This is sometimes true in generic Christendom. 

 

But Christian denominations do not allow these differences to be expressed typically in their denominational talmuds (Christian Church leaders will seldom allow them in print). 

 

The Jewish Talmud lays out the differences.  The majority beliefs never had the privilege of hiding and covering up dissenting positions.  It is because of this reality that some amazing presentations appear in the Jewish Talmud. 

 

 

Some Examples 

 

So, despite the fact that Jews historically don’t believe that the first century YESHUA was The MESSIAH (and there are some few criticisms of Him, just as there are criticisms of almost everybody and everything else, in the context of opinion), the Jews have allowed contrasting opinion to become a part of their Talmud. 

 

For example, Dr Harris Brady has an article on “Who is a Jew?... Who is a Rabbi” in the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 37), which reflects upon Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53 in the Talmud. 

 

Zechariah 12:10 reports a coming time when Jews will look upon YESHUA, Whom they have pierced.  The Talmud says that “It must be granted him that says, for Messiah the Son of Joseph that shall be slain as it is written, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced” (Succah 52). 

 

The Talmud also reports the view of one R. Alschech who said “They shall lift up their eyes to me in perfect repentance when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph.”  Historic Judaism has fought and argued against Isaiah 53 for 2,000 years.  Yet, the Talmud has these remarks of ancient “rabbis” who acknowledged that Isaiah 53 pertained to The MESSIAH. 

 

Having mentioned this reference, it could offer some confusion because elsewhere the Talmud predicts the coming of two Messiahs--one, the son of Joseph; and another, the son of David (Jan-Feb 2001 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 7).  The son of Joseph is to die in battle and prepare the way for the Son of David who would come later and conquer the heathen nations and rule the world. 

 

This Talmudic thinking is interesting in view of the Scriptural evidence that The MESSIAH does come in two presentations.  In the first century CE, He came as A LAMB (fulfilling Isaiah 53 and other texts--which the Talmud seems to associate with The SON OF YOSEF).  Now, in the future age end, He will come again, but as A KING and LION (Isa 34; Dan 2:44 and Rev 19:16--which the Talmud sees as A SON OF DAVID). 

 

Manifestly, the Jews have allowed dissenting opinion to enter their own doctrinal source--the Talmud.  This would never happen within Christianity, at least in most denominations. 

 

Incidentally, while allowing in some dissenting remarks into the Talmud, editor Rick Chaimberlin, in answer to a reader’s question, notes in the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 50) that while the Talmud does give significant space to dissenting views, it always makes the winning or prevailing position plain and the one to be followed.

 

 

First Century Differences in Interpretations 

 

With the background on interpretations and the need for them in prior comments, YESHUA (correctly) took exception to “some” (certainly not all) of the Talmudic ideas (of the Shammai and/or Haverim people) which truly were inconsistent or in conflict with the Tanakh (as some of them were) 

 

For example, on the ritualistic (ceremonially) washings of hands, on wrong treatment of parents and possibly the improper restrictions on the Sabbath (all of which were points of controversy in Second Temple Judaism), YESHUA seemingly labeled them traditions and commandments of men (Matt 15; Mk 7). 

 

Likewise, the Apostle Shaul may have had these School of Shammai or Haverim teachings in mind when he wrote to the Colossians about the commandments and doctrines of men--on the level of ordinances about touching not, tasting not, etc.  He said they would all perish (Col 2:20-23).  But clearly, he would have never said that about the mitzwot of YHWH which he loved and served. 

 

In mentioning this reality, the point must be made that YESHUA did not have any problem (nor Shaul--Acts 28:17), per se, with Jewish customs and traditions.  His mention of some of them were in the context that some set aside, nullified or “transgressed the commandments” of The ELOHIM (Matt 15:3-6). 

 

Of course, He would say that about any custom or tradition which acted against any portion of the Torah.  He was totally dedicated to the righteousness of the Torah.  Never would He have stood by and allowed anyone to nullify or set aside the Torah and its righteousness through tradition. 

 

If He was walking the streets of modern America and found people observing the traditions of their fathers (in Christmas and Easter celebrations and a whole host of common Christian acts made on the basis of custom and tradition), what do you think He would say? 

 

YESHUA would never stand by and accept the acts of people to follow customs which set aside YHWH’s commandments. 

 

Ignorant and uninformed Christians who believe that they are saved and have salvation (all the while that they are in rebellion and contempt toward YHWH’s Torah) are due for a shock one day when they learn that His Torah takes precedence over their unscriptural, false traditions and customs. 

 

 

Differences Highlighted 

 

Beyond the differences in opinion and belief between the Pharisees and the Sadducees over hand washing procedures (per the Talmud, Yadaim 4:6-7), there was also conflict between the Pharisee Schools of Shammai and Hillel over the same ceremonial hand washing questions (per the Talmud, Berakhoth 8). 

 

If the School of Shammai Pharisees had its way, a person would have had to ceremonially wash and dip his hands in water often every day by a definitely established, long, ceremonial procedure.  These dippings had nothing to do with hygiene or cleanliness.  They were pushed for ritualistic reasons. 

 

Importantly, they were not commanded as a mitzwah in the Torah (though the Torah did define certain, similar, ritual-cleaning practices for the priesthood, who would officiate in the Temple--Ex 30:18-20).  But these Torah requirements for the priests had absolutely nothing to do with the common people.  Yet, the Shammai Pharisees were trying to extend them to the public at large.  No wonder YESHUA opposed their ideas. 

 

 

Hillel Versus Shammai

 

Similar differences of opinion existed between the Shammai and Hillel people over interpreting “how” to keep the Sabbath and not on whether to keep the Sabbath.  For example, the Shammai Pharisees would not start an extended trip over the Mediterranean Sea after the fourth day of the week if it would take them over the Sabbath day. 

 

Otherwise, “The Mishnah” (p. 100-121) has a whole host of statements illustrating the differences between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel on how to keep the Sabbath.  There simply is insufficient space to begin to cover these differences.  But a few more will be highlighted to demonstrate the point. 

 

Thus, Shammai would say that ink, dyestuff, or vetches may not be soaked on a sixth day of the week unless there is time for them to be wholly soaked before the start of the Sabbath (the point here is that the persons dying cloth or soaking cloth or something must complete the process before the Sabbath commences and not allow the operation to continue over the Sabbath).  Hillel permits it.

 

Shammai would say that bundles of flax were not to be baked in an oven on the sixth day unless there is time for them to bake that day.  Hillel would allow it.  Shammai would say that fishing nets should not be spread on a sixth day unless there is time to catch fish that day (in other words, don’t leave the nets out over the Sabbath).  Hillel would allow it. 

 

Shammai would say that one should not help a goy (non-believer) place a burden or pack on an animal on the sixth day unless there is time for the pack animal to reach its destination that day.  Hillel would permit it as long as it was before the Sabbath. 

 

Shammai would not give hides to a goy (non-believing) tanner on a sixth day unless the work could be completed that day (the point here is to not give work to non Sabbathkeepers on a sixth day on the premise that they will do or might do the work on the Sabbath).  Hillel would allow it.  Thus, the Shammai people were very strict on how to keep the Sabbath (“The Temple Its Ministry and Services,” p. 137). 

 

In reciting the shema (Deut 6:4-5, which YESHUA recited in the NT--Mk 12:28-33), Shammai said to stand in the morning and recline in the evening (to fulfill Deut 6:7) while Hillel said “Everyone recites in his own way:  one may stand, recline, walk, and even work during the recital.” 

 

Thus, Shammai stressed the formal act (the ceremony during the recital) and Hillel ignored altogether the ceremony and stressed instead the intentions of the heart (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 67).

 

 

In the NT 

 

In the NT, YESHUA had some conflicts with the Pharisees (evidently, of the strict School of Shammai) over plucking of grain to immediately eat on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Mk 2:23-28; Lu 6:1-5) and over healing of sick people on the Sabbath (Matt 12:9-13; Mk 3:1-5; Lu 6:6-10).  None of these confrontations were over keeping the Sabbath.  Both involved questions on how to keep the Sabbath. 

 

Moreover, the Torah provided that farmers were to leave grain in the fields for the poor to glean (Lev 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 24:19-20). 

 

So, on one Sabbath, YESHUA and His disciples were walking through a grain field.  The disciples were hungry and pulled a few ears of grain to munch on as they walked.  The Pharisees (Shammai?) cried “sin,” believing that it was work to pull a few ears of grain (per the Mishnah, Shabbath 7:2). 

 

The healings fit into the same category.  The Mishnah defines any treatment for the relief of discomfort, pain or slight ailments as being a form of grinding or preparing medicines; thus constituting prohibited work on the Sabbath (Shabbath 7:2). 

 

When YESHUA healed the sick on the Sabbath, the Pharisees (evidently Shammai) alleged that he was practicing medicine and working which would have been contrary to the Mishnah. 

 

This writer does not have all of the details on this issue of possible Shammai and Hillel conflict, other than noting that the prohibitions are outlined in the Mishnah, Section 7 of the Shabbath tract (“The Mishnah,” p. 106). 

 

Based upon YESHUA’s confrontation with some Pharisees (apparently Shammai Pharisees), it seems evident that Hillel allowed healings on the Sabbath while Shammai held to the literal words of the Mishnah. 

 

In any case, modern Rabbinic Judaism now allows doctors to practice their healing arts on the Sabbath.  Since Rabbinic Judaism more often follows the dictates of Hillel, it is very likely that this was the historic Hillel position. 

 

In the Number 8 issue 1999, of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 1-4), Jim Myers discussed the Rabbinic position on life which is that all of the commandments in the Torah can be violated in order to preserve human life except for four of them--murder, idolatry, incest and adultery.  Thus, the other recognized 609 mitzwot can all be violated to preserve life (per Judaism). 

 

This reality in Second Temple Judaism apparently had some support among certain classes of Jews.  For example, the Torah said that the shew bread in the Temple could be eaten only by the priests (Lev 24:5-9).  Yet, David, who was not a priest, ate the shew bread (I Sam 21:1-6; 22:10, 15). 

 

Some hypocritical Pharisees (evidently Shammai) supported David’s action on the premise that David needed the food to stay alive.  However, these same Pharisees condemned YESHUA for healing sick people on the Sabbath and the disciples for eating a little grain on the Sabbath.  So YESHUA pointed out their hypocrisy (Matt 12:3-6). 

 

 

More From Rabbinic Judaism 

 

Obviously, the issue of healings was eventually settled within Judaism when doctors were allowed to practice medicine on the Sabbath day (as is now the Jewish procedure).  In modern Israel, it can be awful quiet on the Sabbath in some areas and especially on Yom Kippur--except for one thing.  Even on Yom Kippur, the sound of sirens and ambulances can be heard. 

 

In the NT Talmud conflicts, The MESSIAH was not criticizing observance of YHWH’s Sabbath, honor to parents or of the washing of hands for hygienic purposes. 

 

Obviously, YHWH YESHUA always obeyed His Own Sabbath laws and showed honor to His parents.  Otherwise, He would have been a sinner Himself.  You can just about bank on it that He washed His hands (and His feet as well) on occasion, if they were dirty. 

 

 

The Divorce Controversy 

 

The Talmud has a record of a long controversy between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel over the interpretation of the word “unclean,” in Moshe’s law governing divorce at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (“Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica,” by John Lightfoot, v. 2, p. 119-123). 

 

The Shammai people said it must be limited to adultery “only” while the Hillel School argued for a more liberal position, allowing other causes (“Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica,” v. 2, p. 120-122). 

 

YESHUA seems to have chosen a middle ground position limiting divorce to fornication (Greek porneia--Matt 5:32), which includes all sexual uncleanness (both before and after marriage, to be further discussed in a later chapter).  It appears that this might be the only case where YESHUA did not categorically side with the School of Hillel in its conflicts with the School of Shammai. 

 

Obviously too, the Apostle Shaul seems to have mentioned desertion as an allowable reason for divorce (I Cor 7:15)--which might have been just Shaul’s personal belief and not necessarily the position of YESHUA (I Cor 7:12).  Despite the fact that the source of Shaul’s conclusion seems obscure, one can be sure that it was compatible and consistent with YESHUA’s teachings--if Shaul and the NT were inspired. 

 

 

More Differences 

 

Comments in other chapters herein have or will focus upon the concepts of binding and loosing (or put another way, of forbidding or permitting)--the authority of which was granted to the scribes and Pharisees, in the sense of them sitting in Moshe’s seat (Deut 17:8-13; Matt 23:3).  Reportedly, the School of Shammai tended to interpret the Torah in a fashion of forbidding things (more than it actually said). 

 

Conversely, the School of Hillel tended to permit or loose things which the School of Shammai would forbid.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 13) called the Pharisaical School of Hillel “liberal” in its beliefs and attitudes.  This is why the ritualistic hand-washings, mentioned above, were such an issue in first century CE Judaism. 

 

In terms of the basic philosophies governing the two schools, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 4, p. 741) suggests that Shammai has its origin in “gevurah” (might), as opposed to Hillel’s “hesed” (loyalty).  

 

Supposedly, Hillel was gentle and kind--in contrast to Shammai, who was stern and short tempered (ibid, v. 4, p. 740). 

 

Shammai adopted the stricter view on issues while Hillel chose the more lenient approaches (ibid, v. 4, p. 740).  There is an ancient Jewish proverb which illustrates the difference between the two. 

 

The story is that a heathen came to Shammai and said “Convert me provided that you teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot.”  Shammai drove him away with the builder’s cubit which was in his hand.  The heathen went to Hillel and asked him.  Hillel said “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor (rea).  This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary.  Go and learn it” (Jan-Mar 2000 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 24). 

 

 

Where’s Your Fence, Revisited 

 

The previously mentioned Norman A. Brumm, in his article on “Where’s Your Fence,” suggests that the School of Shammai Pharisees taught that in order to be saved, a person had to perform (on the level of commandments and laws) a host of traditions which they accepted and taught. 

 

Hence, their concept of salvation was of one of works, as established by them (which is what is taught in most Christian Churches). 

 

Conversely, Norman notes that while the School of Hillel people believed and taught obedience of YAH’s mitzwot, their position was that salvation occurred based on faith by the grace of YHWH (Feb 1998 “Search the Scriptures,” p. 4). 

 

Significantly, the Hillel position was precisely the one taught in the NT. 

 

William F. Dankenbring writes that Hillel believed in teaching the spirit of the law and that “God should be understood as being perfect from the viewpoint of His mitigating the written Torah or law with the qualities of forgiveness, mercy, compassion and love” (“The Pharisees, Hasidim, and the Early Jewish Church,” Aug 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 6). 

 

Dankenbring also reports that the Hasidim (of the School of Hillel persuasion, as was defined and discussed in preceding chapters) were distinguished for their love of people--in contrast to the Shammai “parush,” who were recognized for their separation from those considered to be sinful or irreligious (“Prophecy Flash,” Aug 1994, p. 6-7).

 

The Scriptures outline a number of Shammai parush who came into contact with YESHUA, as the context of the New Testament verses clearly illustrate. 

 

Many of YESHUA’s rebukes were directed at them for their proud, self righteous and exclusive attitudes.  Again, as noted above and in the prior chapter, there are a host of teachings and beliefs in the NT which either come from or directly link to teachings in the Talmud. 

 

 

The Talmud and NT Link

 

The Jewish Talmud and NT are inexorably linked together.  Any person who claims that he can understand the teachings of the NT, apart from the Talmud, is simply lost in terms of the real world. 

 

Some understanding of what the Talmud is and where its main focus is directed is crucial for an understanding of the NT.  The two writings are absolutely linked together in hundreds of ways (as will be proven in the following chapters). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 172--The Talmud and the NT I

 

 

Two Talmuds 

 

In any discussion on the Jews (yes, both good and/or bad Jews, as was covered in former chapters), some focus must inevitably be directed at the Talmud (which was briefly addressed in former chapters as being essentially opinion in the form of oral traditions handed down from generation to generation). 

 

There are actually two Jewish Talmuds--the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud (both reduced to writing largely in the third to fifth centuries CE, long after the fall of Jerusalem).  Both Talmuds are made up of two divisions--the Mishnah (which is clearly quite ancient) and the Gemara. 

 

The Mishnah is an interpretation of or commentary on the Torah (the Pentateuch--Genesis through Deuteronomy) and the Gemara is effectively an interpretation of the Mishnah.  However, some Jews recognize the Mishnah as a separate and independent work and the Gemara as actually constituting the Talmud 

 

The Jerusalem Talmud was a product of Palestine while the Babylonian Talmud evolved in Babylon from the time of the Jewish exile.  Both were handed down orally in ancient times--apparently by melodized rendition (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 755).  As noted earlier, some Jews try to date this oral tradition to the time of Moshe. 

 

But as noted in a former chapter, this is impossible in view of Joshua 8:35 where Yehoshua read the Torah to the people.  As Daniel Botkin of East Peoria, Illinois notes, Yehoshua had to have read the Torah in a written form, and not involving any attempt to merely quote oral tradition. 

 

Moreover, the implications of Deuteronomy 4:1-2 come into play--where Moshe decreed that nothing further can be added to the Torah, beyond the Words recorded by Moshe.  This reference is plain enough that the laws found in the Talmud have no legal basis from the Scriptures.  Talmudic writers (like later NT and Christian writers) could interpret and give their ideas/opinions.  But they could not state laws/mitzwot. 

 

Hence, this Jewish view of dating the Talmud to Moshe simply won’t hold water.  Regardless of when the oral tradition started (probably after the exile), it is quite ancient. 

 

 

More 

 

In terms of the actual writing and editing of the two, the Jerusalem Talmud is the oldest with the Babylonian Talmud being compiled a century later. 

 

The Babylonian Talmud is written in Eastern Aramaic with a considerable portion in Hebrew while the Jerusalem Talmud is written in Western Aramaic with an admixture of Greek words or loan words (many of them “hopelessly corrupt,” per “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” p. 774, v. 15). 

 

The two works are very similar in many ways.  However, there are important differences both in context from the standpoint of what subjects are addressed and also in interpretations and conclusions (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 750-779).  Judaica even suggests that there are numerous variants between the two texts of “The Mishnah” (ibid, p. 758). 

 

The Babylonian Talmud is by far the much larger one with some 2 1/2 million words in 5,894 pages while the Jerusalem Talmud is substantially smaller.  Modern Judaism recognizes the Babylonian Talmud as being more authoritative than the Jerusalem Talmud. 

 

Findings and comments in the Talmud are essentially halakhah (legal laws, which carry authority and should be obeyed) and/or haggadah (or aggadah--nonlegal opinions, comments and interpretations, often in the form of stories and parables). 

 

 

A Word on Opinion 

 

The above comments and previous chapters have established that much of the Talmud is nothing but opinion.  There is no need to repeat those presentations.  But one important facet of those remarks has not been covered as needed. 

 

The presence of opinion in the Talmud brings up a most fascinating example of one of the prime differences between Judaism and Christianity.  Both the Tanakh and the Talmud (and even the NT) offer an abundance of mitzwot, instructions and teachings along the line that there is to be a point of separation, distinction and demarcation between racial Israelites (to include racial gerim) and other humans/humanoids. 

 

The Word does not treat all so-called humans the same.  People in the “rea” context (in the vein of Yisrael and the Covenant) have a moral duty and obligation to help, assist, support and treat each other far differently than what one finds in the general sense of other people (yes, they show favoritism to each other.  This concept is unheard of in Christianity and among White people--who rarely ever show favoritism to each other). 

 

The Talmud always recognizes this distinction--in the vein of fellow Jews, as opposed to non-Jews (goyim).  “Everyman’s Talmud” (p. 212-213) notes that the law of love in the Talmud is limited to members of the Israelite community and that loving deeds are to be practiced, one to another, in that community.  In the Talmud, the Jews are always referred to or thought of as Yisrael and all other people as goyim. 

 

Since the Scriptures themselves differentiate between Israelites and others, the Talmud does the same thing.  While some remarks are cast in the vein of halakhah (law), most are rendered in the sense of aggadah (opinion).  For sure, they carry much weight because they are totally Scriptural (in the vein of Israelites showing favoritism to other Israelites). 

 

 

Christians Don’t Get It 

 

This ethnic or racial distinction makes ignorant and Scripturally uninformed Christians mad--because Christianity sees no difference whatsoever between persons of any class (which goes back to Grecian sun worship, in the sense of the brotherhood of man, as noted earlier and to be further discussed in later presentations). 

 

Since all people are the same in Christendom, Christians clearly hate the very ideas of differentiation and favoritism (as are found in the Talmud--and the Scriptures). 

 

Thus, Christian theologians incorrectly read the Greek thinking and philosophy (on “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man”) into everything (and certainly, into both the OT and NT).  With the Talmud, they respond by outrightly hating it--over the racial/ethnic distinctions. 

 

What a shame it has been that Christians do not read and study the Talmud and Tanakh and particularly in the vein of this racial differentiation.  Christians could learn some things from the Talmud (and the Word). 

 

 

Some More Views on Hillel and Shammai

 

The previously mentioned school of Hillel preached loving kindness and the study of the Torah while the school of Shammai had a twist on this historic Jewish teaching.  Per Shammai, “Make thy (study of the) Law a fixed habit; say little and do much, and receive all men with a cheerful countenance” (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 40). 

 

There is no need to attempt to cover the multitude of powerful and wonderful statements of the great Jewish sage Hillel.  But since YESHUA The MESSIAH and the Apostolic Assembly had so many linkages to Hillel, a few of his teachings should be looked at herein.  Of course, his words and teachings have been preserved in the Talmud. 

 

In one case, Hillel made a reference to a time and said “In the time when men scatter, gather” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 523).  This text compares with YESHUA’s words “he who does not gather with me, scattereth” (Matt 12:30; Lu 11:23). 

 

In another instance, Hillel interpreted Exodus 20:24 as saying that “In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 521).  Compare this with YESHUA’s words that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be in the midst of them (Matt 18:20). 

 

Moreover, Hillel taught that “One should not...weep in the presence of those who laugh, nor laugh in the presence of those who weep” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 522).  This interpretation was offered by Hillel for Shlomo’s words about “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” (Eccl 3:4). 

 

Per Hillel, one who trusts in YHWH becomes immune to bad news (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 74).  It does not matter whether the bad news is true or false.  This belief surfaces in YESHUA’s words about not being anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34). 

 

In “Hillel and Jesus” (p. 85, 90), Professor David Flusser, formerly of Hebrew University, outlined a series of NT texts quoting YESHUA which Flusser claimed had their origin from Hillel--like Matthew 20:12-14, and the above cited Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23.  Flusser said that YESHUA saw those teachings of Hillel, as speaking of Himself (evidently as The MESSIAH). 

 

 

Hillel on the Torah 

 

As outlined in former chapters on the Torah, YESHUA, Shaul and the other NT personalities were strong on the Torah (Matt 5:17-19). 

 

As might be expected, Hillel was a powerful teacher of the righteousness in the Torah.  For example, the Talmud records these sayings from Hillel (all taken from “Hillel and Jesus”), as follows: 

 

Per Hillel-- “The more Torah, the more life; the more study, the more wisdom; the more counsel, the more discernment; the more righteousness, the more peace” (m.Ab 2:8).  Again, Hillel said-- “Be of the disciples of Aaron:  love peace and pursue peace, love fellow-creatures, and bring them near to the Torah” (m.Ab 1:12).  YESHUA had some similar words (Matt 5:9). 

 

Finally, Hillel taught that “If a man has gained a good name he has gained (something valuable) for himself; if he has gained for himself words of the Torah he has gained for himself life in the world to come” (m.Ab 2:7). 

 

 

Love and Good Deeds in Judaism 

 

Moreover, Luke wrote an interesting little comment in saying that “devout men” buried the great martyr Stephen (Acts 8:2).  William F. Dankenbring ties this devout men description to the Hasidim, who were known for love and good deeds, and who evidently, disapproved of the murder of Stephen (“Prophecy Flash,” Aug 1994, p. 6-10). 

 

Is it possible that Stephen was a Hasid?   It appears that the first century Hasidim were Pharisees of the School of Hillel and probably had much in common with the sect of the Nazarenes, evidently also of the school of Hillel (as suggested by Shmuel Safrai, cited earlier). 

 

According to Dankenbring, these two sects (the Nazarenes and the Hasidim) were looked down upon (as they were often the poor, humble and downtrodden of the secular society), particularly by the Judean Shammai Pharisees with their super righteous arrogance and big shot attitudes (which perhaps resembled what one would find today in the arrogant, self righteous congregations of many Christian churches). 

 

 

The Hypocrite 

 

From the Talmud and the New Testament, it is possible to draw a profile of the Shammai Pharisee.  It would seem that he would be the type of person who likes to be a public spectacle when fasting, and/or he would advertise and tell others about his fastings.  He would tend to offer long, drawn out prayers in the synagogues and other public gatherings--before men. 

 

When he does works of charity, he does so publicly and often sounds drums and cymbals, so that observers can understand what all he is doing.  He assuredly obeys the Torah in terms of phylacteries and wearing a tallith with fringes.  But he makes the borders and fringes large--where other people can see and behold his obedience (yes, it was the Shammai Pharisees who made their tzitzityot or fringes large). 

 

He likes the important seats at feasts, worship sites and meetings where everybody can see him and see how important he is.  He likes to be addressed with titles of respect and authority.  He likes religious rituals and ceremonies which allow him to shine and show off before men.  Anytime he can be seen by men, he appears to be very religious. 

 

In a word, he is a classic hypocritical fraud whose heart is far removed from The ELOHIM.  His works and faith are only for show purposes to receive the acclamations of men.  He is like a cup which looks clean and good from the outside; but inside, it is dirty, depraved and pathetic. 

 

 

Sound Familiar? 

 

Does any of this Shammai Pharisee stuff sound familiar in terms of any Christians?  Has the reader ever seen Christians who are as bad or worse than the most hypocritical Pharisee?  This possibility was assessed in some detail in former chapters on pride and vanity. 

 

This whole situation brings to mind a famous saying--People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones (as mentioned elsewhere herein). 

 

Christians are anxious to condemn the Jews for the pride and hypocrisy of some of them (as outlined in Matthew 23), but then to lose sight of the fact that the same pride and hypocrisy is prevalent throughout Christendom.  In fact, it is present in all people all over the world. 

 

Conversely, the Hillel Pharisee (and particularly the Hasid and the Nazarene) would tend to do his fastings, prayers and works of giving and charity in private and in secret. 

 

No one will know or should know about his good deeds--except YHWH. 

 

The Hillel Pharisee is humble and little in his own eyes (and typically very poor in terms of worldly goods).  He takes the unimportant seats at meetings and shuns trying to be a big shot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 173--The Talmud and the NT II

 

 

Traditions of the Elders, Revisited 

 

Clearly, YESHUA did on occasion condemn certain practices which He called traditions of the elders--principally, in connection with hand washings, as elsewhere mentioned herein (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:3-13); but also, by allusion to the ways the Sabbaths were to be kept, fastings and on and on. 

 

Many Christians ignorantly take these remarks to mean a condemnation of the overall Talmud.  This is not true at all.  As mentioned in the previous chapters, the Talmud has an abundance of information that carries no weight at all, but represents the opinions of free men in the context of free speech. 

 

In the conflicts between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel and between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the reality is merely a presentation of the different opinions between the factions.  As noted earlier, YESHUA sided with the Hillel position (except possibly over the divorce issue, as discussed earlier). 

 

It would appear that His condemnation of the traditions of the elders must be referring to the positions of the Shammai people and the Sadducees--and certainly not to the Hillel people or even the overall Oral Law (Talmud) that broached these issues in the dialogue and controversy. 

 

The Apostle Kefa (also a likely Hillel Pharisee) may have had these same traditions in mind when he described a yoke of some sort which certain Jews were trying to force on new converts to the Nazarene sect followers of YESHUA (Acts 15:10).  Could this yoke have included some of the traditions of the elders taught by the School of Shammai Pharisees which conflicted with YHWH’s law? 

 

 

Colossians 2:8 

 

The Hillel Pharisee Shaul came along years later and also wrote a condemnation about the “traditions of men” and linked them to the rudiments (Greek “stoich-stoicheion,” as discussed earlier) of the world (Col 2:8).  Two features of Shaul’s remark stand out. 

 

First, the traditions of all men which set aside YHWH’s laws are to be condemned. 

 

Apparently, all Christian Churches, from mother Rome on down to all that can be named, have a number of traditions which they follow and subscribe to as doctrine.  Go into any Christian Church and one will find a host of traditions--none of which have any basis whatsoever in the Word (like with Peter Peters, as noted in a prior chapter).  This statement will be conclusively proven in later chapters herein. 

 

The second feature of Shaul’s remark was commented upon earlier.  It concerns the meaning of the Greek word “stoich/stoicheion,” which “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 293, 826) says is an element, first step or principle.  As used in the context of the world, it probably means the early or beginning influence of demonic elements, doctrines or principles upon unconverted persons (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20). 

 

In any case, it is true that all of man’s religions, including Christianity, incorporates traditions into their religion, and particularly into their rituals and rites.  Why do churches have steeples, stained glass windows and so forth?  Well partly, because of tradition, although there is another sinister reason operating behind the scenes, as will be elaborated upon in later chapters. 

 

 

The Right Perspective 

 

The point of this is that one must be careful to not try to read something into YESHUA’s remarks about traditions of the elders which is just not there.  True, He condemned the Amalekite bankers. 

 

True, He condemned the Judean Shammai Pharisees (Amalekites?) who were hypocrites.  True, He condemned some remarks of the Oral Talmud which were likely attributable to the Shammai leadership. 

 

But overall, He certainly did not condemn the free speech and religious expressions in a free society which is what millions of Protestants died for in the Protestant Reformation.  Assuredly, He was not against the overall Talmud--just those opinions which represented handed down traditions that were contrary to YHWH’s laws. 

 

Just like the Talmud’s “few” critical comments about YESHUA, the Nazarenes and goyim, the controversial subjects (hand washings, how to keep the Sabbaths, etc) represent a very minor and insignificant portion of the Talmud.  There are thousands of other subjects in it as well with thousands of teachings which many Christians would find no fault with at all. 

 

Even in the New Testament, this reference to “traditions of the elders” concerns one short discourse of a handful of verses in the entire NT.  There is absolutely no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill, as some Christians try to do because of their ignorance and basic hatred of Judaism. 

 

 

The Sabbath Dilemma 

 

Having mentioned Jewish attempts to define and legislate specific aspects of keeping the Sabbath in the prior chapters, some attention should be focused on Christian groups and their observance of either Sunday or the Seventh day Sabbath. 

 

Most all of these Christian groups try to develop and perpetuate man-made interpretations on “how” they keep their so-called Sabbaths.  Of course, this is true with real Sabbatarians who keep the Seventh day Sabbath. 

 

Perhaps all of these Sabbatarian groups promulgate talmudic laws for their church members on how to keep the Sabbath.  As noted in previous remarks, questions always arise in people’s minds on what can be properly done and what cannot be done on the Sabbath. 

 

So it makes sense that both Christian and Jewish groups would attempt to come to some conclusions and dogmatize them for their followers.  In fact, if they were not established as custom or doctrine, many people would be constantly running to their teachers and denominational leaders with questions and concern over what they can do or cannot do on the Sabbath day. 

 

 

Background on the Sabbath 

 

Manifestly, any presentation on Judaism, the Talmud and the Apostolic Assembly must eventually broach the keeping of the Seventh day Sabbath. 

 

It seems that of all of YHWH’s commandments, the Sabbath one assumed a primary role in Second Temple Judaism; and hence raised a number of questions within the different segments or parts of that Judaism--to include the people of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

In the first place, the Seventh day Sabbath commandment is extremely important to the true believer because the Sabbath is a sign or mark of identification that sets the believer apart from non-believing peoples (Ex 31:13-17; Ezek 20:12, 20).  It is a part of the first five commandments in the Decalogue which show love of YHWH The ELOHIM (Ex 20:8-11). 

 

With this background, the student of truth must understand that both the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah were judged and condemned by The ELOHIM to captivity and slavery for their many sins and particularly for their sins of Sabbath breaking (Neh 13:15-18; Ezek 20:12-24; 22:8, 26; 23:38). 

 

Of all of the evil which both Yisrael and Yehudah did over the years in the promise land, the one thing that stood out as deserving judgment the most was their continued Sabbath breaking; which, by the way, made the people forget The ELOHIM since they were breaking and ignoring His sign of identification. 

 

Certainly, the Northern kingdom of Yisrael introduced sun worship at an early time, which must have included Sunday worship instead of the Seventh day Sabbath worship (to be discussed at length in later chapters herein).  But Sabbath breaking was equally as bad in the Southern kingdom. 

 

 

Thus

 

In short, the peoples in both kingdoms generally ignored the fourth commandment--just as most Israelites still ignore and rebel against it in modern times.  The Book repeatedly says that the Sabbath is to be a joy, a delight and a blessing for Adam, and that the Sabbath was made for Adam (Ps 92:1-15; 118:24; Matt 12:7-12; Mk 2:27). 

 

For some strange reason, the one commandment which YHWH gave Yisrael as a blessing, the people chose to ignore and bypass the most flagrantly.  It is the one commandment that Israelites have historically been utterly opposed to and have tragically disobeyed the most. 

 

In the Israelite exile by the Assyrians, YHWH elected to divorce the rebellious harlot Yisrael and terminate His marriage covenant with her.  As pointed out previously, she lost the Hebrew language, her identity, the ineffable name and the Sabbaths--all in the divorce.  

 

 

The Jews Learned the Hard Way 

 

Conversely, YHWH chose to not divorce the sinning Yehudah.  Instead, He brought her back from Babylonian captivity at the end of seventy years to resume the covenant relationship.  He used Ezra, Nechemyah, Haggai, Zekharyah, Yeshua and a number of other faithful people to restore true worship among the returning Jews. 

 

The emphasis by them on the importance of the Sabbath after the exile is amply illustrated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

 

Perhaps it was this focus by the early leadership of the Jewish returnees that finally got the message across to the Jewish Israelites that YHWH means business on the subject of the Sabbath.  Nechemyah makes it clear that the Sabbath became important (Neh 9:14; 10:31-33; 13:15-22). 

 

The Sabbath and its proper observance are nothing to sneer at or ridicule, as Churchianity tends to do.  However good or bad the Jews were or ever would be, the one thing that they learned in the Babylonian exile was the need to begin keeping the Sabbath (which they had ignored and rebelled against in their prior presence in Canaan land). 

 

It was this factor which surely prompted them to put many Talmudic hedges, protections, fences and safeguards around the Sabbath, in the context of “shamar,” as discussed earlier.  Likely, they had a certain fear or concern over Sabbath breaking and wanted to take steps to go to all lengths, to be sure that they did not transgress it, as they had done formerly. 

 

One could make the argument that many of these shamar protections were actually good measures--designed to express love toward The ELOHIM and facilitate obedience.  It’s hard to fault a man for going the extra mile to obey and please The MOST HIGH. 

 

The freedom of religion present in Second Temple Judaism allowed these safeguards to develop, but correctly, in the context of interpretations and opinions and not on the level of halakhah law (although the School of Shammai Pharisees were trying hard to make some of their interpretations mandatory law on the level of the Torah). 

 

 

Beginning and Ending the Sabbath 

 

The previous chapters mentioned the need to have a time to start and end the Sabbath and the Talmudic position on this need in the context of some brief ceremonies.  Actually, this whole issue involves several questions which divided Second Temple Judaism and still allow some differences of opinion. 

 

The case or support for these opening and ending ceremonies was stated by Isaac Klein, in “A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice” (p. 54), when he wrote that the loss of the Sabbath in Jewish life has been one of the great tragedies in modern America. 

 

Klein (p. 54) notes that people today neglect the Sabbath not because economic conditions force them to do so, but by habit and because of the increasing secularization of life.  While the secular world recognizes the need to have a day of rest weekly, it has turned the Sabbath into a weekend of pleasure--actually crime, drunkenness, lewdness and accidental deaths. 

 

The need is to obey the Scriptures and make the Sabbath a delight and joy and as Klein says--a day of “rest and holiness” to praise and worship The MOST HIGH.  To experience the Sabbath properly, there must be a transfiguration from the secular to the set apart or kodesh nature of the Sabbath. 

 

Consequently, one can make the case for preparations for the Sabbath and for a proper commencement of the Sabbath.  Judaism has done this since the days of Ezra and Nechemyah. 

 

The Oral Law developed a teaching that a family marks the occasion of the start of the Sabbath with the lighting of some two to seven candles or lamps (usually, by the women of a household) and the saying of a short benediction or blessing (kiddush). 

 

Author Roger Walkwitz makes a good case that in the first century CE, olive oil in lamps were used and not candles.  This seems to be the actual process in early Judaism.  Maybe the candles came along in later years and in the Diaspora.  This question will be discussed in a later chapter. 

 

Almost all of Judaism agrees on the basic Sabbath opening and closing ceremonies, which are assuredly quite ancient.  Since they are so historically old, there is some certainty that they were procedurally observed in the first century; and likely, by YESHUA, Shaul and the other members of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

 

Complex Issues Subject to Opinion 

 

Although the Talmud was to seemingly specify the start of the Sabbath at 18 minutes before sunset and the ending of it when three stars are visible, there have been differences of opinion on this time schedule and particularly on the closing factor. 

 

As Isaac Klein noted, the precise times to start and end the Sabbath are complex, but the outline on the 18 minutes before rule would suggest something in the range of 18 to 25 minutes after the closing sunset (ibid, p. 56-58). 

 

Beyond the initial candle or lamp lighting ceremony and blessing, there is a more formal ushering in of the Sabbath--usually, at the synagogue or at home involving prayers and certain worship procedures.  At home, a glass of wine is enjoyed to start the Sabbath. 

 

At the havdalah service, concluding the Sabbath, a glass of wine is enjoyed with certain blessings and prayers.  Finally, the Sabbath ends with the candles or lamps being extinguished.  The beginning opening ceremony can be the first part of the Sabbath eve meal and the ending ceremony can be the concluding portion of the late Sabbath afternoon meal. 

 

In whatever case, it is important to note that there were serious differences in these procedures between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai in Second Temple days.  For example, the two schools differed over whether the kiddush benediction over the sanctification of the day or of the wine was said first (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 10, p. 974). 

 

It is obvious that the many little intricate features of the opening and closing ceremonies have been subjects of interpretation and controversy over the years in Judaism.  Likely, YESHUA and the other Hillel people, in the Apostolic Assembly, kept the basic ceremonies, but not on the level of required law, as the Jews later developed it (to be discussed in the following chapters). 

 

 

Sabbath Day’s Journey 

 

Without the Talmud, one could never understand major portions of the New Testament (certainly the culture and setting).  For example, Luke wrote about a defined distance as being a “Sabbath day’s journey” (Acts 1:12).  One can understand that to be 2,000 cubits from the Talmud. 

 

Is it important to know and understand this Talmudic teaching?  Well, for the person hoping to perhaps have deliverance to safety, just before the future coming great tribulation, the answer seems to be an empathic yes! 

 

Just before His death, The MESSIAH shared some profound revelations of the coming future with His disciples.  He went to great length to tell about the coming great tribulation and how certain individuals (obviously, of the very elect classification) would flee quickly from Judea to certain mountains at a given signal and/or moment in time (Matt 24:16). 

 

Going on, YESHUA described in some detail where those mountains are in terms of geography from Judea.  For example, those mountains will contain the body of The MESSIAH (the Assembly of the very elect, called the carcase in the KJV--Matt 24:28) and will be where the eagles gather together. 

 

 

Fleeing on the Sabbath? 

 

Moreover, He observed that a person fleeing to those mountains should not be fleeing in the winter (Matt 24:20).  Obviously, the time to flee will be some other season of the year rather than winter.   And in this context, YESHUA was careful to say that the escapee should pray to avoid having to flee on a Sabbath day (Matt 24:20). 

 

This single reference plainly suggests two things.  First, it implies that this place of safety in the mountains can be reached within six days from Jerusalem--presumably, on foot or by other slow means of travel.  Otherwise, it would take seven or more days and extend over a Sabbath day. 

 

Secondly, there is another very subtle message in that reference.  It possibly could be communicating that a true believer should not be fleeing on the Sabbath day.  If this statement is true, is it possible that it is implying a limitation in the distance that a believer can travel on the Sabbath day? 

 

If there is a restriction, what is it?  The only conceivable limitation appears to be the one outlined in the Talmud of about 2,000 cubits (Acts 1:12).  Evidently, the Scriptures do not address this point, per se, except in the generic context of requiring rest and prohibiting work on the Sabbath. 

 

If an individual in the very elect category failed to flee at the right time, it is manifest that he or she may try to flee at the wrong time and in a manner to produce the flight over the Sabbath day.  Yet, YESHUA commands the very elect to pray that their flight not be over a Sabbath day.  There has to be a reason for this injunction. 

 

Dr Ernest Martin, formerly of Portland, Oregon, elsewhere discussed, believed the above possibility; and further that the Mosaic law will be enforced in the age end.  Accordingly, he argued that any such flights on a Sabbath day would be prohibited by secular authorities.  In other words, the ruling state would arrest a person trying to travel an unallowable distance on the Sabbath day. 

 

If this flight is to take place before the age ending beast ruler enters Jerusalem to set up the abomination of desolation and impose the great tribulation, it could theoretically have to occur while the Israelis are in secular authority over Palestine (as they are right now in the early 21st century). 

 

If the Israeli government adopts any Sabbath observance laws, it seems fairly certain that they will legislate the Talmudic definition of a Sabbath day’s journey into those laws.  In other words, if the Orthodox Jews are in charge, when it comes time for the very elect to flee Judea to the mountains, there is a strong likelihood that traveling will be limited to 2,000 cubits on the Sabbath day. 

 

 

Shimon 

 

The writer Luke mentions a faithful man named Shimon who was waiting for the consolation of Yisrael and was privileged to see YESHUA as SALVATION before he died (Lu 2:25-30).  While the New Testament doesn’t present much information on this Shimon, the Talmud may help. 

 

John Lightfoot, in his “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica” (v. 3, p. 40), asks who was this just and devout man?  Going on, Lightfoot offers the likely answer as being “Rabban Simeon, the son of Hillel” who was alive and in Jerusalem at that time. 

 

This Simeon (correctly Shimon) was prominent in the School of Hillel movement at the turn of the first century and eventually succeeded his father.  Shimon evidently died in the early years of the first century CE.  Shimon was the father of Gamaliel, who taught Shaul the apostle, as described previously herein. 

 

If Luke’s Shimon can be successfully linked to Shimon, son of Hillel, as Lightfoot suggests, then it is just one more extraordinary reason why YESHUA and His disciples all would have been Hillel Pharisees.  The evidence for this linkage is quite persuasive and most NT commentators agree with it. 

 

 

The Amidah 

 

The Talmud has a record of the Amidah from Second Temple days which must be associated with YESHUA and the early Apostolic Assembly.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 2, p. 838) says that the Hebrew amidah means “standing” and that it came to refer to the popular daily Jewish prayer, also called Shemoneh-Esreh among the Ashkenazim. 

 

In the Talmud, it is called Ha-Tefillah or the prayer “par excellence.”  The prayer is a part of apparently all daily worship services.  It must be recited standing with the worshipper facing Jerusalem.  As a congregational prayer, it is sometimes recited by all of the worshippers; and sometimes it is repeated aloud by the reader with the congregation saying “amen” after each benediction. 

 

Judaica says that the Amidah originally comprised 18 benedictions, but was later changed to 19 (with the addition of number 15).  Evidently, all 19 benedictions are not always recited at all services.  For example, at Sabbath eve services, one abbreviated version is recited. 

 

The Talmud gives these Amidah benedictions:  (1) Extols The ELOHIM as Great, Mighty and Awesome; (2) Praises The ELOHIM for His deeds and powers; (3) Refers to the set apart nature of The ELOHIM; (4) Petitions for wisdom and understanding; (5) Entreats for repentance; (6) Beseeches for forgiveness of sin; (7) Implores for redemption; and (8) Requests healing;

 

Going on--(9) Supplicates for a blessing of produce and a fertile year; (10) Request for the ingathering of the exiles to Palestine; (11) Appeals for righteous judges and justice to prevail; (12) Asks The ELOHIM to destroy slanderers, informers, His enemies and to shatter the kingdom of arrogance; and (13) Supplicates for mercy;

 

More--(14) Solicits The ELOHIM to rebuild Jerusalem, to dwell there and to restore the kingdom; (15) Seeks the establishment of the kingdom of David; (16) Pleas that our prayers be heard; (17) Begs for the re-establishment of the Temple services and for the return of the “Divine Presence;” (18) Gives thanks; and (19) Pleads for peace. 

 

A perusal of these benedictions suggests that there probably were some modifications of these petitions after the fall of the Temple to the Romans in 70 CE, beyond the addition of number 15.  Actually, Judaica (v. 2, p. 841) allows that one Samuel Ha-Katan did modify some of them at Jabneh, as late Talmudic sources. 

 

 

YESHUA and the Amidah 

 

The point of this wonderful prayer is that YESHUA and probably most all of the Apostolic Assembly people said this prayer more than one time in their lives.  The failure of the NT to mention it, per se, won’t alter its credibility and ancient origin. 

 

In fact, the previously mentioned Christian scholar, John Lightfoot, in his “A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica” (v. II, p. 147), argues that YESHUA “condemned not those prayers altogether, nor esteemed them of no account; yea, on the contrary, he joined himself to the public liturgy in the synagogues, and in the Temple.” 

 

Nor should a believer necessarily believe that the so-called NT model prayer replaces the Amidah or anything else (Matt 6:9-13; Lu 11:1-4).  Actually, a perusal of the model prayer strikes one at once as being merely a condensed version of the Amidah.  Lightfoot (v. II, p. 147) noted a teaching from the Talmud that a free prayer from the mouth should include the 18 benedictions or at least a summary of them. 

 

With the background of this Talmudic teaching, Lightfoot (v. II, p. 147) concluded that YESHUA’s model prayer “comprised the sum of all prayers.”  It seems to have been a common practice by various “rabbis;” and indeed, even at synagogue services, to condense and summarize the Amidah on appropriate occasions--as noted above at Sabbath Eve services. 

 

 

Problems with the Amidah and Other Fixed Prayers 

 

There are some points of possible criticism in using this Amidah prayer or anything else to include YESHUA’s Own model prayer.  He obviously was not a big advocate of public prayers (for show purposes) or of vain repetitious prayers (Matt 6:1-7). 

 

Thus, one would have to pause and wonder about the propriety of saying the exact same Amidah at weekly synagogue services or saying the exact same NT “model prayer” at weekly Christian services (as many Christian Churches do with their so-called “Lord’s prayer”). 

 

Also, item 12 appears somewhat questionable in the context of YESHUA’s teachings about praying for enemies and for those who curse you and hate you (Matt 5:44).  Number 12 presents some additional problems from other viewpoints, as will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter. 

 

It is quite manifest that the purpose or value of the Amidah, and indeed YESHUA’s model prayer as well, lies in having an outline of important points that need to be covered in prayer.  Perhaps prayers should be made in private and not be repetitive in terms of reading petitions. 

 

Hence, while one may not wish to publicly read or recite the Amidah or the NT model prayer weekly in public, the point is that both of them are generally good in raising some issues which a true believer would wish to remember, address and focus upon in private and public prayers, whenever rendered. 

 

 

Meals and Eating 

 

YHWH’s law prescribes that His people are to say a prayer after eating a meal (Deut 8:10).  Obviously, YESHUA obeyed this law, although the NT does not describe this action (it didn’t need to always describe each and every thing He did since it automatically was recognized that He fully obeyed the law).  Yet, the Scriptures do offer that He sometimes prayed before eating (Matt 15:36-38; Mk 6:41-44; 14:22-23). 

 

Why the “before” the meal prayers?  Because they are prescribed in the Talmud (Mishnah, Berakoth 7).  Consequently, when Christians say a prayer before their meals, they are obeying an “Oral Law” from the Talmud whether they realize it or not.  By the way, religious Jews (and this would have included YESHUA) say a prayer both before and after eating. 

 

The Talmud has another interesting report on the matter of food which YESHUA obviously was cognizant of.   For example, when He fed the multitude with the five loaves and two fish, He told His disciples to gather up the leftovers so that nothing would be lost (Jo 6:12). 

 

Why?  The Talmud dictated that food (even leftovers) was not to be wasted or destroyed (Shabbath, 50b, 147b).  This is a good rule that modern Americans need to place into practice in their lives. 

 

 

Monogamy 

 

Of particular relevance to modern Christendom, it is appropriate to note that polygyny is allowable in the Scriptures (as will be elaborated upon in a later chapter). 

 

Yet, Christianity has largely adopted monogamy for its moral code.  Likewise, Judaism prescribes monogamy for religious Jews because of Talmudic dictates. 

 

Is there a connection between Christendom’s advocacy of monogamy and Judaism’s practice of monogamy?  If there was such a connection, then it would mean that Christianity has adopted its marriage standards from the Talmud whether Christians understand it or not (since the issue is not a Scriptural dictate). 

 

Though this writer has allowed the question of monogamy to surface and to draw the parallel between Christendom and Judaism on this issue, the truth is probably that the Christian belief and practice in this instance have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or the Talmud. 

 

Probably, the Christian position on monogamy developed from other sources which will be addressed in a future chapter. 

 

 

Prove Truth 

 

The NT has a wonderful remark from Shaul along the line of a mitzwah to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (I Thes 5:21).  This is a profoundly wonderful instruction on righteousness (and it parallels many other Scriptures, like Yohanan’s advice to “try the spirits” before believing, as in I John 4:1-4). 

 

Since the Apostle Shaul was a Talmudic scholar and well knew the contents of the Talmud, it is highly possible that he framed those ideas from the Talmud which declare that in Talmudic debate, one must prove a point and not just assert it, no matter how smart one is (Mar 10, 2000, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 13). 

 

One of the great tragedies in Christendom is that Christian preachers and leaders say things (by assertion) and never bother to prove them (from the Scriptures). 

 

This shortcoming in Christianity is only enhanced because Christian people collectively never hold their leaders’ feet to the fire in terms of making them prove things (nor do Christians hold their political leaders accountable for words spoken). 

 

 

Banking Practices 

 

Later chapters will focus on the banking operations on-going at the Temple.  There is no need to go into any detail on them at this time.  However, the Talmud has some interesting remarks on these practices which should whet the appetite of the student of truth. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” reports that Talmudic references show that the standards of an agrarian economy were dominant in Second Temple days and that gamblers and usurers were not thought to be trustworthy witnesses (Sanh. 3:3, “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 4, p. 166). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 174--The Talmud and the NT III

 

 

Prophetic Significance of Fasts to the House of Yisrael 

 

The book of Zechariah mentions fasts in the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months (Zech 8:19).  Students of the Book can know and understand these fasts from one source only--the Talmud.  These fasts are not commanded occurrences in the Tanakh.  Yet, all four of them will have extraordinary prophetic implications for the age end.  Thus, true believers should know and understand them thoroughly. 

 

Take the fast of the fourth month.  Second Temple Judaism identifies it as being on the 17th day as a memorial for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.  Why the 17th day--since the Tanakh only reflects the 9th day when the famine was in the city and the city was broken up, as the king fled with the Chaldeans in pursuit (II Kg 25:3-5; Jer 39:2-4). 

 

The importance of the 17th day lies in the fact that the city actually was secured or formally conquered by the Babylonians on that day (per “Encyclopaedia Judaica”).  It might be that from the 9th day to the 17th day, the Chaldeans were dealing with Tzidkiyahu and his soldiers with only some limited presence in Jerusalem.  But on the 17th, the city was in the hands of Babylon.  For sure, they ran their flag up that day. 

 

In the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the attacking Roman Army was in the city and approaching the Temple by the 17th day of the fourth month.  Consequently, the priests stopped the daily sacrifice at the Temple on the 17th day of the fourth month.  The daily sacrifice has remained stopped until the present time of the early 21st century.  Maybe that situation is about to change, however. 

 

Beyond these fulfillments, the 17th day of the fourth month is profoundly important otherwise.  In the year 1776, the 17th day of the fourth month fell on July 4th.  Christian Identity people should take note that the 17th day of the fourth month will apparently be the day that the age end Ephraim Yisrael nation formally falls to her conquerors, following a siege of some 390 days (which starts in the preceding year). 

 

Regarding the fast of the tenth month (on the 10th day), it falls on or near Christmas--exactly 55 days after Jeroboam’s act of setting up Baal worship in the House of Yisrael on the 15th day of the 8th month (on or near Halloween).  In terms of Yehudah, it commemorates the initial siege on Jerusalem by Babylon in Tzidkiyahu’s 9th year (II Kg 25:1; Jer 52:4; Ezek 24:1). 

 

Will it have an age end application to Israelites of the House of Yisrael?  Probably yes!  Perhaps the first signs of trouble erupt on Yisrael around the 10th day of the 10th month of one year.  Yes, Christian Israelites will likely have some disastrous days thereafter, with much sadness instead of happiness and joy! 

 

Otherwise, the other fasts mentioned by Zekharyah include the 9th day of the fifth and 3rd day of the seventh months (both of which also will have an application to the House of Yisrael in the age end).  What a paradox it is that religious Jews (but not Christian Israelites) have been fasting on these days which spell prophetic disaster for the House of Yisrael in the age end. 

 

Assuredly, House of Yisrael Israelites should have read the Talmud long ago and found out about these fasts (and perhaps started fasting on those days as well).  All of these events, now on the immediate horizon for the House of Yisrael nations, will be broached in some detail in later chapters herein and in Appendices D and E, dealing with the age end chronology. 

 

 

Alfred Edersheim 

 

Besides Balaam’s famous advice on how to destroy Yisrael (commented upon in a prior chapter), he uttered several prophecies--one of which was a classic promise of The MESSIAH (Num 24:17).  He spoke of a coming star of Yakov which was to do certain things. 

 

In an article on “What Was the Christmas Star”? in the Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 5), William F. Dankenbring asks if the star (not in the East, but correctly “rising” per the Greek “anatole”) of Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-16) might be the star of Yakov? 

 

So the question comes up on what this sign or star might be.  Some evidence comes from Ivor Bulmer-Thomas of the Royal Astronomical Society.  He indicates a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in May 7 BCE, and a near conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in September 6 BCE (p. 21). 

 

Interestingly, the Talmud and Jewish Rabbinic writings focus on this issue as well (just as they do on thousands of other Tanakh statements).  For this, Dankenbring turned to Dr Alfred Edersheim.  This Jewish Christian writer was extremely knowledgeable on the ancient Jewish teachings and he mentions some of them in his book on the “Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.” 

 

For example, Alfred (ibid, p. 211) quoted a Jewish commentator (on Daniel) named Abarbanel (or Abrabanel) as saying that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces betokened not only the most important events, but especially to Yisrael. 

 

The Jewish position was that this sign occurred three years before the birth of Moshe and was to precede the coming of The MESSIAH and the final deliverance of Yisrael. 

 

Edersheim (ibid, p. 211-213) quoted other Jewish Midrashim which tie the star of Yakov to the coming of (or return of--however one may view it) The MESSIAH and the deliverance of Yisrael.  Some of this material is very explicit giving details of the chronology of age ending events (in the context of a seven-year cut off of time--perhaps per Dan 9:24-27) to precede The MESSIAH. 

 

Significantly, this conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn occurs once every several hundred years and rarely in the sign of Pisces.  Its most recent occurrence happened on May 31, 2000. 

 

Dankenbring asked if it would signal the return of The MESSIAH and the deliverance of Yisrael--as taught by ancient Jewish sages (which Dankenbring then allowed to be in 2004)?  This writer would alternatively ask--could it suggest that YESHUA’s return happens much later--possibly in Yechezkel’s 37th year? 

 

 

Sukkot in the Talmud 

 

The Talmud has a host of information on the annual feasts of Yisrael, as commanded in the Torah, and particularly in the context of how those feasts were observed in Palestine in Second Temple days.  This is very important information since YESHUA routinely kept those feasts in Jerusalem.  It is absolutely certain that He kept them the Pharisaical way or there would have been an outcry from the Shammai Pharisees. 

 

The just mentioned William F. Dankenbring also had an article on “A New Look at the Deep Meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles” in his Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 23-45); wherein, he extensively quoted from Dr Alfred Edersheim’s book on “The Temple:  It’s Ministry and Services.” 

 

This book, like Edersheim’s other works, offered an abundance of Talmudic and other Jewish writings to communicate the life and times of YESHUA The MESSIAH. 

 

YHWH’s law commands Israel’s observance of Sukkot (or the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths).  Specifically, the Word says that at the end of every seven years, the Torah is to be read to the people (Deut 31:11-12) and for Israelites to take some branches of palm trees and boughs and willows of others along with some fruit from “goodly trees” and rejoice before YHWH for seven days annually at Sukkot (Lev 23:40). 

 

Another remark also expresses the need for Israelites to observe Sukkot as a festival of joy or rejoicing (Deut 16:14-15).  Aside from the palm trees, the Torah does not seem to express precisely what kind of fruit, boughs and willow trees are to be used, nor does it seem to say how these items are to be used in rejoicing, although there is a clear command to dwell in booths for seven days (Lev 23:42). 

 

The Word suggests that Sukkot was observed in Shlomo’s day (I Kg 8:2, 65-66) and Hizkiyahu’s time (II Chron 31:3).  But it doesn’t say how. 

 

However, there is some clarification on Sukkot in the time of Ezra and Nechemyah, when the Book gives some details (Ezra 3:3-6; Neh 8:1-18).  There, one seems to find some precise instructions on using the boughs and branches of certain trees to build the booths to dwell in, as written in the Torah (Lev 23:42). 

 

But there seems to be some confusion between the two references (Lev 23:40-42; Neh 8:14-16), although enough material was presented to make the believer realize that branches, boughs, willows and fruits of certain trees are to be used to rejoice before YHWH and/or to build booths to dwell in at Sukkot. 

 

Significantly, an attempt to reconcile these two Scriptural references became a point of controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees in Second Temple days (per the Talmud, as described by Alfred Edersheim, “The Temple:  It’s Ministry and Services,” p. 273).  The Sadducees maintained that the boughs, branches and fruits in Lev 23:40 were to be used to make the booths mentioned by Nechemyah. 

 

Incidentally, the Pharisees said that the two references were not exactly the same (which by the way, they are not).  Accordingly, the Pharisees argued that the issue in Leviticus 23:40 was to take those branches and boughs and wave them before YHWH in a spirit of happiness and joy.  In terms of Nechemyah’s words, the Pharisees concluded that the noted trees should be used to build booths to dwell in. 

 

 

NT Sukkot 

 

But what about the NT?  What did YESHUA do?  Well, there seems to have been a certain process or practice (actually custom) the people followed to observe each of the feasts (Lu 2:42).  Did they follow the Pharisee position or did they opt for the Sadducee teaching? 

 

Of course, the Talmud has the answer.  As Edersheim (ibid, p. 273) explains, the Pharisee position won out and prevailed by the first century (which position still exists today in Orthodox Judaism).  YESHUA clearly kept the feasts and He must have followed the prevailing pharisaical customs or any defiance on His part would have made Him stand out like a sore thumb. 

 

In fact, at one occurrence of Sukkot, He was in Jerusalem and was able to blend in secretly with the rest of the people--obviously doing as they were doing or He would have been detected and arrested by the authorities (Jo 7:2, 10-13). 

 

So, how did the Jews keep Sukkot in Second Temple days?  Well, the Talmud has the answer.  Quoting Dankenbring’s article, which quoted Edersheim and others, one finds that the trees are specified. 

 

In essence, the people took these specific trees (per Moshe’s words) and wove or bound them together to form a “lulav” to wave on appropriate occasions as expressions of joy (like when singing/reciting the Hallel and Hoshanas, to be discussed in a later chapter). 

 

For example, the priests would wave them before the altar and the people would wave them in six directions (East, West, North, South, Up and Down) at meetings and other appropriate occasions.  Otherwise, the people also built booths, again using certain trees, and dwelt in them for seven days, as Nechemyah outlined. 

 

The importance of each tree, each event and each custom is closely tied to enormous symbolism and teaching--some of which is explained in the Scriptures and most all of which is described in the Talmud. 

 

The whole feast and the booths symbolize Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness when Yisrael dwelt in booths.  Moreover, Sukkot was a harvest festival of joy and was prophetic about the coming millennium (when all nations will come to Jerusalem to worship YHWH and keep Sukkot--Zech 14:16-19) and the ultimate salvation of Adam (as discussed in prior chapters). 

 

Of course, it is important to obey each and every commandment (Hebrew mitzwah) to include the very least of them as YESHUA stated (Matt 5:18-20).  The Talmud tells us that “The Shekinah (The RUACH HA KODESH) comes upon us neither out of sadness nor out of raucous laughter...but out of the joy of mitswoth” (Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophetic Flash,” p. 40). 

 

 

The Water Ceremony 

 

Yeshayahu prophesied of a coming day when the faithful will draw waters out of the well of salvation (Isa 12:3).  Dankenbring’s article, quoting Edersheim and others, focused on this prophecy in the context of Sukkot.  As Edersheim mentions (ibid, p. 213-214), this ceremony was covered in the Talmud and it became a point of controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. 

 

Based upon the words of Yeshayahu, the Pharisees believed that a particular water ceremony had to take place at Sukkot.  The Sadducees said no!  Which position prevailed by the first century?  Yes, the Pharisee teaching became the custom, as the Talmud confirms. 

 

Consequently, there was a daily water ritual during Sukkot, whereby the priests ceremonially drew water from the pool of Siloah (the healing waters of Siloam--Jo 9:7-11) and poured them over the altar in a ritual before the people in linkage to Yeshayahu’s words. 

 

This theme of salvation from living waters was so profound that there was extraordinary joy and happiness among the people when the custom (Water Drawing Ceremony--Bet Hasho’evah) took place.  The Talmud says that “If you have not seen the rejoicing of Bet Hasho’evah you have not witnessed joy in all your life” (Sukkah 53a). 

 

William Dankenbring suggests that this water drawing practice was the highlight of Sukkot.  The occasion involved a torch-light parade with all participants marching to the Temple at night, as the whole city of Jerusalem was lit up by giant torches and the light of giant menorahs to the sound of lyres, drums, cymbals, trumpets and horns. 

 

 

YESHUA 

 

The point of these various remarks on Sukkot is that there was a certain procedure or practice (custom) in effect which the people followed during YESHUA’s life (in the context of Second Temple Judaism).  YESHUA followed these customs, as clearly suggested in the NT records of His life. 

 

It seems that surely His followers would want to know what those customs were, as a minimum, and perhaps put them into effect in their lives, where possible.  Besides the few, limited references in the Scriptures, there is only one other primary source of information on these practices.  Yes, it is the Talmud. 

 

Manifestly, YESHUA must have recognized these practices because one year at Sukkot He spoke of the living waters of The RUACH HA KODESH to be given to believers (Jo 7:37-39).  Since this happened at Sukkot, one must suppose that there was a connection. 

 

 

Overall Contents 

 

Having now outlined many of the extremely important themes broached in the Talmud, the point must be made that only the surface has been touched.  In the thousands and thousands of pages of Talmudic presentations, one will find a host of Scriptural subjects broached primarily from the perspective of Second Temple Judaism. 

 

Thus, the first two orders of one or both Talmuds address Benedictions, Gleanings, Doubtfully tithed produce, Diverse kinds, Sabbatical year, Heave offering, Tithes, Second tithe, Dough offering, Fruit of young trees, Firstfruits, Sabbath, Fusion of Sabbath limits, Passover, Shekel dues, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, Festival laws, Various new years (especially Rosh HaShanah), Fast days, Purim, Intermediate days of festivals, and Festival offerings. 

 

The next two orders offer information on Levirate marriage, Marriage contracts, Vows, The Nazirite, Suspected adulteress, Divorce, Marriage, Torts, Civil law, Property law, Judges, Flagellation, Oaths, Traditional testimonies, Idolatry, Ethical maxims and Erroneous ruling of the court. 

 

The last two orders cover Animal offerings, Meal offerings, Animals slaughtered for food, Firstlings, Vows of valuation, Substituted offering, Extirpation, Sacrileges, Daily sacrifice, Measurements of the Temple, Bird offering, Uncleanness through overshadowing, Leprosy, Red heifer, Ritual cleanness, Ritual ablution, Menstruant, Liquid that predisposes food to become ritually unclean, Fluxes, Ritual uncleanness between immersion and sunset, Ritual uncleanness of the hands and “Stalks” parts of plants susceptible to uncleanness.

 

The point of this outline of Talmudic subjects, as taken from “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 751), is that the two Talmuds cover a host of important subjects which should be of considerable concern to any student of the Scriptures--whether Jew or Christian. 

 

Even the remarks communicating a distinction between Jews and non-Jews (goyim), as noted earlier, offer ideas on the practice of true brotherhood in a fellowship.  For sure, the true believer would gain much by studying the words of the Talmud in the vein of how religious Jews looked upon goyim outsiders 2,000 years ago.  This is a big clue on how believers should treat their rea brethren (as opposed to others). 

 

 

The Greatest Value 

 

However, the greatest value of Talmudic study probably is because the Talmud is essentially a commentary on the Torah made by religious Jews, perhaps from the days of Ezra to the third century CE, as noted earlier. 

 

This reality is quite profound to think about.  A reader of the Talmud is getting the thinking and Scriptural interpretations of many great students of the Word from 2,500 years ago and up to and immediately past YESHUA’s time. 

 

Most uninformed Christians would never bat an eye about reading and using Christian commentaries prepared in the last few years.  Go into any religious bookstore and one can find Christian commentaries by the thousands.  All of these commentaries do the same thing. 

 

In a sense, the argument can be advanced that these Christian commentaries, Christian writings and Christian doctrinal manuals all represent the Christian Talmud, as noted earlier.  They present the thinking and interpretations of the various compilers.  They are good or bad depending upon the writers (and most are mixtures of good and bad). 

 

The same thing is true with the Jewish Talmud.  A modern student of this compilation is reading the thinking and interpretations of people of thousands of years ago.  Some of these persons were very dedicated students of the Book and knew YESHUA personally. 

 

A classic illustration of this is the great Jewish sage Hillel who lived in the late first century BCE.  Years later, The MESSIAH came along and echoed his teachings repeatedly.  Many have been quoted or set forth herein.  Should students of truth read Hillel?  You’d better believe it! 

 

A chapter heretofore discussed the Scriptural teachings on justification by faith.  Actually, this doctrine started with Avraham in the Torah (Gen 12:1; Heb 11:8-9).  And of course, it was repeated by Shaul in the NT (Rom 4:1-13; Gal 2:16; 3:1-11).  In fact, Shaul’s remarks in Galatians 3:11-12, on the faith of the righteous being equal to the whole of the law, seem to come precisely from the Talmud (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 62). 

 

Thus, Shaul’s teaching was not unique with him since it was also in the Talmud--although Judaism primarily stressed the works of circumcision, baptism and the offering of a sacrifice at the Temple for reconciliation (discussed in an earlier chapter).  Yes, the Talmud did record differences of opinion on Scriptural interpretations (as noted elsewhere herein). 

 

 

Study to Learn and Obey  

 

Having mentioned all of the great value and importance that the Talmud offers for the student of truth, several more clarifying remarks are in order.  The objective of the student of truth and/or follower of YHWH YESHUA The MESSIAH is to learn His way and will. 

 

The primary textbook for this study and contemplation is the Scriptures (both the OT and NT) in their original “Hebrew” language (and the Greek will not suffice in this regard).  There should never be an attempt to study the Jewish Talmud for the purpose of learning Talmudic theories, doctrines and teachings, in order to obey them as law on the level of the Torah. 

 

But there should be an attempt by all honest students of truth to study the Talmud to learn from it about the prevailing thinking, attitude and beliefs in first century Palestine and Second Temple Judaism which profoundly affected the work of the Apostolic Assembly and the production of the NT. 

 

The New Testament is a rich, wonderful production when it can be legitimately restored to its original Hebrew language and studied and contemplated in the context of Second Temple Judaism and the Oral Law which religious Jews generally followed.  Should people obey the halakhic decisions in the Talmud? 

 

Well, if they properly interpret the Scriptures and/or properly reflect the teachings of the New Testament, in the context of correctly interpreting the Torah, the answer is assuredly yes!  Maybe some of those Talmudic decisions have merit and properly reflect the meaning and interpretation of certain Scriptures.  With this presentation on the Talmud, it is appropriate to link those writings to modern Judaism. 

 

 

The Talmud in Modern Judaism

 

Certainly, all of the main factions of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) recognize the Talmud and at least theoretically support it.  The most respectful and obedient group of Talmud teachers and students is found among Orthodox Jews (to particularly include Ultra Orthodox and Hasidim factions).  Conservative Jews also support the Talmud, but not quite as fanatical as do the Orthodox. 

 

As outlined earlier, Reform Jews are very much secularists (resembling the Hellenistic Jews of Second Temple days and much of modern, liberal Christianity).  They may give some lip service to the Torah/Talmud, but not much in terms of obedience.  The newly developing Reconstructionist movement is even more depraved and evil than the Reform motion and evidently supports neither the Torah or the Talmud. 

 

Thus, the Reform and Reconstructionist Jews don’t really obey much of anything (Talmud or Tanakh).  Most are assuredly racially and ethnically evil and deceitful Amalekites, secretly serving Satan.  They would naturally be attracted to the Reform or Reconstructionist motions to carry out their plans for the destruction of Yisrael. 

 

 

Other Jews 

 

There is another group of Jews called Karaites/Karaim (Bene Mikra or Sons of the Book), mentioned earlier.  They are an eighth century CE sect from Babylon which accepts the OT Scriptures, but rejects the Talmud (“Concise Dictionary of Judaism” by Dagobert D. Runes, p. 144).  Some scholars believe that the Karaites are an outgrowth of the old Essene movement. 

 

Hershel Shanks quoted Jerome Murphy O’Connor that “A direct relationship (between the Essenes and the Karaites seems undeniable” (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 83).  A hypothesis was broached by O’Connor that some members of the Essene movement lived in Babylon and later evolved into the Karaites/Karaim. 

 

Shanks notes that both the Essenes and Karaites believed that their teachings represented the original Mosaic faith, free of later distortions and corruptions (ibid, p. 83).  Both rejected Talmudic authority.  Some of their other doctrines are similar as well. 

 

Of course, most modern Jews are so-called “secularists.”  They largely could care less about the Torah or the Talmud.  Many of them are Amalekite workers of evil or children of Satan who are thought to be atheists or agnostics. 

 

Also, there is some presence in modern Israel of some persons who probably can be classified as secularists, but are not in the real profile of the Amalekite Satanists and atheists.  The Jun 17, 2002, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 20-22) had a story by Netty C. Gross on “The Heretic” which addressed Yaron Yadan, who was a Sephardi Jew and former Rav of an Ultra Orthodox group. 

 

Yadan was born in a largely secularist Sephardic family.  As a 17-year-old boy, Yadan became a member of an Ultra Orthodox yeshivah (school) and stayed with the Ultra Orthodox until he was 33 in 1994.  By 1994, Yadan had studied with maverick Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz who taught that “the Talmud was not the word of God.” 

 

In time, Yadan came to believe that Talmudic laws “were based on error, or shaped by the biases and attitudes of Jews who lived in ancient times.”  By 1994, Yadan took the position that Jewish Halakhah was “based on man-made ‘nonsense’ marked by profound dislike for non-Jews...and misogyny.”  Still later, Yadan ultimately rejected the authority and status of the Torah itself. 

 

In any case, following his departure from the Ultra Orthodox world, Yadan founded in 1998 an organization called “Da’at Emet” (meaning True Wisdom) trying to put his views over to Ultra Orthodox people and encourage them to abandon their faith.  It is unclear how much success Yadan is having, but the point is that here is another group of modern Israelis who certainly do not believe in the Talmud. 

 

The last and most important group to be acknowledged is the Messianic Jews (to be addressed in a later chapter), some of whom are nothing but watered down Christians.  However, a few of them are very obedient and certainly dedicated to all of the words in both the OT and NT (in a properly restored Hebrew presentation).  However, most of them are not necessarily duty bound to obey the Talmud. 

 

 

The Nazarene Sect 

 

William F. Dankenbring quoted Ray Pritz’s excellent work on early Judaism which noted that the early Nazarene believers in YESHUA did not accept as binding the Oral Law, as embodied in the Mishnah (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 6). 

 

As Dankenbring correctly noted, these early believers did not “reject” the Oral Law, per se.  But rather, they did not accept it as then embodied in the Mishnah.  Thus, they never did reject it in principle.  Without this rejection, one can make the case that they accepted it in principle; albeit, without attaching authority to it in the context of the Tanakh. 

 

Surely, these early Messianic believers respected the Oral Law, studied it, referred to it, and in many instances, did obey it (as outlined herein, in the context of accepting its definitions or things to be done as a custom of the people).  It’s just that they did not accept it as authoritative in the context of law requiring obedience, as the Torah stipulates. 

 

Actually, the student of truth can readily tell what was happening in Judaism and among the Jews of the first century CE with a study of the NT and the many conflicts YESHUA had with the ruling authorities and especially the School of Shammai Pharisees. 

 

Clearly, the Shammai Pharisees were trying to place the Talmud on the same level as the Torah--which was wrong!  This was the situation which gave rise to many of the conflicts that YESHUA had with the Shammai Pharisees.  They were trying to define their traditions and customs on a law basis. 

 

This reality caused hundreds of differences in interpretations between the School of Shammai, as opposed to the School of Hillel, in terms of even what was supposed to be law or halakhah (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 7, p. 1162).  This condition will be further discussed in a later chapter. 

 

Obviously, the Oral Law was not authoritative, as was the Torah and/or the Tanakh.  While the Shammai people did not succeed in this endeavor in YESHUA’s day, they did reach that plateau after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, as will be subsequently shown. 

 

Yet, in His day, YESHUA certainly respected the Oral Law, quoted it and did follow its prescriptions on numerous occasions--not in the context of authoritative law; but rather, in the context of definitions (i.e. the calendar and festivals) and Jewish customs followed by the people in an effort to obey the Torah, have fellowship and please The ELOHIM.  

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

Professor David Flusser, formerly of Hebrew University, offered his assessment of Second Temple Judaism and particularly as it is ascertainable today from the writings of The Talmud, now preserved for history (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 471). 

 

He concluded that both modern day Judaism and Christianity did not come from the Hebrew OT creed or Israelite religion; but rather, from the Jewish religiosity that flourished during the intertestamental period.  If this conclusion has validity, then one can make the case that both faiths need to recover that original religion. 

 

And while this intertestamental Judaism did profoundly affect emerging Judaism and while it certainly had “some” impact on the subsequently developing Christianity, this writer would look elsewhere for most of the foundational basis of modern Christendom.  This other direction will be addressed in subsequent chapters herein. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 175--Good In Judaism

 

 

Good In Judaism and Among Some Jews 

 

Having suggested the presence of both good and bad among the Jews in the previous chapters and in the context of explaining why the olive tree had good branches to be pruned off, one can next focus some attention on Judaism to determine its propriety as a religion. 

 

In any study and contemplation of this theme, it must be acknowledged that The ANOINTED ONE, Himself, said that the religious Jews (certain scribes and Pharisees) sat in Moshe’s seat and should be obeyed to the extent that they taught Moshe properly, as discussed in an earlier chapter (Matt 23:2).  And that’s giving them an awful lot of credit. 

 

Of course, they taught and advocated much righteousness from YHWH’s Torah (far more than heathen Christianity has ever allowed).  Their problem was that while they often spoke correctly, they themselves acted badly--much like other so-called human beings in general and especially modern Christians (Matt 23:3). 

 

Yes, there is a big problem of hypocrisy in all (100%) of Yisrael at large, to include the Jews and everyone else with no exceptions. 

 

At this juncture, the reader might wish to recall several other valuable Scriptures quoted earlier.  Shaul wrote that the oracles of The ELOHIM were committed (given to) the Jews for their obvious preservation and maintenance (Rom 3:2). 

 

The world is blessed today because the Jews have done their job and preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew culture and the Jewish religion, despite incredible obstacles from wicked Christians. 

 

 

A Pure Language 

 

The prophet Zephaniah (Tzfanyah in the Hebrew) wrote an amazing prophecy some centuries ago when he projected a time to come when YHWH would give to His people (Yisrael) a pure language (obviously, it is Hebrew that was surely the first language before the tower of Babel, as well as being the Scriptural language) which they can use to call upon and worship Him (Zeph 3:9). 

 

A previously mentioned find in the Dead Sea Scrolls was a document referring to the pre-flood pure language of Genesis 11:6-7 (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 402). 

 

This remark was in a commentary on Zephaniah 3:9 with an implication that in a coming time the Gentile nations (which could be just the lost tribes of Yisrael, though many readers may take it to mean all of the collective nations of man) will speak Hebrew, the original language, once more.  The Jewish Midrash Tanhuma has a similar finding of a coming day when the people (lost Israelites?) will return to Hebrew. 

 

YHWH has started to do that very thing in our life times when He has used the Jews (principally one Eliezer Ben-Yahuda in the early 20th century) to restore the Hebrew language (formerly almost extinct) in the state of Israel.  In the times when Hebrew was almost lost and other languages prevailed, Eliezer was so dedicated that he insisted that his family speak only Hebrew at home (“Bible Light On The News,” v. VII, No. 5). 

 

Today, Hebrew is spoken in the vernacular after almost facing extinction over the last 2,000 years and particularly so with the terrible assault and effort of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to permanently stomp it out forever.  If Rome would have had her way, man would not have the Hebrew language in 2003.  It would have been destroyed long ago! 

 

Yet, by a fantastic and extraordinary miracle, Hebrew survived.  Today, little Jewish children (yes, starting at age 5) use the Hebrew Torah as their initial study book in Israeli schools.  How wonderful and marvelous is the Hebrew language and Scriptures and how blessed are those children. 

 

How great it is for children (of whatever kind--true Israelites, real Jews or even Edomites) to use the Hebrew Scriptures for their primary school text book.  Hence, that text from Zephaniah is quite profound and regardless of how one might wish to interpret it. 

 

 

A Language Authority 

 

Interestingly, the Israeli state has a language authority organized in 1953 to oversee questions on the Hebrew language and its usages in an effort to authenticate and establish a “pure” language (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 2, p. 205-206).   

 

This state authority was established by the Knesset (the parliament) as the “Academy of the Hebrew Language,” replacing a previous Hebrew Language Committee formed in Jerusalem in 1890.  Academy decisions are published in Hebrew dictionaries and/or as rules in their annual Academy publication. 

 

Not only have these organizations both been active in the establishment and spreading of the Hebrew language in the vernacular, but they have been responsible for resolving the several differences in pronunciation and usage found in the diverse Jewish communities in the Diaspora.  Essentially, they have established the Sephardi pronunciation, as the standard for spoken Hebrew and instruction in the schools.  

 

One excellent example of the work of these groups concerns resolving the confusion over the waw Hebrew consonant and “w” sound, as opposed to a belief among many German and Eastern European Jews that it was a vav consonant with a “v” sound.  Years ago, the agency concluded that the waw or “w” sound was largely correct, as used by Oriental Jews from the Arab countries. 

 

Next, Yohanan wrote the words of The MESSIAH to the effect that “salvation is of or from the Jews” (Jo 4:22).  Although this phrase is discussed at some length earlier, it is well to recall it again in understanding that there are some good Jews out there and they have done much good over the centuries.  After all, The MESSIAH was both a racial and a religious Yehudi. 

 

 

The 13 Ani Ma’amin 

 

The Jul-Aug 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 3) had a presentation on the thirteen principles of faith commonly found among religious Jews from all around the world.  They are called the “Ani Ma’amin” or I believe principles.  These articles are very ancient and have had poems and prayers composed about them for vast ages.  Almost a thousand years ago, Moshe Maimonides wrote about them. 

 

They are:  (1) There is a Creator; (2) He is echad (one); (3) He is incorporeal; (4) He is eternal; (5) He alone must be worshipped; (6) The prophets are true; (7) Moshe was the greatest of prophets; (8) The entire Torah was given to Moshe; (9) The Torah is immutable; (10) The EL knows all the thoughts and acts of man; (11) He rewards and punishes; (12) The MESSIAH will come; and (13) There will be a resurrection. 

 

In the article, the writer (Messianic Jew Rick Chaimberlin) outlined his understanding of each point.  He appropriately incorporated the role of YESHUA The MESSIAH in the various principles.  For example, on number 5, Chaimberlin wrote that he believes with perfect faith that we pray to the Father, but in YESHUA’s name.  YESHUA is the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father, except through Him. 

 

Manifestly, Christians of all creeds would be hard pressed to argue or deny these 13 principles.  Thus, when boiled down to their basics, most Christians would agree with them.  Since these thirteen represent the essence of Judaism, Christians logically must agree with the principles of Judaism.  For sure, YESHUA basically accepted these beliefs 2,000 years ago (perhaps with some interpretation or clarification). 

 

 

The Menorah 

 

Next, let us turn to another subject of keen interest to truth.  While the wording of the second commandment in the Decalogue is such that a true believer must approach the question of symbols and replicas of things in heaven and on earth very cautiously, there is one good symbol which is worthy of some thought. 

 

Many people might suppose that it is the so-called star of David.  But it is not (this six pointed star will be addressed in later comments herein).  Though the so-called star of David has come to be a symbol of the state of Israel and Jews, it is not really a symbol of historic Judaism or of the Jewish religion. 

 

Surely, one of the most important artifacts in the Temple was the wonderful Menorah which The ELOHIM commanded for His edifice (Ex 25:31-40; Zech 4:2-3; Rev 1:13, 20).  This marvelous lampstand was cast in one piece of gold and involved seven separate branches or lamps (probably fed by one central receptacle or bowl of olive oil, although this point is not clear). 

 

In popularity, the Menorah overshadowed almost everything else in the Tabernacle and/or Temple, in terms of acceptance and respect by the people. 

 

Over the years, this symbol has been found on ancient mosaics, artifacts, pottery, jewelry, tombs and so forth throughout the Middle East and Europe.  Even the Romans got into the act when they carved one into the Arch of Titus in Rome, following his victory over the Jews (although this one is not exactly accurate in presentation, as is now known from other Menorah finds in Palestine). 

 

In the Jan-Feb 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 47-59), Christian writer William F. Dankenbring, previously quoted herein, wrote an article on “The Mystery of the Menorah” which discussed this artifact in some detail.  Of relevance, Dankenbring mentioned a whole host of Scriptures which are suggestive of light from the Menorah (Ps 119:105; Matt 5:14-16; Jo 1:1-9; Phil 2:12-16). 

 

Importantly, the Menorah is a symbol of the seven assemblies, outlined in the books of Zechariah and Revelation (Zech 4:1-10; Rev 1:12-20).  These seven congregations will be addressed in future chapters herein. 

 

Dankenbring says that the “rabbis” teach that the Menorah is a symbol of the Torah--the tree of life.  This symbolism is shown in the following method:  If we count the number of Hebrew words in the first verse of the five books of Moshe (the Torah), we discover that they seem to all relate to some aspect of the Menorah. 

 

For example, in Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 has seven words (the Menorah has seven branches).  Exodus 1:1 has eleven words (the Menorah has eleven knobs).  Leviticus 1:1 has nine words (the Menorah has nine flowers).  Numbers 1:1 has 18 words (the Menorah was to be 18 handbreadths in height, per the Talmud).  And Deuteronomy 1:1 has 22 words (the Menorah has 22 cups). 

 

Since a Menorah has some value in terms of utility in a home (in the holding of lamps), there probably is some justification for believers to own one and use it on appropriate occasions--like for lights for the Sabbath event, as noted previously. 

 

 

Lashon Hara 

 

An understanding of “lashon hara” (meaning the evil tongue) is a feature of good within Judaism which needs mention.  Strangely enough, as important as it is within Judaism, it is not a particular issue in most of Christendom.  The Jewish thinking on this was outlined in an article by Dean and Susan Wheelock on “Lashon Hara” in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 44-46). 

 

To assess this topic, the Wheelocks called upon the teachings of Rab (or correctly Rav) Yisroel Meir Kagan (b. 1839) which came to be called “Chofetz Chayim.”  Apparently, much of Kagan’s work focused upon teachings from the Talmud and other early Jewish sources.  Obviously, too, the whole subject has much Scriptural support (Ps 19:1-5; 34:12-14; 51:15; Prov 13:3; 15:4; 21:23; Matt 12:34; Jas 3:2-10). 

 

Per the article, there are two major types of lashon hara which must be avoided.  They are making a remark that in any way puts down or belittles another person and making a remark which causes another person to be hurt physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually or financially. 

 

Among other things, lashon hara arises when a person hurts the feelings of another even when nothing is actually said.  It is not confined to actual spoken words, but can include writing, hinting, or even facial expressions.  It can exist in parables (or stories) or anything which belittles another person or has a negative effect upon another person. 

 

Of course, there are rare times when one is actually commanded to engage in lashon hara.  These times are when one sees the sin of rebellion in another; he is certain that what he sees is sin; the motivations in bringing it up are pure; there must be absolutely no exaggeration; and he must be willing to tell it to the person’s face and not as loose gossip. 

 

Lashon hara can also be spoken if a person is causing someone else physical or psychological pain; is stealing from someone; embarrassing another; or damaging someone else’s property.  

 

Further guidelines are--not to jump to conclusions; if possible, speak to the offender before talking to others; one’s personal motivation must be pure; one must not cause the person to suffer in excess of what he deserves; and the lashon hara spoken must be publicly stated and not put out in a whisper campaign. 

 

The Jewish principle is that “Anything that is forbidden to say is also forbidden to hear.”  It is only permitted when it serves a truly constructive purpose and where concealing the matter has the potential of bringing about harm.  The antidote for lashon hara is shmiras halshon, which is guarding the tongue (see Jas 3:2-13). 

 

 

Elisha 

 

The prohibition of speaking evil of others (at least, brethren in a true fellowship--of the category of the rea and ger, as defined earlier and to be shortly discussed) is important to The MOST HIGH, as can be proven easily from the Word.  A good illustration of how important it is surfaced just after Eliyahu was translated to heaven and Elisha assumed his prophetic office. 

 

Just after this event, Elisha was going to Bethel when a bunch of children (likely larger kids/teenagers) started harassing him and calling him names.  As he was a bald-headed man, they chose to poke fun at his bald head.  The great prophet responded by calling down a curse upon them in the name of YHWH.  Two female bears came out of the woods and killed or injured 42 of the kids (II Kg 2:23-24). 

 

This thing with Elisha reminds me of a situation when i was a foolish and stupid boy and made fun of another boy’s nose.  We proceeded to have a boxing match over it and he got the upper hand (and proved he was the much better fighter than me).  Needless to say, i learned something about keeping my mouth shut after that lesson. 

 

 

More on the Stranger 

 

While the above article and teaching from Rav Kagan were good, and needed to be pointed out, there are some features on this subject which were not stated.  Probably, in the generic sense, this teaching is good.  But it must be couched in the different perspectives of various peoples described in the Scriptures. 

 

For example, the commandment to love the “stranger” was cited in the article (Deut 10:19).  But the word here is “ger” and ger does not include “all strangers,” but only those of the same, Adamic, racial profile as the Israelites.  Also, judging one’s neighbour in righteousness was cited (Lev 19:15).  But neighbour here is from the Hebrew “amith,” which clearly refers to one’s fellow, racial kinsman in fellowship. 

 

These different categories of so-called human beings have been described and discussed at length in former chapters.  There is no need to repeat that material again at this place.  But it must be recalled in the subject at hand. 

 

The point of this is that there is a definite line of demarcation between deportment and contact between the Israelites, one to another (to include the gerim), vis-à-vis the other forms of humanoids--mamzer, nokri/nekar mongrels and the behemah and chaiyah.  This writer is not suggesting that saying lashon hara against the behemah or mamzer mongrel is allowable.  But it is in a different category than with the Israelites or gerim. 

 

 

The NT Fellowship 

 

In the Apostolic Assembly, there is furthermore the election out of the race of Yisrael.  YESHUA offered some powerful teachings on duties one to another in this vein.  But He spoke in the context of the brotherhood in the Apostolic Assembly and not at the general population level with all of the different categories of humans/humanoids. 

 

In terms of the NT brotherhood, the members were in a true family relationship.  In that sense, lashon hara applied 100%.  For example, in a family with a father, mother and children, no thoughtful or loving parent would allow any of the siblings to have an evil tongue improperly against the other siblings.  If it happened in the father’s presence, he surely would stop it at once. 

 

As discussed elsewhere herein, the NT congregation of called out ones were very much in such a close family relationship where each of the brethren were precisely on the same level as real brethren in a family.  Accordingly, the instructions of YESHUA and the other Apostolic leaders were always couched in the vein of duties of one brother in a family to his immediate siblings. 

 

This need is assuredly true in the context of lashon hara (as well as underlying the whole Talmud).  It is unthinkable that a member of a fellowship of true believers would ever allow lashon hara to surface in the group.  All members in the entity would walk the extra mile to practice deportment and true brotherly love in the correct, proper way within the fellowship (as was discussed in former chapters). 

 

However, the requirements of lashon hara do not necessarily extend beyond the group of true believers--at least, not in a 100% state.  The case might be made that probably some aspects of lashon hara should apply to the rea racial kinsmen in the collective population.  But this was not the focus by YESHUA or the NT.  In the NT, deportment and brotherly love issues were directed at the brotherhood. 

 

Manifestly, YESHUA never pulled any punches in condemning and criticizing certain peoples (especially evil Amalekites and leaders and big shots over the people).  The same is true with the OT judges and prophets and the NT teachers.  While they properly criticized people in known sin, it must be noted that they usually did it without mentioning specific names (except in the case of leaders, who are often named). 

 

In other words, the ingratitude of the nine (out of ten) lepers healed by YESHUA was mentioned (Lu 17:12-19).  But they were not named (but surely, anyone of them later reading the account would at once know that he was being addressed).  This was often the practice in condemnation of the average person in the general population. 

 

If there is any departure from the general rule of no names, in terms of the brotherhood (or even with the average rea Joe Blow on the street), it happened in III Jo 1:9-11 in Yohanan’s remarks about Diotrephes (apparently, a bad person who fellowshipped with the Apostolic Assembly, and set himself up as a big shot leader).  Certainly, Yohanan had no hesitation in naming him and citing his deeds of evil. 

 

 

Leaders Are Different From Ordinary People 

 

Of course, there is some distinction between people in leadership positions, as opposed to the general lay population.  People in leadership must be subjected to public condemnation and scrutiny (certainly, where the truth can be told); or otherwise, their evils would be covered up and hid from the public. 

 

The implied prohibition in Exodus 22:28 and Acts 23:3-5 might lead one to suppose that leaders cannot be criticized or condemned.  But the Scriptures are replete with condemnations of both secular and religious leaders.  In Exodus 22:28, the prohibition specifically addresses the rendition of a curse (Hebrew arar) which was the situation with Shaul in his public curse on the High Priest, in the name of YHWH (Acts 23:3-5). 

 

There probably are questions over the public nature of making a curse, whether from a person in authority or not and whether there is a cultural issue involving magic, as is common in some societies (“Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,” p. 405-418).  Also, in terms of the leader, has he acted in the color of office and on behalf of the Torah and the generic people (Exodus, “The Pentateuch,” p. 382)? 

 

Evidently, these are underlying issues in Exodus 22:28--which do not cover normal, human criticism or complaint over leaders (which is proper, per the Book’s samples). 

 

The cover-up and hiding of the sins and evils of persons in leadership positions would not serve to benefit the public good.  And certainly, it would not serve the cause of truth.  Above all else, people in leadership roles automatically open their lives up to public scrutiny.  However much they may want their sins and evils hid from the public, reality is that they must be told for the public good. 

 

This desire to hide and cover up the sins and evils of leaders over the people is clearly the wishes of kings, priests and other secular and spiritual leaders.  Leaders always want their wrongs hid.  Few would react as David did when his sins were exposed (as elsewhere discussed herein). 

 

 

Religious Leaders For Sure! 

 

Years ago, the old Worldwide Church of God had the founder’s son, Garner Ted Armstrong, in charge of the group with the office of Executive Vice-President.  But Garner Ted had a morals problem and he liked to fornicate, abuse and hurt college coeds and other impressionable young girls.  Over the years, he was caught several times in his nefarious actions. 

 

Naturally, he believed that his sins should not be discussed in the church.  He argued that when he repented of them (as he always claimed that he had done), everybody should forget his sins and go on with other business.  But the point missed by Garner Ted and his stupid defenders is that he was in a powerful leadership position.  The dumb sheep (as the members were called) deserved to know the truth. 

 

The sins, wickedness and false teachings of false religious leaders must be pointed out by righteous people or otherwise, innocent members of the public could become entrapped by these false prophets and workers of evil.  Any person who can possibly keep someone else from being entrapped by a false preacher or false teaching has done a good deed. 

 

This writer pulls no punches in criticizing false preachers and teachers in Christendom, in general, to include the Christian Identity, Sacred Name and Holy Roller movements.  People in these motions, who are out in the world trying to make proselytes of innocent and confused sheep, need to have their sins, evils and bad teachings blasted from the highest tree-tops. 

 

In particular, this writer has exposed some of the stupid doctrines of evil being promoted by several very uninformed and Scripturally ignorant Christian Identity leaders.  No punches have been pulled in commenting on these works of evil.  As will be cited in a later chapter on the Police State, a letter from the big shot leader of the Elohim City cult will be noted where he attacked me for “slander” in some comments. 

 

In the case of the Sunday keeping Christian Identity people, this writer categorically has no problem in criticizing them at all.  After all, we are certainly not in fellowship and have very little in common on religion (for sure, we are not religious brethren).  Hence, it is easy for me to make the case that they are still rolling in sun worship sin. 

 

So-called religious people who are gross hypocrites (in saying, teaching and bragging on their righteousness; when, in fact, they are rolling in sin) are also criticized in this publication (though usually without naming them personally). The reason for this exposure in the public is that a truly constructive purpose is involved and concealing the matter has the potential of bringing hurt upon readers due to the lack of examples. 

 

 

Modern Toleration of Sin 

 

One of the tragedies in today’s modern, warped culture is the presence of toleration (except on issues deemed to be politically incorrect).  Leaders and people in general tolerate and never speak out against sin.  Gross sins are now done by almost everyone and there are no cries for righteousness to prevail.  No one seems to care one way or the other. 

 

Believe me, in the Scriptures, YESHUA, the prophets, apostles and leaders all cared and all spoke out on the evident sins of the people.  There were no restraints or limitations in the guise of lashon hara to preclude the condemnation of sins and sins done by the people in public (the same reasoning applies in the true fellowship, if someone is expelled for sin--following attempted resolutions of the problem). 

 

It would be unthinkable for an Israelite to speak bad about a fellow Israelite and call him names and poke fun at his bald head (as happened with the children in II Kg 2:23-24, noted above) or to make fun of the way someone looks. 

 

But it is categorically not wrong to condemn people in outright sin (like homosexual faggots, sodomites, miscegenators and so forth). 

 

This writer believes lashon hara may not totally apply to leaders and religious hypocrites always, as outlined herein in the sense of their public acts and teachings of sin in front of others (as discussed above and as being allowable in Judaism). 

 

Moreover, take the case of the evil Clinton.  He is much like the Israelite kings (who were regularly criticized, condemned and “named” for the evil they put upon the people).  It would be criminal, wrong and perhaps even some form of sin to cover up and hide the wretchedness and wrong-doing of such public leaders. 

 

The essence here is that one must walk a very, fine and narrow line when engaging in lashon hara.  Certainly, in the general sense, it should be avoided--but not necessarily with persons in leadership roles or in examples of sin from the public which can benefit truth and righteousness.  Here, in this production, this writer does cite names of people in the news which illustrates the depravity and evil in the land. 

 

As noted, there may be occasions where works of evil should be brought up--but very carefully and not with malice hatred and intent to put hurt unnecessarily upon others (although this cannot always be avoided--like in some cases with the evil Amalekites).  Evil people should not take offense with the exposure of their own bad deeds. 

 

 

Zechariah 8:23 

 

This whole discussion on the merits of Judaism, as a religion, brings to mind a wonderful prophecy by Zekharyah about a coming time when ten men of the "goyim" will take hold of the robe of a (religious?) Jew to walk with him (Zech 8:23). 

 

And what would a non-Jew want from a Jew except his knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew language, the Hebrew Tanakh and Second Temple Judaism and culture. 

 

Zekharyah’s remarks bring to mind the wonderful works of 12th century CE, Jewish scholar Moshe Maimonides, previously mentioned, who compiled the Book of Commandments (Sefer Ha Mitzvoth) which brought together and codified the 613 commandments (which seem to define sin--248 positive and 365 negative) from the Torah (translated by Charles B. Chavel, in a modern Soncino Press edition). 

 

While many Christians (particularly Identity Christians) would never give a Jew (even a truly religious one) any credit for anything (because of their basic hatred of Jews and Judaism), Zekharyah’s words could have profound meaning for a large part of Yisrael. 

 

This study at hand interprets Zechariah 8:23 as saying that in the age end (evidently during the initial work of two prophets in Jerusalem for their witness prior to the great tribulation), the escaped (elect) remnant of Yisrael (following the fall and destruction of the national governments and nations of the House of Yisrael) will come to Jerusalem to help in the rebuilding of the Third Temple (to be assessed later). 

 

On arrival, these (elect) persons of the ten tribes (the ten men mentioned) will take hold of the (religious) Jews in an effort to learn more about Judaism and particularly Second Temple Judaism and culture.  Of course, this understanding is crucial for a comprehension of the entire New Testament which was composed and written in this precise environment. 

 

The point is that not only was the Jewish religion important from a historical perspective, but there is every reason to believe that it possesses some qualities and attributes which will one day be recognized and acknowledged as "good" by people of the lost tribes of Yisrael (as well as others), who had been cut off from these sources from the divorce at the time of the Assyrian captivity. 

 

 

Again, Judaism Does Have Some Good! 

 

The gist of these remarks is that there was some reasonably good beliefs and thinking among portions of Judaism. 

 

If it is feasible to call any carnal, fleshly humans/humanoids "good" (of course, it is technically impossible), then some of those people and their associated religious bodies might could be so classified and thus qualify as good olive branches. 

 

For certain, if one reads the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, some of the stem and root system of the olive tree visually materialized in a most convincing fashion.  What one must understand is that if there is something wrong with the root system of the olive tree, how can the grafting in of the Israelite goyim produce any righteousness? 

 

And what believer of truth would now dare come forth to criticize, condemn or argue against the root system of the religion taught and promoted by Ezra, Nechemyah, Yeshua and Zerubavel (the previously mentioned Sydney Cleveland, editor of the “Sabbath Sentinel,” could be an exception here, as elsewhere mentioned)? 

 

Well, no true believer would attack these Second Temple leaders for sure!  Assuredly, it was essentially this same existing religion which persisted to New Testament days, although infected some with the "traditions of the elders." 

 

 

The Olive Tree Revisited

 

Here, it would be well to recall some prior comments on the fact that some of the natural, olive branches were broken or pruned off by YHWH in order for the wild, olive shoots to be grafted into the good stem and root system.  These cut off, natural branches were good Jews (both religiously and racially). 

 

Importantly, they were cut off in Apostolic times from the good olive tree which has to be Second Temple Judaism.  As Shaul remarked to the Romans, these cut off, natural branches have to also be grafted back to the same tree from where they were cut off (Rom 11:24). 

 

There is absolutely no question about it whatsoever, the Jews in NT times were cut off from the good olive tree of Second Temple Judaism (which must have had a good root system and structure). 

 

In order to be grafted back to the good olive tree, these very cut off branches must return to the religion and culture of Second Temple Judaism (obviously, as clarified and taught by YESHUA). 

 

It isn’t only that the cut off branches must be grafted back to their original good source, but the wild olive shoots of the lost House of Yisrael must be grafted into that exact, same, root system and structure.  Yes, Second Temple Judaism was the remnant of the Hebrew faith of the OT.  It had many wonderful and good points which must be revived by the people of faith here in the age end. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 176--The Synagogue

 

 

Messianic Believers Were in the Synagogues 

 

As brought out elsewhere herein, the early believers in YESHUA were Israelites who met and worshipped in the Jewish synagogues; just as YESHUA, Shaul and Kefa all worshipped in the synagogues--Luke 4:16-21; Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; 17:17; 18:4, 11, 19, 26; and 19:8. 

 

Actually, the Word is careful to point out that YESHUA and Shaul worshipped in the synagogues on Sabbaths, as their customs or manners were. 

 

In fact, the NT evidence points in exactly two directions to describe Messianic worship in the first century CE.  All of the remarks on worship sites seem to involve essentially two places--the Jewish synagogues and the homes of believers (Rom 16:3-5, etc).  Certainly, no believer ever worshipped in a Christian Church. 

 

In an audio tape on “The Early Church,” Dean Wheelock notes that the synagogue worship was public worship on the Sabbaths and festivals while the home worship sites were private meetings along the lines of “Bible studies” during the week. 

 

There was one instance in Philippi where some women gathered for worship on Sabbaths along a river (Acts 16:13).  Wheelock explains this by noting that a minyan or quorum of ten, adult males were needed to establish a synagogue.  Besides the expense of building the synagogue building, there was also a need in Judaism for a mikveh (or ritual bath site--for baptizing, ritual cleaning, etc). 

 

In the absence of the ten, adult males and/or money, groups of Jews would start informally.  One of their first tasks was to build a mikveh or at least hold meetings near a source of live water (which is what happened at Philippi where these apparently Jewish women and maybe some “ELOHIM Fearers” were having informal Sabbath meetings near a river). 

 

 

Bad English Translations

 

Besides the frequent references of believers worshipping in Jewish synagogues, Wheelock points out a couple of peculiarities on this theme which arise because of bad KJV or English translations.  He notes that James 2:2-9 refers to the adverse feature of showing favoritism to rich people in your “assembly.”  As Wheelock notes, the word here is synagogue. 

 

Dean also mentions the assembling together at Hebrews 10:21-25.  Here, the Greek is “episunagoge” which actually means “going to synagogue” (as cited earlier)  There is a similar expression at II Thessalonians 2:1.

 

Moreover, Wheelock explains Acts 20:20 by saying that Shaul did teach various people in their private homes (house to house) during the week.  But always, he worshipped on the Sabbaths in the public synagogues. 

 

Finally, on this theme, mention must be made once more to the famous Acts 15 conference, discussed in a prior chapter.  Verse 21 in this presentation presupposes that believers have been attending synagogues or would continue to attend synagogues in order to learn about Moshe and his teachings (since Moshe was taught regularly in the synagogues on the Sabbath days). 

 

 

Dr Michael Lebowitz 

 

Not only did the Messianic leaders worship routinely in the synagogues, but most of them were teachers in the synagogues--like YESHUA (Matt 13:54; Mk 1:21; Lu 4:16) and Shaul (Acts 18:4, 11, 19).  They were instructing others on righteousness! 

 

As Dr Michael Lebowitz notes in his audio tape on the “Synagogue,” the very fact that YESHUA and Shaul could publicly teach and expound the Scriptures in the synagogues goes to prove one key point.  The people and synagogue leaders, in general, were not opposed to them. 

 

If these speakers would have been too much out of line to Judaism, they would not have been given the floor so freely in the synagogues.  The fact that they were given the floor and listened to (and made many new believers) suggests that their talks were not major departures from traditional Judaism (though Shaul did cause an uproar in at least one synagogue in Thessalonica--Acts 17). 

 

Per Lebowitz, there is never any indication whatsoever that there was anything wrong with worshipping in synagogues or in the manner and procedure of worship in synagogues. 

 

The evidence suggests that YESHUA and the others routinely worshipped in the synagogues and abided by and accepted the worship ritual and process.  To repeat, no believer ever worshipped in a Christian Church in the NT! 

 

Surely, if something was wrong with Jewish worship in synagogues, The MESSIAH and His followers would have never went there for worship.  Again, the NT never records one instance of any complaints or criticisms from believers that there was anything wrong in synagogue worship practices--as run by the Pharisees (who were in charge of the synagogues). 

 

The “few” instances when Shaul had some problem or question in a synagogue were isolated instances and only involved some persons who disapproved of his message about redemption in YESHUA’s name.  These instances were isolated, few and almost of no significance in terms of the big picture of synagogue worship. 

 

 

Yes, Believers Were in Synagogues 

 

As is well known from history, there soon developed an intense Jewish opposition and persecution to the people in the synagogues who were accepting The MESSIAH YESHUA for redemption, in the context of the sect of the Nazarenes of the Hillel Pharisee faith (or correctly Messianic Jews).  In other words, the Messianic speakers in the synagogues were having much success in making disciples for YESHUA. 

 

The famous Shaul of Tarsus was one of these zealous Jews who, early on, was out to stomp out this new Jewish faith.  He went to the high priest in Jerusalem and obtained letters authorizing him to go to Damascus to arrest these believers and bring them back bound to Jerusalem for trial and punishment (Acts 9:1-2). 

 

But something overlooked by Christians is the fact that Shaul was given authorization to go only to the “synagogues” (plural) in Damascus to arrest those believers.  He had no authority to go to any other place (and even this trip was stopped by YESHUA).   

 

This means that the Messianic believers in the Arab land of Syria worshipped in the synagogues with the Jews (actually, this was the case throughout the Roman Empire in the early days of the Apostolic Assembly). 

 

As Rick Chaimberlin wrote in his article on “The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus,” in the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 59), Shaul was going to Jewish synagogues to find and arrest Messianic Jews who were worshipping in the synagogues.  Even very late in the book of Acts, Shaul affirmed that he punished and pursued these Messianic believers found in the Jewish synagogues (Acts 26:11). 

 

There is no record whatsoever of any Jewish persecution of Christians or worshippers in Christian Churches, houses or anything else.  The early Jewish persecution was against believers who worshipped in synagogues.  This is a most important point to recognize.  The early Messianic worshippers worshipped in synagogues.  They were totally and completely Jews--but with the added faith of YESHUA. 

 

 

But Trouble Was To Come 

 

Incidentally, YESHUA on at least three occasions predicted that the time would come when His followers would be put out of the synagogues (Jo 9:22; 12:42; 16:2).  This course was cited earlier and will be discussed in some detail below and in the succeeding chapter. 

 

But for now, the point must be made that the followers of YESHUA did indeed worship and fellowship in Jewish synagogues--until they were persecuted and put out. 

 

The fact that the believers worshipped in the synagogues and continued to worship in them spells out the reality that the synagogue worship procedures and rituals were in basic truth and very acceptable to The  HIGHEST.  So the synagogues were good institutions with good worship practices.  The problem was with some of the synagogue leadership who turned against the Messianic believers. 

 

This condition brings to mind the situation with the old Worldwide Church of God and its various splits and divisions in the 1970s.  Many people leaving that church felt that the doctrines were basically good.  But the church administration was evil and corrupt.  This is much the same with the early synagogues.  They were good institutions.  But some or many of the synagogue leaders were evil and corrupt. 

 

 

The Faith System of YESHUA 

 

Accordingly, Second Temple Judaism was the basic faith and practice of YESHUA, Kefa, Yakov, Shaul and on and on to include the entire Apostolic Assembly in the first century CE (less portions of the Talmud which YESHUA criticized, of course). 

 

Except for complaints leveled against the traditions of the elders (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:5-13) and the outright evil and hypocrisy of certain, Jewish, religious leaders (Matt 23:3-35), there is little or no evidence of any condemnation of first century CE Judaism, per se, by The MESSIAH, Himself, or any of the leadership of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

In fact, in the citations from books by David Flusser and Harvey Falk, mention was made of the focus of YESHUA’s criticisms at the Sadducees and the School of Shammai Pharisees and not at the School of Hillel Pharisees (which He seems to have identified with).  By extension, it is clear that He did not criticize or condemn Judaism over all (beyond some portions of the Oral Law). 

 

In today’s world, some television and movie documentaries or even dramas sometimes show Jewish people in worship in a song or chant at the Western Wall or perhaps at weddings or a synagogue or in their homes for Sabbath services.  Since the process is in Hebrew and different from the Western culture, there is a tendency for Christian Israelites to resent these observances. 

 

One day, while watching some of this Jewish culture in operation, this writer woke up and realized that YESHUA, Shaul and many or all of the New Testament people engaged in some of the exact same songs and rituals.  Yes, the evidence is most persuasive that some of these songs or chants are quite ancient and were par for the course in Second Temple Judaism.  Thus, YESHUA participated in them! 

 

If The MESSIAH sang some of these songs or chanted some of these prayers, any and all people who might want to criticize, condemn or be hostile toward them had better back off.  In fact, the real believer needs to wake up and develop an interest in learning these Hebrew songs, prayers and words and start using them in his own worship.  For sure, they will be practiced in the world to come! 

 

 

The Essence Here

 

The essence on this issue is that YESHUA correctly told the truth when He declared that believers must worship The ELOHIM in spirit (in the mind and heart) and in truth (Jo 4:24).  For sure, His worship practices and procedures were in truth.  His very actions authenticated, endorsed and validated the synagogue worship procedures of Second Temple Judaism. 

 

If there was anything wrong with the basic Second Temple synagogue worship procedures, one can be sure that He would have never physically worshipped with the Jews, as His custom was.  He was no hypocrite. 

 

 

The ELOHIM Fearers 

 

Previous comments in this study have focused upon the fact that the Good News was frequently taken to the synagogues where Jews and ELOHIM fearers (proselytes or potential proselytes, at least in belief, from the lost House of Yisrael) often were in joint attendance (like Cornelius [who was not yet circumcised--Acts 11:1-3], Lydia and the persons in the synagogue at Antioch--Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26, 43; 16:14). 

 

This seems to be the pool of individuals reached to provide many of the converts to the Nazarene sect of Judaism. 

 

Although Christendom has come on the scene--with so-called immediate conversions when people stand up in a meeting, run down a church aisle, utter some (meaningless) words about believing in Gee-Zeus, being baptized or some other act of works (all of this was discussed in some detail in previous chapters in this study)--this is not the way conversion is made in Judaism (or among true believers). 

 

Conversion to Judaism involved (and still involves) mature adults and a process of time to learn, become acquainted with and develop a commitment to the Torah and the teachings of Judaism. 

 

Of course, proselytes started with belief, worship and fear of The ELOHIM.  But true conversion in Judaism also eventually involved circumcision, being baptized and going to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice (as outlined in previous chapters herein).  This “time” process for conversion could and often did require years of study and preparation (and still does today). 

 

 

The Process of Conversion 

 

In the Oct-Dec 1999 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 17), Dean and Susan Wheelock outline the Jewish process of conversion.  They say that potential proselytes had to go through a lengthy learning process of both the Torah and the customs of the Jews (likely to include the Talmud).  This learning process took at least a year. 

 

Persons going through this process were called “ELOHIM Fearers,” as cited above. 

 

They could and did attend synagogue, but they were required to sit in a separated or segregated area apart from the true Jews (this was a symbolic wall of partition between the true Jews and the goyim proselytes, which must have influenced Kefa and other believing Jews in Antioch to separate from the goyim converts--Gal 2:11-13).  Once the study and preparation time was completed, the candidate was circumcised. 

 

With the circumcision healed, the ELOHIM fearer was baptized and had to go to Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice at the Temple.  With these steps completed, the candidate became a full member of the congregation.  From that time forward, it was forbidden to ever remind the person that he had once been a goy. 

 

The Wheelocks add that a “Bat Kol” (Voice from Heaven) changed this Jewish process of conversion (or some aspects of it, like the time required for learning) for those ELOHIM fearers, who became believers in YESHUA (Acts 10:15, 22-48; 11:1-3). 

 

 

Acts 15, Revisited 

 

Despite this message, it appears that there might have been some lingering doubts or remaining confusion among some of the leadership of the Apostolic Assembly to allow the question to have to be assessed in Acts 15, which occurred some years later. 

 

As discussed previously, the important thing about the Acts 15 conference was that converts to the Nazarene sect of the Hillel Pharisees did not have to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice in order to be properly converted (evidently, this issue was not covered in the Bat Kol remarks of Acts 10:15, 22, 28, 47-48; 11:1-3). 

 

In an article on “Acts 15,” in the Oct-Dec 1999 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 18-19), the previously quoted Dr Michael Lebowitz discussed the two categories of proselytes.  The process started with a step one in the sense of becoming a “Ger-Toshab” or “God-Fearer,” as the Jews now define it.  The next step up was with circumcision and baptism where the convert became a “Ger Tzadik” (or devout Jew). 

 

Alfred Edersheim, in “The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah” (p. 1014), is more precise on this theme.  He notes that in Second Temple Judaism, the proselytes were called “Gerim” (the plural of ger, which was addressed in a former chapter).  Though the word ger signifies a particular racial type (as outlined earlier), it appears that Second Temple Jews lost that understanding and used the word for all proselytes. 

 

In any case, Edersheim said that there were four classes of proselytes--Ger ha Shaar (of the gate), Ger Toshab (sojourner or settler), Ger ha-tstsdeq (Tzadik or of righteousness) and Ger habberith (of the covenant). 

 

Per Edersheim, the proselytes of the gate only bound themselves to profess faith in The ELOHIM of Yisrael and to keep the so-called seven commandments to Noah.  They were not baptized or circumcised. 

 

Apparently, the proselytes of the covenant were “perfect Israelites” in all respects, having undergone the required study and learning, baptism, circumcision and offering of a sacrifice.  Thus, they were full Jews. 

 

Although Edersheim’s remarks were not altogether clear, it would seem that the other two classifications were intermediate steps between the first one (at the gate) and the final one (of the covenant).  Presumably, the so-called “God fearers” and people like Cornelius were in these intermediary steps. 

 

 

Many ELOHIM Fearers Were in the Synagogues 

 

This reality explains why there were these numbers of ELOHIM fearers (who evidently were not yet technically converted Jews) in attendance at the synagogues. 

 

It appears that when the Jews in some synagogues rejected the Good News message that Shaul and the others turned to these ELOHIM fearers (Acts 13:42-51; 18:6-7; 28:28). 

 

While the writer of this work would not dare try to be dogmatic on any question about the time factor involved in the conversion of the House of Yisrael peoples, who were already religious Jews (having completed the conversion process), or who were proselytes (at least, believers in The ELOHIM) in the process of true conversion, it might be that conversion to the Nazarene sect didn’t always require years--perhaps because of the work of The RUACH HA KODESH and the Bat Kol message (Acts 10:15). 

 

It is probable that all of these converts were already extremely knowledgeable on the Torah and YHWH’s mitzwot--which define and establish sin and righteousness. 

 

Even if they were lacking somewhat in this knowledge and understanding, the Baptism of The RUACH HA KODESH could have and likely did prepare them in terms of spiritual knowledge and understanding; coupled with attitude, belief and faith--all sufficient to allow reconciliation (to be discussed in a later chapter). 

 

The primary need that many of these people faced was a belief in YESHUA and His work of atonement.  Of course, this was the essence of the Good News message which the apostles preached to the people, typically in attendance at the synagogues. 

 

Whereas the usual person reached by Christendom’s preachers knows little or nothing about the Scriptures, the people reached by the apostles were already extremely informed.  They had already had exposure to questions of law and sin. 

 

 

The Apostolic Assembly Was Made Up of Religious Jews 

 

Throughout the entire New Testament period, an unbiased reader cannot avoid the truth that many (or more likely all) of the very elect recipients of the Good News apparently practiced (after conversion to YESHUA) the religion of the Jews (evidently as Hillel Pharisees), in general, coupled with a belief in the atonement of YESHUA. 

 

And this includes YESHUA, Himself (certainly, in His religious practices), and all of His major disciples (to probably include even Luke). 

 

In short, they were essentially religious Jews.  But they may not have been racial Jews beyond YESHUA and the 12,000 or so in the election, as described earlier (and many of these could have come about from racial Jews in the Assyrian captivity). 

 

Therefore, it is likely that the olive tree system not only involved the patriarchs and their racial makeup, but it surely included their religious dispositions as well. 

 

 

The Cut Off Branches Were Good Jews 

 

Thus, the cut off branches of the olive tree have to be “good" Jews because of their racial and religious backgrounds. 

 

They were trimmed off by The HIGHEST precisely so that the wild shoots of the House of Yisrael could be grafted back into the good stem and root system of Yisrael--to include her true religion which had been largely lost and abandoned by them, as a result of the divorce. 

 

It follows then that this is exactly what the world has seen for the last two millennia.  Not only have the bad figs (Amalek-Edomites and the children of Cain) opposed and rejected the Good News; but tragically, even the bulk of the good Jews have likewise followed suit. 

 

These cut off branches, with the reasonably good Israelite race and religion, have been those Jews from the remnant of the House of Yehudah and not necessarily any true racial Jews from the Assyrian deportations. 

 

And the cause of the cut off?  Because of unbelief, as Shaul observed (Rom 11:20)--unbelief perhaps attributable to the influence and power of wicked Amalek-Edomites and the descendants of Kain present with and in control of much of Jewry. 

 

In the climatic age end, many of these cut off, good Jews will have their eyes opened and they will turn to YESHUA, as the prophet Zekharyah confirms (Zech 12:10-14; 13:1-6). 

 

One more question seems to remain.  Why, one might ask, did YHWH cut off the "good" Jews, as He evidently did so when He largely left them out of the commission? 

 

Well, without trying to be positive, one can initially perceive the plan to graft in the wild olive shoots (of divorced Yisrael).  Otherwise, the reader can go back to previous comments in this study made about the Jews. 

 

There was a reason for this pruning off of good Jews.  And undoubtedly, it ties in some way to their history and heritage.  Obviously too, maybe “some” of the good Jews were and are included in the election, despite the fact that others were not included because of the trimming off of the good olive branches. 

 

 

Another Issue 

 

There is another bad feature or fallout over this unbelief by the general Jewish population and particularly in the period following the murder of YESHUA in c30 CE.  This event precipitated a great Jewish persecution of the righteous people in the Apostolic Assembly, as discussed earlier (Acts 8:1). 

 

This tribulation was primarily concentrated in the Jerusalem area and extended to the murder of Stephen (Acts 7:60).  Quickly, the Jerusalem Apostolic Assembly found that they had to bind together in a community of members, pooling all of their resources in order to survive. 

 

It is manifest that many of these Nazarene Jews began leaving the Jewish synagogues--either being forced out or voluntarily leaving. 

 

Again, this persecution and trial was essentially focused upon the believers in the Jerusalem area, although it is clear that the Jewish authorities attempted to extend it to other areas with the commission to Shaul to carry the tribulation to Damascus (Acts 9:1-2, discussed previously). 

 

It must be pointed out that the Jerusalem Jewish power structure was apparently controlled to some extent by the Amalek-Edomites, as described in previous comments. 

 

Assuredly, these Amalek-Edomites hated the followers of YESHUA, just as they hated The MESSIAH, Himself.  They were dedicated to stomp out this message of SALVATION to the lost tribes of Yisrael. 

 

As elsewhere commented upon, these Amalek-Edomites played a major role in the murder of Stephen and held enormous power over the people (Acts 7:51).  While they were able to seduce and induce some good Israelite Jews to join in with their diabolical work, like Shaul, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of real Jews merged in this wickedness. 

 

In fact, a study of the various New Testament writings clearly communicate that the Jewish opposition to YESHUA was centered in Jerusalem and was primarily promoted by and led by evil Amalek-Edomites.  Real Jews, out in the Diaspora, obviously never shared this Amalekite hatred. 

 

 

Judgment Starts With YAH’s People 

 

One more conclusion seems to be present in this look at the historical record of the first tribulation on the followers of YESHUA.  It demonstrated the wisdom of Kefa’s words that judgment must start with the house of YHWH (I Pet 4:17). 

 

Obviously, a repeat of this event seems likely in the age end as the Amalek-Edomites will raise up gullible Christian Israelites to persecute and try the very elect first, before tribulation comes to other peoples (Jer 27:1-22; 32:1-36; 33:1-14; 34:1-3; 37:4-21; 38:6-28; Rev 6:9-11).  The remarks in Acts on this event must have some prophetic application. 

 

This option will be looked at more carefully in later chapters and in Appendices D and E.  Suffice to say, the Amalek-Edomites will soon launch a horrible time of trial and persecution on their politically incorrect enemies in the United States and White British Commonwealth nations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 177--Some Bad in Judaism

 

 

Modern Judaism

 

Previous chapters focused on the Talmud as containing information of real value to the student of truth, and particularly in the context of Second Temple Judaism--which was the culture and life style of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.  But the religious setting for Second Temple Judaism was considerably different than what one finds today in modern Judaism. 

 

In other words, modern Judaism is a different organism than what Second Temple Judaism was.  There are several things which happened to Judaism, primarily after the fall of Jerusalem, which altered its direction considerably. 

 

As outlined earlier, there was a great deal of freedom of religious thought, belief and action in the first century CE under Second Temple Judaism.  In other words, Talmudic halakhah law was not developed in a dictatorial fashion in those days to rule over and dominate Jewish religious adherents (as it later developed after the fall of Jerusalem). 

 

William F. Dankenbring put it well when he declared that because Second Temple Judaism was “relatively ‘democratic’ and authoritarians and dictators were generally not tolerated, there was a relative ‘freedom’ of religion amongst the Jews, and Jewish Christians could attend the synagogues without any problem” (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 11). 

 

 

More on Second Temple Judaism

 

While some portion of early Talmudic teachings was assumed to be halakhah and authoritative as law, there was even some allowance for differences of opinion on halakhah in Second Temple days.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 7, p. 1162) reports that the two schools of Hillel and Shammai differed on hundreds of oral laws. 

 

Judaica goes on to say at the beginning of the first century CE, there was a danger of the Torah becoming two torot (Sand.  88b, p. 1162, v. 7).  The point is that to whatever extent the Second Temple Jews tried to establish halakhah, there remained serious divisions among the schools of Hillel and Shammai over interpreting those laws. 

 

Now, it becomes manifest why the Shammai Pharisees would holler and complain about sin when YESHUA healed on a Sabbath day or when His disciples picked a little grain to eat on the Sabbath day.  The Shammai people were calling these acts sin while the Hillel people apparently did not define them as sin at all at that time. 

 

Thus, there was all kinds of divisions and differences of opinions within practicing Judaism (350 differences within the Pharisees, as noted earlier).  And the beauty of this system is that all of these differences were perfectly legitimate and proper in the vein of religious freedom--per the basic religion, the collective people, the Talmud and the culture. 

 

Despite these divisions, the people were theoretically all one and could freely come to synagogue for weekly worship services where they all could worship together without fear of significant religious chastisement, ridicule and contempt.  While there could be and were sometimes different interpretations over how to procedurally keep YHWH’s commandments, the collective Jews all agreed that they should be obeyed. 

 

Clearly, it was this environment which allowed YESHUA and His disciples (the Nazarenes; or in Hebrew, the Nozerim) to be religious Jews and to practice Pharisaical Judaism, along with the other Pharisees (according to the School of Hillel). 

 

Even later, William Dankenbring quotes a letter from early Catholic leader Jerome to Augustine, as mentioning the Nazarene followers of YESHUA--as being found “in all the synagogues of the East among the Jews” (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 2). 

 

This enormous freedom of religious interpretations (in the context of a basic belief and acceptance of the Hebrew Tanakh, as being inspired and authoritative) was absolutely grand and wonderful from the standpoint of allowing new truth and understanding to develop (on this, see II Cor 3:17).  But this wonderful environment was to change.

 

 

The Change 

 

William F. Dankenbring quotes various authorities and makes the point that with the fall of Jerusalem, the Pharisaical beliefs of Hillel prevailed to establish a dictatorship of religious tyranny which forced the Nazarenes and other non-conformists out of Judaism (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 11).  This fact was mentioned earlier. 

 

Having said that Judaism essentially settled in on the doctrines of the School of Hillel after the fall of Jerusalem (as a process from 70 to 135 CE), it must be acknowledged that several halakhah were decided upon from the School of Shammai (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 4, p. 740-741), along with the deplorable Shammai attitudes. 

 

In itself, this is quite a paradox.  As Dankenbring noted, the famous Reb Hillel, himself, was thought of as a great peacemaker and reconciler and a man of love, kindness and patience.  Consequently, Rabbinic Judaism strayed far from his original teachings, despite the theoretical linkage to them. 

 

Thus, while the later Jewish religion may have settled in on much of the Hillel teachings, it is clear that they adopted the Shammai attitudes of domination, arrogance and exclusiveness.  These attitudes are what one finds today--certainly, in much of modern Judaism.  Though many modern Jewish teachings are quite good, the prevailing spirit is bad. 

 

 

Orthodox Exclusiveness 

 

Of course, modern Orthodox Judaism is an outgrowth of the old Pharisees and functions in a dictatorial mode and very intolerant of dissenting beliefs.  Even today, Orthodox Judaism is so opposed to Conservative and Reformed Jews that they don’t want to recognize their converts in the law of return to Palestine. 

 

Jonathan Rosenblum had an article in the “Jerusalem Post” of Feb 7, 1998, on “Jews in Name Only,” which noted the Orthodox feeling that “One could claim trademark infringement against the Reform and Conservative movements for appropriation of the name ‘Judaism’” (per the Apr 1998 “New Beginnings,” p. 13). 

 

The “Jerusalem Report” of Jun 4, 2001 (p. 13), had a story by Yossi Klein Halevi on “The Last Real Zionist?”  One of the important remarks of Halevi was that an Orthodox officer in the Israeli military had told his soldiers that Reform and Conservative Jews had done greater damage to the Jewish people than the Nazis.  This has to be one of the most extraordinary accusations of all. 

 

The May 31, 2002, “Forward” (p. 2) had a story by Matthew Gutman from Israel on “New Campaign for Jerusalem Pol:  Religious Pluralism” that focused upon Anat Hoffman, a former councilwoman of Jerusalem.  Anat was recently given a job as the executive director of the Reform’s Israel Religious Action Center. 

 

Ms Hoffman says that this month (evidently May 2002), Center employees arrived to find the words “Nazi sons of b-tch-s” inscribed on the office door (as made by Orthodox Jews).  She went on that there was an ocean of (Orthodox) hatred against Reform Judaism and that one local cartoon (apparently in a pro-Orthodox newspaper) compared Reform Jews to suicide bombers. 

 

 

Synagogue Attacks 

 

In another case, Kehillat Ya’ar Ramot, a Masorti Conservative synagogue in Jerusalem, was torched twice in 2000 by apparent Jewish hoodlums (Jun 30, 2000, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 3).  It happened the first time on May 27th when the front door was torched.  The second attack came in late June when Jewish terrorists threw burning rags into the synagogue to try to start a fire and burn it down. 

 

The fires were both put out quickly.  But the second attack did burn some prayer books and Pentateuchs.  There was some smoke damage.  The synagogue’s three Torah scrolls were unharmed.  The leader of the Masorti movement said that the lack of a strong response by the Jewish authorities the first time “sent a message of encouragement to those radical groups.” 

 

Surely, the attacks were Orthodox led or inspired (although some felt that the perpetrators were Ultra-Orthodox).  This seemed to be the implications of the story.  The “Jerusalem Post,” of Aug 4, 2000 (p. 4), had a follow-up report that three Jews living in the community were arrested for the act.  Allegedly, these Jews were criminals who had a deep disdain and antipathy for non-Orthodox institutions. 

 

If the assaults had happened in America, the whole Jewish community would have come out in unison to accuse White supremacists, anti-Semites and so forth for the fires.  Certainly, the Orthodox can be quite intolerant of other Jews and especially in Israel. 

 

The above article on Anat Hoffman in the May 31, 2002, “Forward” (p. 2) noted that the female Reform leader says that if a Reform synagogue in Israel was bombed, she would not know whether the act was done by a Palestinian Arab or an Orthodox Jew.  Apparently, many religious Orthodox do take positive actions against the evil Reform Jews (who are mainly Ashkenazi Amalekites). 

 

Perhaps modern Conservative and Karaite Jews are more tolerant of other faiths; thus, possibly resembling some aspects of Second Temple Judaism.  Reform Jews are tolerant as well.  But it must be noted that they really believe in little or nothing.  Hence, division is a mute point with them.  Conservative Jews do teach some respect and obedience of the Torah while not being quite so fanatical over the Talmud. 

 

 

How It Happened 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 643) noted that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the abolition of Jewish statehood caused, of necessity, the revision of some of the basic tenets of Judaism. 

 

In a discussion on the separation between Judaism and Christianity, Judaica (ibid, v. 9, p. 244) said that “Pharisaic Judaism had in the Second Temple period shown tolerance alike to Gentile and Judeo-Christians, but after the destruction of the Temple, came the separation. 

 

Judaica noted that the Judeo-Christians had disassociated themselves from the Roman war and outlined the progressive changes within Christendom to separate themselves from the Torah and Judaism.  But importantly, Judaica described the decisive influence of Jewish authorities to amend the 19 benedictions of the Amidah, as discussed in earlier comments. 

 

The post Roman War Jews added some words to the 12th benediction (in Hebrew, the Birkat Ha-Minim or benediction against heretics) by saying “To apostates let there be no hope if they return not to The Torah, and may the Nazarenes and the sectarians perish as in a moment” (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 9, p. 244). 

 

Scholar Ray Pritz noted that some early texts stated it as “may the nozrim and the minim be destroyed (or perish) in a moment” (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 9).  Pritz added that the minim were Jews who considered themselves to be Jews, but were excluded from the community by the “rabbis.” 

 

Many Messianic Jews feel that the actual split in Palestine did not occur until the Bar Cochba (Kokhba) or Bar Kosiba rebellion, which occurred in 132-135 CE (as mentioned in a former chapter).  There is a belief among Messianic Jews that the Jewish leadership in Judea involved in this conflict with Rome tried to force all Jews to take a stand against Rome. 

 

Messianic Jews were apolitical and had no loyalties to anyone, save YESHUA (and certainly not to a false messiah, like Bar Kokhba).  In any case, the belief is that by the time of this rebellion, the division between the traditional synagogue and the Hillel followers of YESHUA became permanent. 

 

In the Oct-Dec 1999 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 17), Dean and Susan Wheelock support this break between Judaism and the Messianic believers in Judea during the Bar Kokhba rebellion.  But they add that in the Diaspora, the break happened much earlier because Messianic believers did not feel that they had to go through the lengthy time process of becoming a full fledged Jew, as outlined earlier herein. 

 

Regardless, the point eventually came when there was a separation between the two parties.  Probably, the breaking process started about the time of the Jewish-Roman war (c66-70 CE) and was finished and reality by the Bar Kokhba rebellion (c132-135 CE).  Most likely, there were several reasons for the break (as outlined above). 

 

Of importance, it is a fact that in Second Temple Judaism (before 70 CE), the Nazarene sect of the Hillel Pharisees worshipped in the synagogues with the other Jews.  Everybody got along fine, although the NT evidence clearly allows some developing friction within organized Judaism when various traditional Jews would oppose the Nazarenes in some manner. 

 

 

Other Factors 

 

But apparently, the decision of the Nazarenes to stay neutral and out of the Roman War and the Bar Kokhba conflict must have alienated the traditional Jewish authorities to some extent.  If the authorities were partly or totally under control of Amalek-Edomite masters, it is plausible that the Edomites would have been particularly incensed at the Nazarenes.  So all of this makes sense. 

 

Concurrently, with the presence of Messianic Jews in the synagogues, there was also the developing separate Christian groups--which were in a totally different world from all of Judaism (to include the Nazarenes). 

 

Darrell W. Conder, previously quoted, accuses the Christian religion of anti-Semitism from the first century to present times (“Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time,” p. 53).  With the development of Catholic Christianity, perhaps as early as 42 CE in Rome, and its obvious opposition to Judaism, this reality caused clear friction. 

 

The many differences that developed in traditional Christianity, as opposed to the Nazarene Jews, will be covered in later chapters.  For now, the fact is that there were differences and the two groups were not ever the same and should not have been confused as one motion or organism in history. 

 

In any event, the development of traditional Christianity and its extreme hatred, animosity and persecution toward Judaism probably also affected the decision of the Jewish authorities to amend the Amidah as they did.  In other words, Christian hatred toward the Jews precipitated the Jews to reassess their relationship with both Christians and Jewish Nazarenes. 

 

 

A Bad Jewish Reaction 

 

In their condemnation of the Nazarenes (Hebrew Nozerim), the Jewish authorities perhaps also had in mind developing Christendom in the Roman world--in the sense that they incorrectly had lumped the Jewish Nazarenes together with the non-Jewish Christians. 

 

The result of this Jewish confusion was the beginning of a formal Jewish denunciation of the Nazarenes (who were often House of Yisrael Israelite converts to Judaism), along with Christians who never were or could be thought of as Jews, in any context. 

 

In other words, the Jewish authorities took out on the Jewish Nazarenes some of their bad feelings and frustrations (which were appropriately developed and manifested on the non-Jewish Christians in the Roman world).  The Jewish Nazarenes were not and never had been Christians and should never have been lumped together with them.

 

The Nazarene sect of the Second Temple Hillel Pharisee faith should not have been confused with Christianity which was developing independently out in the Roman Empire.  This confusion was to not only impact upon the Jews; but indeed, the whole world has come to confuse the two different faiths.  This condition will be conclusively established in later chapters in this production.  

 

 

More on the Birkat Ha-Minim (the 12th Benediction)   

 

In background, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 4, p. 1035) reports that the Amidah’s 12th benediction was first added to the prayer in Second Temple days during the Syrian Hellenistic oppression of Antiochus Epiphanies, c168 BCE.  It was directed against the Jews who collaborated with the Syrians and was known as the “Benediction to Him Who humbles the arrogant.” 

 

One hundred years later, it was amended to become an imprecation directed against the Sadducees.  It then was called the “Benediction concerning the Sadducees.”  Apparently, in YESHUA’s day, it was thus described and used.  No wonder YESHUA would so sharply condemn the Sadducees (Matt 16:12; 22:29). 

 

Only later, after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, was the benediction amended to include the Nazarenes (Nozerim).  Over the years, this reference to the Nazarenes was dropped in most of the developing Jewish rites.  However, the Sephardi ritual still retains it today (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 4, p. 1036). 

 

Judaica (v. 4, p. 1036) goes on to argue that this benediction was never meant to be leveled against non-Jews, in general; but rather, against Jewish heretics and those “Gentiles” that persecuted Jews.  In other words, Judaica has tried to build the case that the object of the benediction was not humanistic Christianity (that was not involved in Jewish persecutions). 

 

The truth is that Christianity from day one has always hated Judaism and has historically persecuted religious Jews, on more than one occasion.  Thus, Christendom was surely the real object of the curse.  In any case, Messianic Jews were certainly included in the condemnation as well--whether deserved or not. 

 

 

One Real Purpose 

 

Nevertheless, one of the real fall-outs of amending and using this 12th benediction is quite clear.  It was to force so-called Jewish heretics, Messianic Jews and Judeo-Christians out of the Jewish community (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 2, p. 842). 

 

Dankenbring quotes Hebrew scholar Ray Pritz that some Judeo Christians were still worshipping in the synagogues after the fall of Jerusalem.  Allegedly, the Birkat Ha-Minim was purposely added to force them out and particularly if they were worshipping with the Jews while secretly believing in YESHUA (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 9). 

 

As noted earlier, YESHUA, Himself, foretold the coming days when His followers would be forced out of the synagogues (Jo 9:22; 12:42; 16:2).  Naturally, this purpose was largely achieved over the years.  It created a situation where the true Jewish believer in YESHUA could not identify with either the Christian or Jewish peoples.  In effect, the true believer is all alone in worship. 

 

Another remark is needed on this Birkat Ha-Minim.  Its presence prompted many Christians to develop a feeling or belief that the Nozerim reference was directed specifically at them (rather than at Messianic Jewish believers).  It is this gross misunderstanding, coupled with Christian hatred for Judaism, which has acted to precipitate continued Christian persecution toward Judaism. 

 

 

The Break 

 

Obviously, Nazarene Jews were not anxious to go into the synagogues and recite or say amen to a curse upon themselves.  There is also the reality that after the fall of Jerusalem, the prevailing attitude of the Jewish leadership took over with the authoritarian and dominating positions of the former School of Shammai Pharisees (while theoretically adhering to the School of Hillel doctrines). 

 

William Dankenbring quoted Ray Pritz’s comments on a Nazarene commentary on Isaiah which clearly showed that this separation was not solely from the Jewish side.  In other words, the separation also somewhat involved a voluntary decision on the part of the Nazarenes. 

 

With the fall of Jerusalem and the efforts of Rabbinic authorities to impose Talmudic halakhah as law on the level of the Torah in developing Judaism, the Nazarenes also willfully separated themselves since they were not prepared to obey Talmudic law on the Torah level (“The Early Nazarene Christians and the Rabbinic Judaism,” p. 10). 

 

To whatever extent that there were Jewish believers in YESHUA The MESSIAH present after the fall of Jerusalem, it is questionable that they would have readily worshipped with the Jews as they did so before the fall of Jerusalem.  Some may have continued this worship for a while, but not as anxiously as before. 

 

Over time, most of the surviving Messianic Jewish believers eventually separated as the break between historic Judaism and developing Christianity intensified and particularly with the growing Christian loathing for anything Jewish (as happened with Marcion and his Gnostic colleagues, discussed in a former chapter). 

 

 

Christian Hate 

 

Manifestly, Christian hatred for anything Jewish was clearly in evidence in the early fourth century CE when the Roman emperor Constantine wrote a letter to the Christian Churches following the Council of Nicea.  He spoke of the change of observing the Jewish Passover to the Christian Easter (to be described in detail in a later chapter). 

 

Constantine called the Jews “polluted wretches” and said that “Having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds... Let us therefore have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews.  We have received another method from the Savior.  A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion...let us withdraw ourselves...from that most odious fellowship...that the purity of your minds may not be affected by a conformity in any thing with the customs of the vilest of mankind” (Apr-Jun 2001 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 16). 

 

Dr David H. Stern, in the “Jewish New Testament Commentary” (p. 455), indicates that also by the fourth century CE, the dominant Christian (Catholic) Church required Jewish converts to Christianity to sign various documents whereby they agreed to discontinue all of their former Jewish religious practices and customs (apparently, to include those in obedience of the Torah) and to sever all relations with all Jews, except for Jewish converts to Christendom (this declaration is described in detail in other chapters herein). 

 

Going on, Stern makes the case that the Jewish community reacted by treating Christian (Messianic) Jews as no longer being part of the Jewish people (hence, outcasts).  It is very clear that the enormous Christian hatred and animosity toward Judaism (especially after the rise to power of the Roman Church, during the reign of Constantine the Great) precipitated much of the Jewish response. 

 

Christianity tried her level best to completely destroy all presence and evidence of the Jewish religion (but failed because of the extraordinary effort and conscientious work of a number of very dedicated Jewish people over the years). 

 

Strangely enough, this Christian abhorrence and repugnance never really extended to individual, personal, racial and ethnic Jews--if they would just convert to Christianity.  This strange paradox will be addressed in subsequent chapters. 

 

 

Christians Change as Well 

 

By the way, this separation and/or splitting problem in Judaism also surfaces regularly in numerous Christian denominations.  It has not been a unique or strange occurrence among Jews.  In fact, it has been far more extensive and prevalent in Christendom with its now 32,000 plus denominations. 

 

Periodically, new Christian rulers, masters or bosses take over various groups.  With these takeovers, they “sometimes” change certain doctrines which alienate some members, who in turn quit (as described in previous chapters).  Christian leaders don’t like to change.  But sometimes, they do change and there can be and often is an adverse fallout from the standpoint of membership numbers.  

 

 

More on Change 

 

Beyond the oppressive changes, outlined above, forcing the Jewish Nazarenes out of the synagogues, the reader will recall the earlier presentation on the Amalek-Edomites which described the racial and/or ethnic changes that progressed over the years in the makeup of the collective Jewish community. 

 

From the time of John Hyrcanus, c134-104 BCE, Amalek-Edomites increasingly became (alleged) Jews and took over the power structure of the Jewish people. 

 

This motion actually has accelerated in modern times with the conversion and addition of the Khazars to Judaism over a thousand years ago.  As pointed out in the previous chapters, this racial transition caused many Jewish attitudes and beliefs toward Esau and the Edomite peoples to change drastically over the ages. 

 

Whereas the earlier Second Temple Jews and Judaism knew and understood the great evil and wickedness of the Amalekites, Jewish beliefs changed to one of appreciation, love and acceptance of Esau and Edomites--in the generic sense. 

 

An observer or student of Jews and the Jewish culture of 2,500, 2,300 or 2,200 years ago would find an unbelievably different set of people in any discussion on race than what one finds today among Jews of the early 21st century. 

 

 

Modern Jews Are Different 

 

It is absolutely amazing that the two sets of Jewish people of 2,200 years ago and today could be so incredibly different.  The contrast is quite profound--just like one finds in the American people’s perception of race in their 18th, 19th and early 20th century cultures, as opposed to the post WWII era. 

 

Today’s Americans are totally different people than Americans before Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.  On the subject of race, contemporary Americans are very intolerant and hateful toward anyone who maintains views that were commonly held by almost all Americans, just several decades ago.  Religious freedom and freedom of speech are now relics of the past in modern America. 

 

People today had better keep their mouths shut and be careful about talking about Scriptural truths, in the context of race.  Such thinking and ideas are politically incorrect and can be prosecuted on the premise of hate crimes and hate thoughts which are now outlawed in the United States--in the guise of political correctness (to be discussed in subsequent chapters). 

 

Both the Jewish and American ideas on race, culture, political correctness and indeed what is truth have changed dramatically over the years.  Yes, the very definition of truth has changed among both Jews and Americans.  To try to intellectually look at it and understand why, from the standpoint of human logic and reasoning (apart from the Scriptures), it is impossible to comprehend. 

 

It is this change among collective Jews and Americans which has so tragically impacted upon people trying to follow YHWH YESHUA in truth.  Such disciples of truth could have easily fitted into Judaism and the Jewish culture and civilization of 2,200 years ago.  Manifestly, they would have been right at home with no fear of Jewish religious persecution because of understanding and discussing race. 

 

In like manner, believers could exist (in a separated and kodesh state, in the context of religious freedom) and understand and discuss race in America before FDR took over and the arrival of the modern evils of political correctness, alleged hate crimes and alleged hate thoughts which now make students of the Scriptures outcasts and enemies of the state in their own lands (actually subject to arrest, intimidation, persecution and oppression by their own governments, to be broached later). 

 

 

Matthew 24:9-13 

 

Surely, The MESSIAH must have looked forward and realized the predicament that His followers would face.  He perceptively declared that they would be hated by all nations and peoples (goyim--to obviously include true Jews and Christian persons of the lost tribes of Yisrael).  This hatred would be predicated upon His name or for His name’s sake (Matt 24:9-13). 

 

And this is precisely what has happened.  It applies today--just as much as it applied with the fall of Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and thereafter. 

 

People who call themselves religious Jews and who obey the Torah and maintain a faith in YESHUA are all alone and are hated by everybody else--to include other Jews, fellow Israelites, Christians, Americans, Britons, and virtually everyone else in the whole world (primarily because of the false concepts of political correctness and the incredible change in what is truth). 

 

 

The Kabbalah 

 

While this assault upon the Messianic Jews of the Nazarene sect of the Hillel Pharisees (in the Jewish synagogues) was incredibly vile and evil, in terms of righteousness and truth, this was certainly not the only bad event that was to come to dominate much of Judaism in the times following the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.  There have been other developing problems! 

 

For instance, if there is one primary aspect of Judaism which is particularly troubling in the early 21st century, it is the sinister Kabbalah and its primary text, the Zohar.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (in an article on Kabbalah, v. 10, p. 489) says it involves esoteric teachings and Jewish mysticism in forms which developed from (or after) the 12th century CE. 

 

Both Kabbalah theosophy and esotericism are closely akin to the spirit of Gnosticism, involving instruction in the mystical path--to include cosmology, angelology and magic (ibid, v. 10, p. 490-493). 

 

Thus, if there is one thing in Judaism that might approach demonism and the occultic reality of the Pentecostal Holiness movement in Christendom, it likely is the Kabbalah motion.  Manifestly, it is Judaism’s answer to the New Age movement (to be later discussed). 

 

In that sense, it might be the very vehicle to allow some portion of Judaism to choose to become a part of the great ecumenical religious phenomenon of the New Age movement.  There is every reason to believe that the pope will eventually be the head of this age end reality.  If so, traditional Judaism is not about to merge its beliefs with Christendom, Buddhism and so forth.  However, Kabbalah adherents will do so! 

 

It is questionable to what extent Orthodox Jews (and especially true Israelite Jews) would ever attach to the Kabbalah.  But certainly, many of the Ashkenazi Reform people will and have (to even include some Ultra Orthodox/Hasidim).  Maybe, even other Ashkenazim (to include some Ashkenazi Orthodox) will also become Kabbalah adherents. 

 

 

It’s Modern Growth 

 

Apparently, in the days of Second Temple Judaism, the term Kabbalah did not note a mystical or esoteric tradition.  In the Talmud, it pertained to the extra-Pentateuchal parts of the Tanakh and in post-Talmudic writings, the Oral Law was called “Kabbalah” (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 10, p. 494). 

 

In terms of history, Judaica (v. 10, p. 494-495) suggests that the mystical and esoteric features developed much later (essentially in the 13th century CE), as a result of Greek or Hellenistic influence.  Clearly, there is no reason to attempt to link Kabbalah to Second Temple Judaism and the religion of YESHUA, Kefa, Shaul or other members of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

Despite the more modern surfacing of the occultic, mystical and esoteric Kabbalah, Christian haters of Judaism will try to take it back to Second Temple days.  But this Christian confusion can be laid to rest with a survey of the primary textbook and authoritative reference for Kabbalah.  This source is the Zohar, as cited above (called the “Book of Splendor”). 

 

The Zohar is the principle writing on the modern Kabbalah motion.  The book itself dates its preparation and the modern Kabbalah motion to 1,200 years after the fall of Jerusalem--thus, about 1270 CE (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 16, p. 1208).  Hence, Judaica went on to date the movement to about the year 1300 CE. 

 

Judaica’s article on the Zohar goes on to describe the vast host of errors and borrowed translations in the Zohar (ibid, v. 16, p. 1204).  The Zohar tries to convey a Palestinian setting which Judaica says is fictional with no basis in fact (ibid, v. 16, p. 1200).  Manifestly, “Encyclopedia Judaica” and most religious Jews are much opposed to the Zohar and to the modern Kabbalah motion. 

 

A survey of this phenomenon in Judaism is enough to make a believer realize that it is something to be avoided at all costs.  It seems to be demonic in source and involves beliefs and practices which could spell spiritual disaster to a person in pursuit of truth.  Strangely enough, in contemporary times, this Kabbalah expression seems to be gaining momentum. 

 

 

Recent Popularity 

 

An article by John Hiscock on “Kabbalah Is The New Religion of Hollywood” in Newsletter No 6 of “Scriptures for America” (p. 9) mentions the huge number of top Hollywood people who are turning to the Kabbalah for edification--to include Madonna, Elizabeth Taylor, Roseanne Barr, Jeff Goldblum, Barbra Streisand, Laura Dern, Diane Ladd, Courtney Love, Sandra Bernhard, and others. 

 

While New Age Jews (surely including many Amalek-Edomites) are getting on board the Kabbalah band wagon, it should be noted that a significant portion of Judaism does not approve of this mysticism.  Hiscock’s article reported that there is still a lot of resentment toward the motion in the traditional Jewish community--where many view it negatively. 

 

In the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 63), editor Rick Chaimberlin offered some comments on the Kabbalah in reply to a reader’s letter.  Chaimberlin said that he had studied Kabbalah and found much of it to be from the occult and Hinduism (with doctrines like reincarnation, transmigration of the soul, etc).  He says that advanced Kabbalah students even throw curses upon each other. 

 

Chaimberlin went on to note that many of the Chassidic Jews dabble in Kabbalah (in the context of the Ultra Orthodox, as cited above).  He says that it is very much contrary to Judaism and the Torah.  Finally, he mentioned another Jewish occult practice called Tanya (which likewise seems to be something to avoid at all costs). 

 

 

The Hexagram Magen David 

 

Another bad feature developed in the 17th century when European Jews adopted the Hexagram (Magen David--Shield of David) as their symbol.  Today, it adorns the flag of the state of Israel.  In “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” (p. 401, 565), Barbara G. Walker says that this six pointed star of two interlocked triangles was first mentioned in Jewish literature of the 12th century. 

 

She notes that the true story of this symbol started with Tantric-Hinduism--where it represented a union of the sexes.  In time, it was associated with the Jewish Kabbalah faith, discussed above.  Kabalists used the symbol as Tantric yogis used it--to represent the union of “God and his Female Power” (ibid, p. 402). 

 

People involved in the occult and Witchcraft identify the hexagram with their religions.  For certain, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ancient King David.  It is pagan to the core.  It’s too bad that as good as Judaism is, as a religion, that this wicked hexagram symbol has become linked to Judaism. 

 

 

And More 

 

Besides the several problems outlined heretofore, it must be acknowledged that there are still other profoundly important wrongs/problems within modern Judaism.  These difficulties have already been or will be discussed later herein. 

 

The list must include--the Jewish calculated calendar which is in conflict with actual astronomical signs; the change in dating the Passover; the requirement to cut male proselytes who were already circumcised and draw more blood upon conversion (contrary to Lev 19:28; 21:5; Deut 14:1); the wrong use of the title “rabbi” (Matt 23:7-8); the practice of men covering themselves with a prayer shawl in worship (in conflict with I Corinthians 11:4, 7); the adherence to Talmudic Halakhah; the pride, self righteousness and great arrogance among Jews (even among religious or observant Jews in the vein that they are “God’s chosen people” while goyim are cattle); the fanaticism/obsession over the so-called Holocaust in WWII (which just didn’t happen the way Jews claim at all); Jewish acceptance and/or toleration of homosexuality and miscegenation (with the theology of Balaam); the evils of the Amalekites; the 17th century Sabbatians (the source of much of the modern evil now present in the Western Christian civilization--as cited earlier, and as will be addressed in some detail in later chapters herein); and so it goes. 

 

The bottom line here has to be Matthew 5:20--which says that unless one’s righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (the modern Orthodox Jews), he can no way enter the Kingdom.  The point is that as good as the Jews may seem, they do have some major problems on righteousness.  Something more in righteousness is still needed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 178--The Temple I

 

 

A Future Temple 

 

Another feature of Judaism which is quite good, but which throws Christians frequently into some sort of panic or insane hatred, is the matter of the Temple and animal sacrifices and particularly the question of a rebuilt (Third) Temple for the age end, as briefly allowed in the previous chapters. 

 

Although Christians generally are utterly opposed to the idea of a Temple being rebuilt on Mount Moriah and the resumption of the daily sacrifice, the fact remains that these future events are thoroughly described in numerous Old and New Testament prophecies (Ps 74:3-7; 79:1; Lam 1:4, 10; 2:1-7; Dan 8:10-17; 9:26-27; 11:30-31; 12:8-11; Matt 24:15; Lu 21:20-24; II Thes 2:1-8; Rev 11:1-2). 

 

In order for these various prophecies to be fulfilled, a Temple has to be rebuilt.  It is essential!  There is no other way on this question. 

 

This hostile feeling towards the idea of a Third Temple is not limited to just Christians.  Even secular and Reform Jews believe that a Jewish Temple has no place in the modern culture and represents a threat to the Israeli society more than anything else (“Hatikva” newsletter for Winter 1998, p. 1).  These Jews believe that a return to animal sacrifices would be a return to barbaric acts which man has risen above. 

 

Despite this strong opposition from both Christians and liberal Jews alike (plus all sorts of Muslims, who obviously are totally opposed to the idea of a new Jewish Temple), the fact remains that there is a mitzwah in the Torah commanding a rebuilding of the Temple (Ex 25:8). 

 

Moreover, a huge number of OT prophets have advocated the rebuilding of the Temple and many have specifically tied it to the age end (Isa 2:2-3; 56:7; 66:23; Dan 9:26-27; 12:11; Mic 4:1-2; Zech 6:12-13). 

 

Beyond this host of prophecies, the Book also reflects a Third Temple to be in existence immediately preceding the return of YESHUA and during the approximate last seven years of this age (Ezek 8-11; Dan 8:12; 9:26-27; 11:31; Matt 24:15; Rev 11:1-2).  Manifestly, the presence of these prophecies demands that the Temple be rebuilt.  It must happen to fulfill YHWH’s Word. 

 

 

By Religious Jews? 

 

Evidently, religious Jews will operate this Third Temple for around 3 1/2 years and then it will be defiled when the abomination of desolation is set up for the last 3 1/2 years or so (II Thes 2:3-4). 

 

While this writer is using these three and one-half years’ projections for each of the two periods involved, one or both of these figures may be slightly different.  The Jewish operation of the Temple may run something around three years. 

 

So, on occasion, many Jews and a few Christian readers of the Scriptures do come to grips with this reality of a Third Temple, although very grudgingly and reluctantly.  About the only Jews who will willingly accept the new coming Temple are the truly religious ones (Orthodox).  Almost all Christians will passionately hate the Temple and will oppose it wherever possible. 

 

In terms of the future millennial rule of YHWH YESHUA over planet earth, the book of Ezekiel describes the millennial Temple, a restored priesthood and a resumed sacrificial system in quite some detail (Ezek  40-47).  All of this is future and it will categorically take place when the time arrives (although this millennial Temple will not be the rebuilt Third Temple, per se, but rather a new, Fourth Temple). 

 

 

With YHWH’s Approval 

 

While few people do understand the significance of the Third Temple, the truth is that this facility and its operation will involve the will and choice of The HIGHEST.  Actually, the two age end witnesses (or possibly an earlier two prophets) will likely restore it among the Jews and probably oversee it and direct its operations in some fashion for the first half of the last seven years--just before Satan and the Beast man defile it. 

 

In other words, this Third Temple will be rebuilt and function with the authority and blessing of The MOST HIGH.  This situation is brought out in several key Scriptures.  In the first instance, the prophet Malakhi described the work of evidently Eliyahu, one of the two final age ending witnesses, in the restoration of the Temple and true worship in some detail (Mal 3-4). 

 

In the New Testament environment, there was some expectation of the return of Eliyahu and the restoration work he would do.  One sees this at the Mount of Transfiguration when YESHUA effectively said that Yohanan the Baptist was not Eliyahu; and that truly, the real Eliyahu would still come (in the future) and restore all things (Matt 17:11; Mk 9:12).  Even later, the disciples were looking for a restoration of all things (Acts 1:6). 

 

While these words about restoring all things may be construed to link to the restoration of the true, Nazarene, Hillel Pharisee worship (as found in the Apostolic Assembly), which ended around 70 CE when YESHUA returned for the Shavuot election, they also have other obviously far reaching implications. 

 

Surely, they must reach out and encompass the true worship ritual in a Jewish Temple on Mount Moriah (which also terminated in approximately 70 CE).  The message of Malachi 3-4 and Revelation 11 is clear enough.  The coming two witnesses/prophets will restore true worship--not only in a restored Messianic assembly of believers in the age end, but also in the worship and ritual procedure in a rebuilt Third Temple. 

 

 

The Elect To Work On Rebuilding the Temple 

 

Importantly, the Apostle Yohanan clearly wrote about the work of the real two witnesses in the restoration of true Temple worship in some clear statements (Rev 11:1-8).  Certainly, all of this was future when Yohanan saw it.  And in context, it was in the future age end environment since the book of Revelation covers about the last seven years in time. 

 

Besides the obvious involvement of the real two witnesses, there is some evidence suggesting the participation of three other groups of people in this age end restoration work.  It must be noted that the environment of the building of the Second Temple (the ante-type) consisted of two prophets (Haggai and Zekharyah), two leaders of the people (Yeshua and Zerubavel) and the Jewish workers generally. 

 

Hence, beyond the real two witnesses, there are reasons to believe that there will also be two other preliminary prophets and two Jewish leaders (a civil leader and a high priest) on the scene (to make a total of four prophets/witnesses in restoring true worship about seven years before the end, as will be covered in a later chapter). 

 

Last, the House of Yisrael election (of true believers and followers of YESHUA) in the age end will get the call to come to Jerusalem to work on the building of the Third Temple--just about or after the time that their own national governments are destroyed, as will be discussed in a future chapter.  Therefore, this fact is credibly brought out by the prophets Haggai and Zekharyah. 

 

It is useful to note that these two prophets date some of the age end events and go on to record that sometime after the 24th day of the 9th month of a particular year, blessings will come upon certain persons of the vine, the fig, the pomegranate (possibly some definition of an election, to be discussed later) and the olive trees (Hag 2:19). 

 

Apparently, these blessings will come upon the peoples of the Houses of Yehudah and Yisrael (certainly including the Philadelphia congregation, as will be later described herein), as they are involved in the restoration of true worship at a Third Temple.  Later presentations herein will assess 2000-2003 developments and this event (which appear to be on schedule, per Haggai and Zekharyah). 

 

The point that Haggai and Zekharyah were both making is that there will be an election of chosen people to come to Jerusalem and work on the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of true worship in the age end.  All of this will be done with the blessings and oversight of The RUACH HA KODESH.  Will some religious Jews participate in it?  Assuredly yes--since the fig tree is involved. 

 

 

Remarks from the Temple Institute 

 

The Temple Institute in Jerusalem will be addressed shortly below in some detail.  But for now, it would be well to bring to mind a summary of remarks from two officials with the Institute on the role of non-Jews in the building of the Third Temple.  Joseph Good, in the “Hatikva” Ministries newsletter for Spring 1998 (p. 2), quoted the words of R. Yisrael Ariel (head of the Institute) and R. Chaim Richman (another official). 

 

In their work on “The Odyssey of the Third Temple” (p. 99), Ariel and Richman collected some ideas from the Talmud and other Jewish sources and concluded:  “for when the Third Temple is built, the Gentiles will sincerely wish for it to be done, to facilitate the resting of the Shechina in Jerusalem.” 

 

In going on (apparently still quoting Ariel and Richman), Good wrote that “this is the conclusion of the Midrash on the Song of Songs commenting on the verse: I have caused you to swear, O daughter of Jerusalem.... ‘What was the purpose of these oaths?  One refers to Shlomo’s Temple, and one refers to Ezra’s, and one to the future Temple...’

 

“regarding all of them, The Holy one, Blessed be He, made the Gentiles vow to help in the construction, so that the Jews will understand for themselves and say:  ‘If the Nations perform the will of G-d out of fear [and help to build the Third Temple], then we--how much more so [must we exert ourselves to build the Temple]’ (Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:4 Grinhurt Ed., Jer.). 

 

“Also, in the classic work Emonot V’Dayot (Beliefs and Doctrines) of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, the author describes the phenomena which will accompany the building of the future Third Temple in these words:  And the third, that the Nations will build the walls of the Temple, as it is written:  ‘and the sons of strangers shall build up your wall.’ (Isaiah 60:10) (Emunot V’Dayot) Essay 8--On Salvation.” 

 

One must recall here that the Jewish use of the Hebrew word goyim (translated as Gentiles or nations) often refers to the people of the lost tribes of Yisrael (as outlined in a chapter heretofore).  These classic pieces of early Jewish writings are seemingly proclaiming a role for the people of the lost tribes of Yisrael in the construction of the Third Temple. 

 

 

The Work of Karl Skorecki 

 

Actually, a number of very religious and dedicated Jews have been laying the groundwork for the rebuilding of the Temple for the last 35 years or so--certainly since the Jews captured the old city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in 1967. 

 

Religious Jews have organized schools to train the Cohanim (priests) and Levites that would be necessary to operate a Third Temple. 

 

In the selection of potential persons for these roles, a great effort has apparently been made to approach this subject as it should be approached--that is on the basis of genealogy and race (yes “race,” which upsets the modern Christian humanists) that is the backbone of the priesthood, according to YHWH’s law. 

 

The February 1997 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 19-20) had a news report by Margo Lipschitz Sugarman on “Genes Show Common Origin of Cohanim” which claimed that Jewish scientists had discovered some “common genetic markers among supposed Cohanim.”  This discovery now seems on the scientific accepted level (as allowed in a story on genes in the previously cited Jan 29, 2001, USNWR). 

 

The reported discovery apparently came principally from one Karl Skorecki, a Technion professor and nephrologist who specializes in kidney disease research.  Skorecki has reported that he checked the Y chromosome genes of some 180 Jewish males in a recent study. 

 

The Y chromosomes are evidently the only ones in so-called human beings which do not undergo recombination, the mixing of genetic material from both paternal and maternal chromosomes.  As noted earlier, the Y factor comes about in male children, exclusively from their male lineage. 

 

Skorecki’s study involved some 68 alleged Cohanim and was drawn from Ashkenazi and Sephardi populations, about half and half, in the United Kingdom, America and Israel.  The work focused on three markers for analysis--two were Y chromosomes and the third one was a control marker. 

 

The conclusions were most interesting in helping to establish who the Cohanim might be genetically.  One of the markers employed was a YAP quality which apparently exists positively in about 18.4% of the general population at large. 

 

According to Skorecki, the supposed Cohanim under study only produced some 1.5% of persons with this YAP marker.  This small finding was about the same in both the Ashkenazim and Sephardim study populations. 

 

As Skorecki sees it, these 1.5% of reputed Cohanim are “not true descendants” of the authentic priesthood. 

 

A follow-up study on these markers by Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona said that the qualifying men had a common ancestor 84 to 130 generations ago--which would dove-tail with the time of the Exodus (Jan 29, 2001, “US News & World Report,” p. 39). 

 

The conclusion which the Skorecki study came to is that it may now be possible to identify who the true Cohanim are through appropriate work on and analysis of genetic material. 

 

 

The Difficulty 

 

Because of the loss of the Temple genealogical records at the fall of Jerusalem in c70 CE and the scattering of the Levites worldwide, the process of establishing a racially correct priesthood will not be an easy proposition. 

 

Probably, the restoration work of the two witnesses will be able to assist greatly in this undertaking of obtaining a legitimate racial line of priests.  Nevertheless, some existing training schools and Jewish scientists like Skorecki are working presently and making a credible effort to produce Scripturally approved individuals. 

 

William F. Dankenbring mentioned this research in his May-June 1997 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 46).  Dankenbring concluded that Skorecki’s work proves that the Khazars of Ashkenazi stock are of Israelite descent from the lost ten tribes and disproves the abounding theories that these Khazars are Edomites (discussed elsewhere). 

 

While it “might” be true that the Ashkenazi Cohanim are legitimate from Levi, it does not prove that the collective Ashkenazim or Khazars are Israelites at all. 

 

In fact, recorded history verifies that when the old kingdom of the Khazars converted en masse to Judaism, some “rabbis” (perhaps Cohanim) were recruited to go to the Khazar kingdom to teach Judaism to the new converts.  It might be that many of these Cohanim stayed with the Khazars and continued to propagate their lines. 

 

 

The Work of Gershon Salomon 

 

Gershon Salomon heads a group called The Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement, now centered in Jerusalem.  Gershon and his people have been primarily noted for their active efforts to promote the rebuilding of the Temple (which will be addressed in some detail in subsequent chapters herein). 

 

But Salomon and the work he heads deserve some acknowledgment here because they (like others) have been working on preparing some of the physical aspects of the coming Temple and its operations. 

 

In the first place, this work has prepared at least three cornerstones (as made by diamond cutters without the use of iron instruments--as will be addressed in the following chapter), and two silver trumpets (similar to the two silver trumpets used in First and Second Temple days--Num 10:1-10). 

 

Whenever the Faithful group meets and calls for the rebuilding of the Temple (on Jewish festivals), they often blow these trumpets and huge shofers (as also used in Second Temple days). 

 

Another important undertaking by Gershon and his group is the collection of gold, silver and jewelry from everyone possible which can be used in the preparation of the Temple menorah and other artifacts and utensils (“The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful,” p. 8).  This is what happened with the First Temple (Ex 25:1-39; 36:3-7). 

 

 

Physical Preparations of the Site 

 

In terms of the physical layout of the coming Third Temple, the Faithful group has been involved in some very fascinating preparations.  First, a Russian Jew named Michael Osnis reportedly had a dream in which he saw the Temple in Jerusalem.  Osnis made aliyah and immediately commenced trying to learn everything he could about the Temple (ibid, p. 7). 

 

Thereupon, Osnis prepared a detailed schematic model of the Second and Third Temples and donated it to the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement.  It is now in their center in Jerusalem.  Osnis is continuing his work by concentrating on other items associated with the Temple (ibid, p. 7). 

 

The next big development for the Temple Mount Faithful Movement has been the preparations of the architectural plans for the Third Temple.  One of the Temple Mount people dedicated to a new Temple is a Jewish man named Gideon Harlap, who just happens to be one of the better architects in Jerusalem.  Accordingly, he has been commissioned to prepare the architectural plans for the Third Temple (ibid, p. 7). 

 

At Sukkot, in 2001, Harlap presented his site plan to the Faithful people in attendance.  The ultimate work of Gideon is supposed to be based upon data now discernible from the Torah, the prophecies of Yechezkel, the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Qumran scrolls, the writings of Josephus, archeological discoveries and the research of Avi Yona, Professor Mazar and others--with consultations from various “rabbis” (ibid, p. 7). 

 

When Harlap’s plans are completed, the Faithful movement will present them to the Municipality of Jerusalem and the Israeli government for approval (ibid, p. 7). 

 

Since the Mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, is a religious Jew, interested in rebuilding the Temple, Jerusalem city government approval should not be a problem.  It is unclear what the Israeli government will do in the present circumstances. 

 

 

The Temple Institute, Revisited 

 

Another preparatory work presently underway by religious Jews at the Temple Institute is the preparation and manufacture of the necessary Temple vessels, furniture, clothing and other articles needed by the priesthood to Scripturally operate an envisioned Third Temple (besides the two silver trumpets, noted above). 

 

The above mentioned Temple Institute (made up of religious Jews) is an organization functioning presently in Jerusalem to get everything ready. 

 

Beyond the actual vessels, furnishings and physical articles needed in a rebuilt Temple (which the Temple Institute has been diligently preparing and making ready for that coming day), the Temple Institute has undertaken another marvelous project in 1998 (“Hatikva” Ministries newsletter for Winter 1999, p. 9).   

 

The Temple Institute commenced an “Olam Mikdash” (World of the Temple) project to build a life-sized model of the coming Third Temple which will be on display in Israel and open to the public.  Construction was supposed to have started in the summer of 1999.  R. Israel Ariel, head of the Institute, said in a letter to Hatikva Ministries that it would be built at Ma’ale Adumin, overlooking Jerusalem and the Jordan. 

 

The effort is being jointly sponsored by several different organizations--like the Temple Institute, the Chief Ashkenazi Rav in Israel, Hatikva and others.  It is being constructed under Orthodox supervision. The project is expected to cost $30 million.  Small architectural models have already been prepared (surely, this effort will be coordinated with the work of the Temple Mount Faithful people). 

 

Per Hatikva’s descriptive article, there is a Scriptural justification for building such a model in Ezekiel 43:6-12. 

 

Yechezkel’s words about measuring the pattern is taken to mean to build a model (in construction, it is a routine practice for architects to build models and layouts of their buildings before actual construction begins).  Presumably, the model will allow a complete lay out of the architecture, ceremonies and ordinances. 

 

Moreover, on Apr 17, 2001, a computerized model of the Second Temple during the Herodian period opened at the Virtual Reconstruction Center at the Jerusalem Archaeological Park, near the Dung Gate (Jul/Aug 2001 “Biblical Archeological Review,” p. 16).  This site contains the model, plus a museum of some artifacts recovered in the various archaeological digs over the years at the Temple Mount. 

 

 

More Preparations 

 

Some of the important artifacts associated with the First Temple have never been recovered, to include the tent of meeting and the ark of the covenant.  Several different explanations have been put forth over the years on what happened to these items.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 3, p. 464) notes that a tradition in the Talmud allows that the ark was hidden by Yoshiyahu “in its place.” 

 

“The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah” (p. 161, item 11) gives this tradition and notes that when the ark was hidden, there was hidden with it the jar containing the manna, the flask of anointing oil, the staff of Aaron with the petals and almond blossoms, and the chest that the Philistines had sent as a gift to the Temple.  This legend says that Yoshiyahu hid it when he read Deuteronomy 28:36.  

 

Another tradition (ibid, p. 161, item 12) suggests that the ark was hid near the Temple’s woodshed.  It is said that Rabban Gamaliel and R. Hananiah, deputy high priest, used to prostate themselves in front of the woodshed because of this tradition that the ark was hidden there. 

 

 

Theories

 

A report by Douglas Davis in the Sep 12, 1998, “Jerusalem Post” suggests that the ark was seized by the Egyptian King Shishak during his invasion after the division of the kingdom, as elsewhere commented upon.  This theory says that it was buried somewhere in Palestine.  A modern, California-based, research team now believes that they know where it can be found. 

 

One of the better explanations on finding the ark is that Yirmeyahu hid it in a cave on Mount Nebo where it is to remain hidden until YHWH chooses to reveal it (II Maccabees 2:4-8).  This tradition has persisted among religious Jews over the years and seems to be the better option at this time and particularly if there is to be an age ending Yirmeyahu witness (to be later discussed). 

 

Therefore, by the first century CE, there was some expectation that Yirmeyahu would return in the age end to “reveal” the hiding place of the articles--even among the disciples (Matt 16:14).  While it may or may not be Yirmeyahu, there are a lot of good reasons to believe that the next few years will see these items discovered and restored to their proper uses. 

 

By the way, that time may be closer at hand than anyone realizes.  Subsequent comments will disclose some of the recent finds of possible Temple artifacts, including the possible anointing oil used to anoint kings. 

 

 

A Harp 

 

Besides the work of the Temple Institute and the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful movement, a number of other people and organizations are also doing their part to make all possible preparations to rebuild the Temple when the time comes. 

 

An illustration of this concerns the work of Micah and Shoshanna Harrari.  They are harp makers from California.  From a study of the Talmud and Second Temple literature, they have learned the design of the Second Temple harp. 

 

Now, in Israel, they have built one or more of these “Biblical harps,” the first in 2,000 years (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 405).  The Talmud says that such a harp is a symbol of the “World to Come” and that when it sounds again in Jerusalem, The MESSIAH will come (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 405). 

 

 

A Red Heifer 

 

One of the other needs for a new Temple is a red heifer and/or the ashes of one from an earlier time to purify the priesthood.  Some Jewish authorities believe that both will be needed (a mix of the ashes of a prior red heifer with a contemporary one).  Efforts are underway to discover the remains of some of those ancient ashes. 

 

Also, a rare red heifer (named Melody) was born (allegedly miraculously from a black and white cow) in Kfar Hasidim, Israel in 1996.  Her birth was reportedly the first one born in Israel in 2,000 years.  It appears that she grew a few white hairs in her tail and therefore was not qualified for sacrifice (“Red Heifer Born in Israel -- Harbinger of Messiah?” in the Sep-Oct 1997 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 3-5). 

 

However, Melody could produce a qualified calf.  Moreover, there is hope from other red cattle now being bred in Israel (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 376). 

 

 

More Opportunities

 

The last several years have seen a number of Temple proponents work to import red cattle from the US into Israel--principally of the Red Angus breed. 

 

So, here in 2003, there is now a large pool of red cattle which should produce a qualifying calf or rather which has already produced a qualifying calf--because the Israelis are not discussing this effort in public (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 374).  Actually, one has reportedly already been born (as will be discussed below and in a later chapter). 

 

Since the Israelis have not been saying much about this cattle, it is likely that if a qualifying calf is born or has been born, there could be a blackout of news associated with it to avoid a Muslim uproar and political backlash. 

 

Thus, red cattle are now in Israel.  If a qualifying calf has been born or is born soon, it would be ready in two to three years to provide the purification ashes needed for the priesthood (Num 19:9-17). 

 

According to Jewish tradition, nine earlier heifers have been sacrificed.  The next one will be number ten and supposedly The MESSIAH will come with number ten (“Prophetic Observer,” Dec 1997, p. 1). 

 

 

At Least One Now 

 

Actually, there is evidence that a qualifying red heifer has already been born in Israel.  The May 6, 2002, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 7) had a news item on “New ‘red heifer’ seen as proof End is near,” by Gershom Gorenberg.  Reportedly, a red heifer was born in early March 2002 (which could be ready for sacrifice in the summer of 2004). 

 

The Temple Institute knows about the heifer and is monitoring the condition of the calf, but refuses to say where the heifer is located (although the Institute has had a picture of the calf on its web site--May-Jun 2002 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 37). 

 

When the previous heifer (Melody) was born, there were public calls in Israel for the calf to be shot since many secular Israelis are much opposed to the idea of a new Temple on Mount Moriah.  Possibly, this is one of the reasons for the Temple Institute and the other pro-Temple advocates to take a low profile on this present heifer. 

 

The point here is that there is a good possibility that by 2004, a red heifer will probably be in existence in Israel and ready to be sacrificed (certainly, by 2004) to provide the ashes needed for purification of the priesthood and the establishment of the daily sacrifice and the rebuilding of the Temple. 

 

 

More Developments and Preparations 

 

Some comments by William Dankenbring in the Nov-Dec 2001 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 15-21, in an article on “Coming Soon--A New Temple of God!”) offered some other reports on recent events involving preparations to rebuild the Temple. 

 

For instance, volunteers working with the Institute for Judaic-Christian Research (of Arlington, Texas) have unearthed what might be some Temple incense in a trough near the cliffs of the Dead Sea. 

 

The substance was red in color and smelled like cinnamon.  A Weizmann Institute chemist analyzed the material and said that he is 80% sure that the team has found the “pitum haketoret,” the incense used in the Temple. 

 

Another report in the same “Prophecy Flash” (ibid, p. 17) said that archaeologist Vendyl Jones, excavating near Jericho, found a clay jar containing a very unusual kind of incense oil.  It has been scientifically dated to Second Temple days.  It appears to contain five special ingredients which the Word says were part of the “anointing oil” for kings. 

 

The Copper Scroll, found at Qumran (mentioned in a prior chapter), makes mention of this oil, along with references to the last remaining ashes of a Red Heifer. 

 

The Copper Scroll says that the ashes from the last sacrificed Red Heifer were taken from the Temple by the priests and secretly buried so that they could be recovered during the Last Days (ibid, p. 17). 

 

Apparently, this Copper Scroll also makes mention of the secret hiding place of the “Breastplate of the High Priest, including the Urim and Thummim” (ibid, p. 19).  If this breastplate is found, it will have a profound effect on history. 

 

 

The Scarlet Dye 

 

The Jan 10, 2003, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 7) had a fascinating report on the discovery by Dr Zohar Amar at Bar-Ilan University of the ancient scarlet dye used in the Temple.  The dye comes from the tola’at hashani (a scaly insect mentioned in the Tanakh).  It was used for both sacrifices and in coloring the curtains covering the “Holy of Holies.” 

 

Israeli scholars were unable to locate the insect in Palestine until just recently when Amar and his student, Zvi Tamari, identified the different types of crimson coccid in Israel which led to the discovery of the Kermes oak coccid and the production of the scarlet pigment from it.  The insect was found at Neveh Tzut, Northwest of Ramallah. 

 

The insect is very small and the dye comes from the female with her eggs, a situation which is to be found for only two weeks a year.  Amar learned about the production of the dye from medieval manuscripts, mainly in Arabic. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 179--The Temple II

 

 

The Location of the Temple 

 

The former chapter broached the matter of the building of the Third Temple.  Perhaps one of the biggest issues of all is locating the site precisely.  This question will now be addressed. 

 

After all, there is always the question of exactly where to build the coming Third Temple facility.  Many people (both Christians and Jews) have supposed that the actual Temple site was precisely where the Moslem Dome of the Rock (popularly called the Mosque of Omar) has sat for the last 1,300 years. 

 

In fact, it is interesting that in 1997 at least one (probably others as well) of the Israeli Members of Parliament, Benny Elon, had a photo-montage in his Knesset office of a rebuilt Third Temple, standing on Mount Moriah, in place of the Dome of the Rock and the nearby Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Sep/Oct 1997 “Believer’s Advocate,” p. 15). 

 

Obviously, if it is necessary to build that coming Third Temple precisely where these two mosques sit, then it will be built there.  As necessary, one or both of these Moslem religious buildings will come down.  YHWH will arrange it in some fashion (earthquake or something else). 

 

 

Leen Ritmeyer 

 

Perhaps the best known scholarly work on justifying the Temple site directly at the Dome of the Rock comes from Leen Ritmeyer, a well known Israeli archeologist.  He has written several well researched and documented articles on this issue in recent years.  The Jan-Mar 2000 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 18-20) assessed his work in an article on “Journey to the Mountain of the L-rd.” 

 

Per the story, the Mishnah mentions the level platform at the top of Moriah which the Temple was built upon.  This platform was 500 cubits square and was evidently laid out in stone--some of which was over hollow depressions, interior caves and facilities (like the so-called stables of Shlomo--which are now a large hollowed out area under the Southeastern corner of the top platform of the Temple Mount). 

 

Using the Mishnah as his source, Ritmeyer claims that he has found the remains of a step at the Northwest corner of this ancient platform.  Using the royal cubit of 20.67 inches and measuring 500 cubits to the East, Ritmeyer says one reaches the Eastern wall which supposedly stands in the exact same place where it stood in Shlomo’s day. 

 

By marking off another 500 cubits to the South, one comes to a bend in the wall.  Moving West another 500 cubits takes one back to the site of the believed Western wall.  Another 500 cubits back North returns the observer to the believed step of the Northwest corner. 

 

To the South of this platform, there were extensions of the Temple site in both the days of the Hasmoneans (the time of the Maccabees) and when Herod commenced his restoration project. 

 

The just cited “Hebrew Roots” article (ibid, p. 19) suggests that the actual Temple site would have had to be in the vicinity of the Dome of the Rock in order to work out on this platform. 

 

Supposedly, if the site was over the Dome of the Spirits in the Northern area (to be shortly profiled), it would be too far North to allow “the outer buildings on the north side of the Temple complex outside the 500 square cubit area” (but this argument is very questionable and may not be valid, as will be outlined in the next coming discussion). 

 

In any case, Ritmeyer believes that the “Holy of Holies” stood exactly over the Western portion of the rock housed inside the Dome (this is the site allegedly where Mohammed rode off to heaven on his white horse).  Here, there is a rectangular cutoff where the Ark would have sat. 

 

There is a cave under the actual rock protruding above the floor in the center of the Dome’s edifice.  In Jewish tradition, this cave is called the “guf” where the souls (this must be the spirits) of the righteous dead were kept to await the resurrection.  In Arabic, this cave is called “Well of the Souls.” 

 

With this background on the cave, the “Hebrew Roots” article recalled Revelation 6:9-11 where the souls of the righteous slain for truth were held under the altar pending judgment upon the evil people on earth. 

 

Though this view just presented is the popular one on locating the actual Temple site, it must be noted that there is at least one more serious possibility. 

 

 

An Alternative Site 

 

Thus, there can be another possible alternative on the location of the Temple.  Just after the Six Day War of 1967, a Jewish physicist of Hebrew University named Dr Asher Kaufman developed an interest in the precise location of the Temple site.  In 1974, Kaufman took a sabbatical from Hebrew University and went to work on the question full time. 

 

Based upon the physical layout of Mount Moriah and where the crest of the Mount of Olives must lie (east at Sukkot--at the equinox) for the red heifer ceremony to be visible from the Temple through the East Gate (Num 19:3-4; Ezek 8:16) and other remarks in the Talmud, Kaufman determined that probably the actual Temple site was a little North of the Dome of the Rock, over an area where the Moslem Dome of the Spirits or Tablets now sits (per the “Jerusalem Post” of Apr 6-12, 1980). 

 

Kaufman says that the bedrock under this Northern site is only one meter lower than that at the Dome of the Rock (Nov-Dec 2001 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 14).  But the bedrock under the Dome of the Rock is irregular rock-mass while the rock-mass at the Northern site is flat and a logical repository for the Ark of the Covenant (Jewish historical sources say that the Ark rested on a “Foundation Stone”). 

 

The point of this alternative is that it might be possible to rebuild the Temple without necessarily having to have the so-called Mosque of Omar demolished.  The two religious facilities could sit side by side.  Of course, if it is necessary for one, two or all of the Moslem buildings and sites on Moriah to come down, be assured that they will come down.  Again, YHWH will see to it. 

 

 

The Gate Feature 

 

This area over the Dome of the Spirits is also interesting for another reason.  The Kaufman site lies directly due West of the present location of the Eastern, Golden Gate (to be commented upon below and in a future chapter) and the Mount of Olives where the red heifer was sacrificed.  People in the Temple could look through this gate and see the crest of the Mount of Olives where the red heifer was sacrificed. 

 

This has to be a most profoundly important feature to describe the site of the Temple--although some Jews, like Gershon Salomon, believe that the East Gate (also known as the Shushan Gate) was actually to the South of the presently described Golden Gate; and thus, opposite the Dome of the Rock (“The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful,” p. 47-48). 

 

Gershon Salomon suggests that the presently described East or Golden Gate (which is rocked or bricked in and closed) is actually the site of the Mercy Gate. 

 

In support of this alternate site for the East Gate, Salomon says that as the Arabs were digging under the Temple Mount in 2001 to build a new, underground mosque in the area of Shlomo’s Stables, they discovered the remains of the Shushan Gate (this Muslim work up under the Temple Mount will be discussed in some detail in remarks to shortly follow below). 

 

Upon the discovery of the gate, the Arabs allegedly covered the site over so it would not be revealed (ibid, p. 47).  It is unclear where Salomon got his information, but it must remain questionable.  Certainly, no Jew had any first hand information on this alleged gate--unless the Israelis had some spies working among the Arabs up under the Temple Mount. 

 

 

The Bridge 

 

It should be noted that in Second Temple days, there was a two tiered bridge which crossed the Brook Kidron from the Mount of Olives directly into the Temple Mount area.  This bridge connected to the East Gate of the platform area.  It allowed a worshipper to walk across the Kidron Valley and be immediately on the Temple Mount. 

 

With a few more paces to the West, the worshipper would next enter the Eastern entrance to the Temple.  The Eastern entrance was the main, front entrance to the Temple.  Thus, persons on the Mount of Olives could walk across the bridge and directly enter the Temple for worship. 

 

As will be described in a later chapter, the location of the East Gate seems well established (despite the above cited remarks of Gershon Salomon).  Archeologists have worked on the site over the years and have found the remains of the East Gate in both First and Second Temple days. 

 

 

More on the Kaufman Site 

 

The Nov-Dec 2001 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 16) had an excellent report on “Coming Soon--A New Temple of God!” by William F. Dankenbring which addressed this Kaufman site at some length.  Dankenbring noted that when the Israelis captured Old Jerusalem in the 1967 war, Israeli archeologists began to dig a tunnel beneath and around the Western Wall. 

 

Today, this tunnel is known as the “Rabbis’ Tunnel.”  It is almost 900 feet long and extends to the Northwest corner of the Temple Mount.  During the dig, the archeologists discovered a Herodian gate which dated to Second Temple days that sat to the West, directly opposite the Eastern Gate.  This article implies that this Western gate must have led directly into some part of the Temple complex. 

 

In this vein, Dankenbring suggested that the Temple would have had to lie between this Western gate and the Golden Gate to the East.  If this reasoning has merit (and it does sound very logical), then it goes on to help establish the fact that the Temple was actually located to the North of the Dome of the Rock (which is the position of Asher Kaufman). 

 

In “The Coming Last Days Temple” (p. 344), Randall Price quoted an ancient legend which offers some very interesting support for the Northern site.  The story is that the guide who led the Muslim Caliph to the site (which later became the Dome of the Rock) was a Jew.  Supposedly, he knew the real location, but deliberately deceived the Caliph because he did not want a Moslem mosque over the real “Holy of Holies.” 

 

Per all of this evidence for a site at the Dome of the Spirits, one must recall the above remarks of “Hebrew Roots,” which discounted this Northern site since it was alleged to be too far North to allow some outer buildings beyond the North wall of the platform.  Actually, the Kaufman suggested site was not precisely due West of the East Gate (its diagonal axis was not precisely on a East-West line). 

 

With this offset and the fact that the Kaufman site was indeed unnecessarily North (by just a few feet, in order to visibly observe the crest of the Mount of Olives to the East), it is true that the exact Kaufman location would not set on the exact East-West diagonals of the original platform, as described by Ritmeyer (“Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount,” p. 86, 113-114). 

 

A diagram in Ritmeyer’s book (“Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount,” p. 61) shows the East Gate sufficiently South of the North platform line to still allow the Temple to be built, directly due West and to the South of the wall.  In other words, maybe Kaufman’s projected site is slightly offset more to the North than as is actually necessary. 

 

Finally, in support of a Northern location for the Temple, William F. Dankenbring, in the January-February 2002 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 11), takes note of the fact that the Temple’s “Holy of Holies” was a cubicle of about 30 feet by 30 feet (per I Kg 6:20). 

 

Since this cubicle sat directly on the protruding rock, the rock at the Dome of the Rock is much too large to properly mesh with a cubicle of 30 feet square.  The rock at the Dome is 60 feet by 55 feet.  Per Dankenbring, it was physically impossible for the “Holy of Holies” to sit on the rock under the Dome of the Rock.  Dankenbring’s argument is interesting and may be relevant. 

 

 

Resolving the Problem 

 

Though there is some present confusion over the exact site of the Temple, there is some interesting hope on this issue for the future.  Randall Price quotes R. Gorem of the Israeli Defense Forces who said that in the last days, a prophet would come on the scene who would reveal the actual site (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 347).  This brings to mind the work of the two witnesses (Zech 6:12; Mal 3; Rev 11). 

 

The Temple Mount (the platform) was constructed in Shlomo’s days and later with a host of caves, tunnels, shafts and passage ways under it for various and sundry reasons.  During the Temple’s desecration by the Romans, most of these excavations were filled up and temporarily lost to history, although there was some references to them in the Talmud and various Rabbinical writings. 

 

Since 1967, Jewish archeologists and religious persons have excavated many of these cavities, tunnels and passage ways and over the years have attempted to open some of them.  In 1996, they opened one of them to the public which caused an outcry from the Moslems.  Moreover, the Arabs have turned the so-called stables of Shlomo into a modern mosque (as briefly cited in the above comments). 

 

 

Barry Chamish 

 

Well known Israeli author Barry Chamish’s theories on the brothers and sisters of YESHUA and their alleged movement into Europe to connect to European royalty have been described and commented upon in prior chapters. 

 

As also pointed out in previous chapters, the throne of David is clearly present in the world today because of YHWH’s promises to him and the far reaching prophecies of Yechezkel, Yirmeyahu, etc (which demand it). 

 

Manifestly, the evidence is most persuasive that European royalty does descend from Yehudah/David in various ways.  Certainly, the present throne of the United Kingdom seems to be the throne of David (which will be placed with YESHUA in the future coming millennium). 

 

In the meantime, Barry Chamish’s remarks, on the “Dreamland” program of Feb 4, 2001, were also very interesting on the Temple Mount and what is happening there right now.  Barry’s theory was that YESHUA’s brothers and sisters became the monarchy of France and possessed some ancient scrolls dealing with history and buried treasures in Palestine (as also allowed in the Dead Sea Scrolls). 

 

Supposedly, some of these scrolls were secured in France and came into the hands of the Catholic Church.  The centuries passed and history, circumstances and a later pope and Catholic leadership were to inspire and promote the famous Christian Crusades from Europe (which invaded Palestine in the 11th to 13th centuries to wrestle control of the religious sites from the Moslems). 

 

The Crusaders actually took possession of the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount for some time, before eventually being expelled by the Muslims. 

 

One of the more militant and successful groups of Christian Crusaders was the Knights Templar (which Chamish says was founded or promoted by descendants or colleagues of the family of YESHUA, who had ruled much of Europe over the ages).  Supposedly, information from the previously described scrolls (on the locations of buried treasures in Jerusalem) fell into the hands of the Templars. 

 

Once the Templars were in Palestine and the Crusaders were in charge there, the Templars were able to recover some of these treasures and became enormously wealthy.  They brought back much of this discovered gold, silver and wealth to France and Great Britain.  “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 454) says that they became rich bankers in Europe. 

 

Many students connect them to the Masonic order (as was discussed in a preceding chapter) 

 

 

More From Chamish 

 

Barry Chamish indicated his understanding that much of this wealth was discovered under the Temple Mount in some of the buried caves and passage ways.  He suggests that the Templars did not get all of it and that some of it is still there--along with some valuable scrolls (which clarify much of the early history of the Catholic Church and the separate and distinctively different Apostolic Assembly). 

 

In his radio talk, it was unclear whether Chamish believes that these scrolls were originally deposited under the Temple or whether they were some of the exact same ones which Jews had taken to France in the first century CE (as described earlier). 

 

It was possible that the Templars brought with them to Palestine some of the scrolls then stored in Europe (especially those describing the buried treasures) and buried them on the mount for safekeeping or some other purpose. 

 

 

Current Events 

 

So more centuries have passed and some modern persons presumably still have hopes of excavating under the Temple Mount and locating the rest of the treasures buried there and possibly any of the scrolls that might be there dealing with history or whatever.  This background then leads up to what has been happening during the period 2000-2003 under the mount. 

 

A news report in the Jan-Feb 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 29) said that the Arab Waqf (the Islamic Religious Council in charge of the Old City’s Islamic sites) have been making underground excavations in the Temple Mount area and hauling off loads of earth and whatever in the middle of the night to avoid attention.  These excavated materials were being dumped in the nearby Kidron Valley. 

 

Among their other activities on the Temple Mount, the Arabs have moved in bulldozers and even a stonecutter.  Per comments of David Wagner on “Moslem Destruction of Temple Mount Continues,” in the Vol. 8, No. 4 issue of “Bible Light On the News” (p. 3-6), the Muslims have removed stone courses from a secondary wall that runs parallel to the Eastern perimeter. 

 

While the Arabs have acknowledged that they have been working on an underground mosque in the area of Shlomo’s Stables (as noted above), there is speculation and even some evidence suggesting that the Arabs are moving forward with more ambitious plans of trying to forever obliterate any evidence of a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. 

 

There is concern that the Muslims are using their stone cutter to demolish ancient stones and to cut and emplace new ones.  Truly, their efforts on the Temple Mount have already destroyed vast archeological treasures out of the past.  Thus, the Arabs seem to be involved in a process of de-Judanizing the site and turning it into a Muslim edifice through the on going Islamization. 

 

A number of Israeli archeologists have complained because of the possibility that priceless archaeological artifacts could be destroyed and hopelessly lost forever.  The Israelis have also been upset because the whole Temple Mount site is considered “holy ground” and it is bad news to have a bunch of irresponsible Arabs in there with bulldozers and earth moving equipment doing who knows what to the site. 

 

For sure, any artifacts of archeological value will be destroyed by the Arabs (which would really upset a lot of Jews).  So, why would the Arabs risk a confrontation with Israel over the mount with this digging operation. 

 

Chamish suggested that the Arabs are after any of the remaining buried treasures.  He noted that even in February 2001, the Muslim evacuations under the mount were proceeding.  They have not let up!  Incidentally, there is another aspect of why the Muslims are frantically digging under the Temple Mount.  It will be further addressed below and in later chapters on Christian Church history. 

 

 

The Vatican 

 

Beyond the Israeli interest and the Muslim desire in possessing the Temple Mount, the Vatican has also expressed her wishes to control the Temple Mount and the so-called “holy sites.”  For instance, in Sep 1993, Israeli leader Shimon Peres signed a secret accord with the pope promising Vatican hegemony over Jerusalem’s Old City by the year 2000 (Aug-Sep 1999 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79). 

 

Apparently, in 2001, Reuters had a news report from Vatican City which said that the pope has called for security for Israel, a Palestinian state, an Israeli evacuation from the occupied territories, a solution for the Palestinian refugees, and a guaranteed special statute for the sacred parts of Jerusalem (Oct-Dec 2002 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 27).  

 

Why would the Vatican want possession of this site so much?  Chamish did not offer his ideas on this quest.  But if there were allegedly some scrolls buried there which dealt with the true histories of the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic Assembly, Rome would want to excavate under the mount and locate those scrolls (the reasons for this possible quest will be assessed in later chapters on Christian history). 

 

The point is that there could be some very valuable items, artifacts and so forth under the mount.  The Muslims seem to be looking for buried treasures, the Vatican may want to find any scrolls which reveal her early history, and the people of truth would like to locate the ark of the covenant and any of the necessary Temple artifacts of use for the Third Temple.  So the Temple Mount is important to a lot of people! 

 

 

Preparations for Construction 

 

The next issue in rebuilding the Temple is the physical building materials.  Of course, the Jews have not and are not about to say much about this situation (because of the Arabs).  But rumors continue to surface from Jerusalem that efforts have been underway to prepare as much of this stuff as is possible with a view of having it available whenever the opportunity comes for the actual work. 

 

In fact, as early as 1989, the previously mentioned Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement brought a proposed cornerstone for the Third Temple to a gate of the Temple Mount.  The Israeli police denied them access to the Temple Mount. 

 

This practice of trying to lay the cornerstone (or cornerstones, to be described below) has continued ever since 1989 (“The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful Movement,” p. 10).  Though they were consistently denied access to the Temple Mount, no problems have evidently resulted from this motion (at least, not by 1997, Jan-Feb 1998 “Sabbath Sentinel,” p. 5).  

 

Again, on the 9th day of the Fifth Month in 2001, this same Faithful group brought the proposed cornerstone to the gate of the Temple Mount, but was turned aside by Israeli police.  This time, the Arabs on the mount reacted by throwing bricks, rocks and so forth below on Jews who were worshipping at the Western Wall. 

 

With this failure, the Temple Mount Faithful people apparently placed the cornerstone (weighing perhaps 6.5 tons) in a traffic circle in an intersection in the old city of Jerusalem, near the Damascus Gate and the American Consulate.  Thereupon, this first cornerstone was “stolen by the enemy” (“The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful Movement,” p. 6). 

 

While the report on this theft did not stipulate exactly which enemy stole the cornerstone, the movement did suggest “the enemy who wants to stop the campaign of the Faithful Movement for the rebuilding of the Temple.”  The implication here well could be that the cornerstone was stolen by Arab Muslims.  And maybe this is true.  But there is another alternative.

 

As noted earlier, and as will be discussed in later remarks, there is a considerable number of secular, non-religious Jews (surely Amalekite workers of evil) who are thoroughly opposed to any thoughts of a Third Temple. 

 

It’s highly possible that some of these Amalekite workers of evil in the state of Israel actually stole the first cornerstone.  Apparently, the Faithful Movement people do not know whom the culprits were that took the cornerstone. 

 

 

Two Cornerstones 

 

In any case, by Sukkot 2001, the Temple Mount Faithful group had prepared two new cornerstones (making three prepared by them).  These new cornerstones (each weighing 6.5 tons and cut from marble by diamond cutters without the use of iron instruments) were brought to the Temple gate with a plan to place them on the NE and SE corners of the proposed site for the Temple (ibid, p. 10-11). 

 

However, the Israeli police turned away the group.  Thereupon, the Faithful people decided to anoint the two cornerstones during Sukkot and petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court for this permission--which ultimately was granted.  The specific details on these efforts at Sukkot 2001 will be covered in a later chapter on Temple Developments. 

 

Since then, this group has regularly tried to place both of the cornerstones on the Temple Mount during succeeding Jewish festivals (as will be discussed in the later chapters).  Always, the efforts were turned away by Israeli police.  However, this work and continuing efforts do demonstrate the readiness and willingness of some Jews to proceed with construction given an opportunity. 

 

At some point in time, this work will ultimately succeed--with YHWH’s approval and intervention. 

 

 

The Money? 

 

The next question about a Third Temple project has to be the need for a bundle of bucks.  And there is a lot of Jewish money now available and will immediately become available when the time arrives.  While the Jews constitute a very small minority of the world’s population, they possess and control an inordinate amount of money, assets and wealth for their insignificant numbers. 

 

Years ago, this writer used to have some concern over how rich Amalek-Edomites, like the Rothschilds, had stolen, robbed, cheated and plundered from vast numbers of people to accumulate their enormous wealth, but not appreciating how much money the Rothschilds had given and spent for the state of Israel. 

 

Similarly, it is easy for Americans to get entrapped into bitterness over the rape of the US Treasury and financial future of the United States--just to send billions of dollars annually to the modern state of Israel (and other nations all over the world as well).  While there probably are no good reasons for this squander of wealth to most nations, there has been one fabulous benefit from its travel to Jerusalem. 

 

 

YHWH’s Sovereignty 

 

The Psalmist put it well when he wrote “When YHWH shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory” (Ps 102:16).  Yes, KING YESHUA will one day be enthroned on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Ps 2:6, the “Living Bible;” Isa 24:23, in the Moffatt translation). 

 

Now, maybe one can see the sovereignty of The ELOHIM in allowing the US taxpayers to destroy their own nation in order to support Israel and for the Rothschilds to acquire all that money they have accumulated. 

 

Much of this money has built up the state of Israel and Jerusalem (and some of it will be used for the Temple--Hag 2:7-9).  Certainly, the Rothschilds have spent vast sums there, starting with the very first Jewish immigrants who went there, in the late 19th century (via the Hebrew concept of “Aliyah” or going up to the land, which was assessed in preceding chapters herein). 

 

But the Jewish money and the give aways from the US Treasury are only part of the flow of funds to build up Israel.  Of all sources, the Sep-Oct 1999 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 38) had a story from the Jun 21, 1999, “Jerusalem Report” on “Onward, Christian Drillers,” which focused upon the work of a Protestant US oilman, named Harry (Hayseed) Stephens. 

 

Harry is an alleged, born again Christian who believes that his “God” told him in 1982 that there was a huge pool of oil at the Southwest corner of the Dead Sea.  Drilling commenced at Sukkot 1999.  Stephens says that if he finds oil, the proceeds from it will be used to rebuild the Third Temple. 

 

 

Jewish Failures 

 

Future chapters herein will assess the present Arab Intifada and the attempts of various people to promote peace in the Middle East.  As will be discussed later, the Israelis have failed to accomplish several needed things in their sovereignty over Palestine generally and Jerusalem specifically. 

 

One of the biggest failures which the Israeli government has consistently failed in is the rebuilding of the Temple.  In the summer of 1967, the Temple Mount should have been cleared and construction commenced at once on the Third Temple.  The Jews did not do as they should have done.  They have had sovereignty over the area now for 36 years.  And yet, they have not obeyed The ELOHIM. 

 

The essence of this condition is known by some religious Jews who have diligently and faithfully pushed the Israeli government in an effort to start rebuilding the Temple.  This essence is that the failure of the Israelis to rebuild the Temple has brought on the many trials now being experienced over the drought in place and Arab suicide bombers killing innocent Jews. 

 

The chronology of the coming events associated with the rebuilding of the Temple is laid out in Ezra, Haggai and Zekharyah.  This chronology and the relevance of these Scriptures will be assessed in the later chapters.  But for now, it can be said that once the Jews do as they have been commanded (to rebuild the Temple), many of their troubles will end. 

 

 

More From Gershon Salomon 

 

“The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful” has been quoted from several times heretofore.  In regards to the Tisha b’Av (9th day of the 5th month) march in 2001 by the Faithful (as discussed above), Gershon said that “the removal of the Arab enemy from the Temple Mount and the land of Israel--along with the rebuilding of the Temple--will stop the terror, hatred, and wars against Israel. 

 

“It will also bring appreciation, recognition, and respect from all the world to the people of Israel.  It will begin a time of real godly peace in Israel and all over the world.  Only this key endtime event will complete the godly redemption of Israel and solve the economic and water crises in the land of Israel, exactly as G-d spoke through Haggai” (ibid, p. 23) 

 

Gershon called on “the Israeli government to trust G-d and not to fear the many enemies of Israel and to do what G-d expects of them at this critical time.  They should not make the same sinful mistake of the ten spies who wanted Israel to return to the slavery of Egypt and not to go into the Promised Land. 

 

“They should behave as Joshua and Caleb and not fear the giant enemies because G-d is with us and has given us the land.  Israel is now being tested on the Temple Mount by G-d.  What Israel does on the Temple Mount will affect not only the destiny of Israel but also the destiny of the world” (ibid, p. 23). 

 

Salomon added that “The rebuilding of the Temple, according to the call and commandment of G-d to our generation, is irreversible.  The continuation of the existence of the Arab enemies of the G-d and people of Israel on the Temple Mount has brought down the anger of G-d and has created the evil terrorist situation in Israel and all over the world” (ibid, p. 23). 

 

Gershon advised the Israeli government to listen to and behave according to the Word of G-d in Haggai (ibid, p. 23). 

 

 

And More From Gershon 

 

In the (above) just quoted “Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful booklet (p. 5), published in late 2002, Gershon Salomon wrote a personal letter which said:  “Today the Temple Mount is closed to Israelis and is only open to the enemies of Israel.  The leadership of Israel is afraid of the reaction of a billion Moslems, and perhaps the UN and all the physical powers in the world...

 

“The terror situation in Israel today, the problems in the economy, the lack of rains and water, these are not a natural part of the holy land which was blessed by G-d to be a land of milk and honey.  This is the price that we pay because our leadership has left the holy mountain of G-d in the hands of the enemies of the G-d and people of Israel.  The difficult situation in Israel will immediately change when the enemy is removed, the Temple Mount is redeemed, and the house of G-d is rebuilt” (ibid, p. 5). 

 

Salomon concluded by saying:  “Very soon our dream will come to pass and we shall stand hand-in-hand in the rebuilt house of G-d.  We shall thank Him for the great privilege that He gave us to be the builders of His house.  Mashiach ben David is soon to come.  Prepare yourselves for this.  Begin to learn Hebrew if you still don’t know the language of G-d, especially if you want to speak to Him directly with no translator” (ibid, p. 5). 

 

 

The Three Events Supposedly Still Needed 

 

Beyond all of the steps taken, and the pooling of a large sum of money to pay for the Temple construction, there supposedly were still a couple of other requirements which would need to be met before actual construction could commence. 

 

For this need, Randall Price, in his book on “The Coming Last Days Temple” (p. 132), quoted from the Talmud and wrote about three things which the Israelites need to do upon returning to the land (as happened in 1967, in the case of Old Jerusalem).  The Talmud says that they must first appoint a king and next they must eradicate the Amalekites. 

 

Once these two preliminary steps are taken care of, the Talmud says that they are ready to rebuild the Temple as a third event.  So far, these first two steps have not been completed.  And there is some concern about how they can be accomplished in the present situation. 

 

Assuredly, for the millennial Temple, YESHUA will be anointed KING over Yisrael.  By then, He will have completely eradicated the evil Amalekites who have plagued Yisrael for the last 3,500 years.  But how about the present, in the context of the coming Third Temple?  Maybe these steps will not be completed for the Third Temple. 

 

 

The Temple Was the Place of YHWH’s Abode 

 

The Temple is extremely important to YHWH.  It was the place where He symbolically dwelt.  In the form of the Shekhinah, He was thought to sit on the ark as His ruling place over His people Yisrael and effectively over planet earth.  Apparently, when YESHUA returns, He will physically sit in the millennial Temple for His 1,000-year rule of this globe. 

 

Like the Scriptures quoted YHWH as saying about the Temple on Mount Moriah-- “...I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there forever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually” (I Kg 9:3). 

 

While Christians may go to pieces with hatred and animosity toward the Temple and the Jewish priesthood, the truth is that that place was always and will always be a kodesh place of extraordinary importance in YHWH’s scheme of things.  As discussed earlier, the Apostle Shaul and others (perhaps all of the believers in the Jerusalem area) went to the Temple and offered sacrifices (possibly regularly). 

 

The Temple is a feature of good in Judaism.  It always was and always will be in the future.  Christians need to back off and stop their rebellious hatred and bad feelings toward the Temple (and Jews in general) when they are largely in a state of ignorance and confusion over this facility and its role in truth. 

 

In terms of the Second Temple in YESHUA’s days, there is a ancient Jewish legend which says-- “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod, has never seen a beautiful building.” 

 

 

The Bottom Line

 

Dr. Randall Price (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 17) quotes a very interesting remark from the Talmud (Yoma 1:1)--that says:  “Each generation in which the Temple is not rebuilt is considered as if they destroyed the Temple.” 

 

The Fall 1999 “Hatikva” newsletter (p. 4) quoted a famous Jewish prayer-- “May it be Your will, O L-rd our G-d and G-d of our fathers, that the Temple be speedily rebuilt in our days, and grant our portion in your Torah.  And there we will serve You in awe, as in the days of old and as in ancient years.  And may the offering of Yehudah and Y’rushalayim be pleasant to the L-rd, as in the days of old and in ancient years.  Amen.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 180--Messianic Judaism

 

 

Messianic Jews and Christians

 

Discussions to follow in later chapters on Sabbathkeeping believers in YESHUA The MESSIAH necessitate a look at the modern Messianic Jewish movement which is growing rapidly here in the early 21st century.  Besides its extraordinary and fantastic growth (which perhaps must be explained in the sense of the work of a spiritual power), it has several wonderful features supporting and promoting truth. 

 

As described and commented upon in prior chapters, the Apostolic Assembly of the first century CE was made up of essentially religious Jews or Israelites undergoing the process of conversion to Judaism.  While some of these persons were descended racially or ethnically from the House of Yehudah, most were Israelites of the lost tribes of Yisrael, living in the Diaspora (who had converted or were being converted to Judaism). 

 

With the Jewish-Roman war of 66-73 CE and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Scriptural evidence is massive that YESHUA did return in c70 CE for the first century CE election of the Apostolic Assembly.  This harvest of the firstfruits of Shavuot has been described in some detail in former chapters and needs no further comment now. 

 

In any case, Christianity was developing in the first century CE--certainly in Rome, but also in the East extensively.  The history and growth of Christendom will be assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters and will not be broached presently.  Suffice to say, Christianity did survive as a world religion after 67 CE (while Messianic Judaism faded out for the next many years). 

 

Over the years, some Jews were converted to Christendom and especially so since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century CE.  These converts were traditionally called Jewish Christians or Hebrew Christians.  By and large, they were just members of the Roman Catholic Church or one of the later Protestant churches. 

 

Even today, these remarks essentially describe the well known Jews for Jesus entity--which remains very Christian. 

 

 

The Impact of Christian Persecution 

 

The impetus for this Jewish conversion to Christendom seems to lie in several directions.  First, there was the Catholic Inquisition in the so-called dark ages which forced many Jews to ostensibly convert to Catholicism.  The situation with these converts was discussed in preceding chapters. 

 

Since the process was forced upon them, many Jews agreed to the conversion, but secretly continued to practice Judaism.  These secret Jews were called Marranos in Spain.  The ruling Jewish nasi in Constantinople authorized this practice, as described in a former chapter herein. 

 

In the “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 54-55), Dr David H. Stern quotes an early oath that Jews had to take when converting to Christianity (as briefly mentioned in a prior chapter).  Stern quoted this oath from the Christian Church at Constantinople--possibly imposed as early as the year 350 CE. 

 

It said:  “I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations, and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants, and observances and synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce absolutely everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom...

 

“and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable.  And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.” 

 

In much of the Christian world and especially in Spain during the Inquisition, the Catholic Church employed spies to not only monitor Jews, but Gentiles generally on their worship practices.  Any persons caught Judaizing (that is, obeying the edicts of the OT) were in trouble in the secular society.  So-called heretics were typically tortured and burned alive at the stake in those days. 

 

Next, some other Jews surely converted to Christianity (especially Amalekites, Canaanites and Kenites) because Christian membership must have offered some financial rewards and benefits (since the prevailing culture and civilization were “Christian”). 

 

Finally, it must be admitted that some good Jews did convert on the basis of faith and belief in YESHUA and their dissatisfaction with trying to worship in the synagogues that were hostile to them (as elaborated upon in previous chapters herein). 

 

 

Persecution from Jews As Well 

 

Besides the enormous persecution and oppression upon Jews (of any sort) from Christians and Christianity, there was a constant stream of oppression and hurt upon Messianic Jews from generic Judaism.  Much of this persecution has been commented upon in former chapters. 

 

The Oct-Dec 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 32-34) had a story by Rav Joseph Shulam of Netivyah in Jerusalem on “Rabbi Daniel Zion:  The Chief Rabbi of Bulgarian Jews During WWII.”  Zion was born an Orthodox Jew in Bulgaria in 1883.  He was an able man and soon became Chief Rav of the Bulgarian Jews.  In the 1930s, he claims to have had a vision of YESHUA and became a Messianic Jew. 

 

He never converted to Christianity and always remained a Torah observant Jew.  But after accepting YESHUA, Zion began holding studies on YESHUA and the NT with his Jewish friends in Bulgaria.  It was no secret among Bulgarian Jews that he believed in YESHUA.  But upon immigrating to Israel, the Rabbinical Court stripped him of his Rabbinic title and he was generally persecuted by the Israeli Jews. 

 

With his death in 1979, at age 96, he was buried by the Bulgarian Jewish community with full military and state honors.  He was buried as the “Chief Rabbi of the Bulgarian Jews” --who saved them from the Nazis.  He was 100% Jewish; yet, he was a 100% follower of YESHUA. 

 

This same article noted the enormous persecution in Israel by Jews upon Messianic Jews.  A prior chapter discussed the situation where Orthodox or Ultra Orthodox Jews tried to burn down a Conservative synagogue in Israel.  The same thing happened with a Messianic synagogue in Jerusalem, headed by the just quoted Joseph Shulam.  Vandals broke into it and stole a Torah scroll and tried to burn it down. 

 

 

More Cases 

 

The Jul-Sep 2001 “Petah-Tikvah” (p. 39-40) had a testimony from a Messianic Jewess named Hannah Rychlik, now living in Jerusalem with her husband Radek. 

 

Hannah, upon her arrival in Israel, cited the reaction of a Messianic Jewish woman acquaintance who told her to never speak of YESHUA or anything Messianic in public places.  In her home neighborhood, this woman didn’t even want her Jewish neighbors to know that she was a believer in YESHUA. 

 

Furthermore, she warned about receiving mail from someone which might indicate a Messianic connection (frankly, this writer has had a Messianic friend in Israel who expressed the same thing to me--never send anything through the mail which disclosed a Messianic connection on the envelope).  Messianic Jews are almost paranoid over the prospects of being detected as such in the Jewish community. 

 

The February 15, 2002, “Forward” (p. 4) had a story by Nacha Cattan on “Campaign Wants ‘Messianic Jews’ Out of Listings for Synagogues.”  Per Cattan, Jewish Community Relations Councils across America are involved in a campaign to force telephone companies to quit listing Messianic Jewish synagogues as synagogues in phone directories. 

 

The Jews claim that Messianic Jews are not Jews, but are Hebrew Christians.  The Jewish task force heading the effort says that there are 350 “Hebrew Christian” congregations in America with some 150,000 to 250,000 members (most of whom were former Jews, who had converted to the Messianic faith). 

 

In short, Jewish people, and particularly Jewish authorities, persecute and oppress other Jews who become believers in YESHUA.  Today, in Palestine, the Jews take every effort to keep Messianic Jews out of Israel; and if there, to make them leave if possible.  Messianic Jews are simply not welcomed in Palestine and by the majority Jewish population (but large numbers are now there, largely in secret). 

 

 

The Early Messianic Congregations 

 

Despite the persecution from both Christians and Jews, there were some Jewish Christians in America and Britain--certainly, by the 19th and 20th centuries.  Some of these Jews actually formed Jewish or Hebrew Christian congregations, which were sometimes affiliated with or supported by various Christian denominations (like the Presbyterians and the Assemblies of God Church). 

 

Dr Michael Schiffman, in his book “Return of the Remnant” (p. 27-32), discusses the history of these early Jewish Christian congregations.  He mentions the work of one Joseph Rabinowitz, who was a Christian Jew and the founder of the first Jewish Christian communion in modern times.  It was founded in 1882 in Bessarabia, Romania.  Rabinowitz called it “The Community of Messianic Jews.” 

 

Rabinowitz’s work was unique because he charted a completely different course than what had been followed for centuries by traditional Jewish or Hebrew Christians.  To appreciate this change, it will be necessary to review a little history in the context of Jewish Christianity. 

 

As commented upon in prior chapters, it wasn’t only that established Judaism turned against believers in YESHUA, but there was an enormous amount of hatred and hostility on the part of the collective Christian community for anything Jewish.  In a word, the Christians “hated” Judaism (just as they still largely hate Judaism today). 

 

This meant that true believers in YESHUA, who tried to maintain some of the Jewish culture (Sabbaths, festivals, clean foods, etc), were in a limbo status between Judaism and Christianity. 

 

The extraordinary Christian hatred for anything Jewish (and/or even for almost anything from the Hebrew OT) was so great that Christianity pulled out all of the stops to forever destroy the Hebrew writings and culture.  The Christian assault upon the Tanakh, Talmud and so forth was enormous (as noted earlier). 

 

As Schiffman explains it, Rabinowitz actually had the courage and integrity to keep a number of OT mitzwot--like the Sabbaths, circumcision and Passover.  In his House of Prayer (in the form of a synagogue), he actually used the Hebrew Scriptures, had a menorah and the Aron Kodesh (the “holy ark,” with the Torah in Hebrew).  He also had a display of the name of YESHUA in Hebrew. 

 

 

The Problem 

 

Obviously, the Sabbathkeeping groups (to be described in later chapters), both Jewish and goyim, were constantly pursued and persecuted by the dominant Catholic Church.  They literally had to go underground to survive.  The reality here is that anyone, Jew or Gentile, who wished to keep the Sabbath or OT practices, could not do so openly. 

 

So Jewish Christians learned to try or pretend to be Christians only--with no visible connection to Judaism.  Therefore, there were no open Messianic Jews for most of the years following the rise to power of Christianity under Constantine in the fourth century CE.  So, when Rabinowitz used that phrase to describe his congregation in Eastern Europe, it was a major departure from what had happened over the prior 1,800 years. 

 

Though Rabinowitz blazed a trail for a rediscovery of the Judaism associated with YESHUA, his work did not catch on immediately.  There were Christian Jews and even some Christian Jewish groups.  But nothing immediately surfaced on the order of Messianic Jews until the 20th century when a few Messianic congregations began being established in the 1930s and later. 

 

 

Impact of 1970 

 

But the real change on this subject occurred by the year 1970 when, all at once, a number of Messianic synagogues began surfacing.  This development will be covered in a later chapter.  Suffice to say, it seems to have been a fall-out of the Jesus People movement of the 1960s (which was the Sunday keeping Christian component which went on to influence the eventual Messianic Jewish Sabbathkeeping definition). 

 

As will be covered hereafter, both the Jesus People and the Messianic Jewish definitions have been heavily influenced by the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement (the tragedy of the Pentecostal influence will be described at length in subsequent chapters herein). 

 

These Messianic Jewish groups were true synagogues, made up of Jews and functioning under Jewish leadership.  Often, they were fairly Jewish in ritual, practice, liturgy, and deportment (although not as much as Orthodox synagogues).  Today, Messianic synagogues are literally all over America and even a number of them are in Russia and the state of Israel. 

 

Many of these groups keep the weekly Sabbaths, the festivals (feasts and fasts; but tragically, in accordance with the calculated Jewish calendar, as will be discussed in a later chapter), eat kosher foods, often wear or use the talith (with tzitzityot) and phylacteries and generally have much in common with perhaps Conservative synagogues (less the focus upon the Talmud). 

 

However, alternatively, it must be acknowledged that some portion of the Messianic Jewish movement tries to maintain a stance of merely being Christian Jews (like the Jews for Jesus).  In other words, they maintain a Christian approach to theology and truth, rather than a Jewish approach.  Of course, the general Christian world appreciates and applauds these groups which are Christian in orientation. 

 

While some of these Messianic Jewish synagogues are getting along fairly well with some portion of Christianity, they continue to face absolute hatred and animosity from the other Jews.  Messianic Jews are not allowed to return to Jewish Palestine under the Jewish law of return.  They are the principal group of Jews not afforded this privilege. 

 

As Dr David H. Stern noted in “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 267), Jewish Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, idolaters, gangsters (like Meyer Lansky) and so forth can all make Aliyah and have citizenship in the state of Israel.  The primary excluded group of Jews from this privilege is the Messianic Jewish entity.  Modern Jews look down upon them as Christians and give them nothing. 

 

 

More on the Goyim Participants 

 

Apparently, in the early days of the Messianic Jewish movement, its worshippers and adherents were all or largely all Jews in background.  But now, in the last several years, a number of goyim are beginning to become members of these congregations; or at least, fellowship with them, and sometimes even organize their own Messianic Jewish assemblies. 

 

By the year 2003, it appears that a good one-third of Messianic Jews and/or Messianic Jewish congregations are actually Gentiles in origin.  Some persons have expressed concern over the increasingly goyim presence.  What it amounts to is that the present trend seems to be that the Messianic Jewish movement is gaining more members and support from former Christian Gentiles than from Jews. 

 

 

Goyim Israelites? 

 

One of the interesting developments on this huge influx of goyim is that there is now quite a push by these goyim to declare themselves Israelites of the lost tribe of Ephraim.  This motion is not really in the vein of British-Israelism or of the Christian Identity movement which also share similar views.  In fact, the leaders in this motion seem to denigrate and oppose Anglo-Israelism and certainly Christian Identity. 

 

There is a Messianic Jewish group in Saint Cloud, Florida which seems to be one of the key organisms pushing this new “Messianic Israel” belief.  This group is headed by Angus and Batya Wootten.  They have published several books on the theme and also have a periodical out on it called the “House of David Herald.” 

 

The essence of this belief seems to be that there is a theory that the Christian Gentiles affiliating with and/or merging with the Messianic Jewish movement are actually descendants of the lost tribe of Ephraim.  This theory is different from British-Israelism which teaches that the White US and White British Commonwealth peoples are racially descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. 

 

The Wootten pitch is that the Christian Gentiles (presumably of whatever race or ethnic background), who are led to attach themselves to the Messianic Jewish movement, are, in fact, people of the lost tribe of Ephraim.  In this vein, the merging of these Christian Israelites (from Ephraim) with the Messianic Jews (from Yehudah) supposedly represents the joining together of the two separate sticks mentioned at Ezekiel 37:16. 

 

Apparently, the Woottens not only publish material pushing this concept, but they hold or will be holding annual conventions of similar believers in Florida.  Within the Messianic Jewish movement, this belief appears to be growing and gaining ground.  It is now in place. 

 

Of course, many Christian goyim appreciating the Hebrew environment and Judaism present in the Messianic Jewish movement can readily accept the Woottens’ teachings.  Too, the Jews don’t seem to have a problem with it, as they have had with the Christian Identity movement (although many Jews have been somewhat also tolerant of the historic British-Israel motion). 

 

 

The Jewish Hatred 

 

It seems that Jewish (including Messianic Jewish) hatred and opposition surfaces against the Christian Identity motion--primarily because the Identity people claim that White Europeans are Israelites and that most or all of the modern Jews are not the descendants of Yakov-Yisrael. 

 

Many of the modern Identity advocates believe that most modern Jews are Edomites and not Israelites at all.  This theology completely tears up most Jews.  Anybody denying that the collective Jews are “God’s chosen people” are in trouble.  They must be in fear of the Jews (correctly the Judeans), as is true in most of the Christian West.  For sure, in Ashkenazi Jewish eyes, Jews are above criticism. 

 

The Jews use Amalekite Jewish hate groups (like the JDL, ADL and SPLC--addressed earlier and to be further described later herein), and respond by charging that persons who believe in Christian Identity are anti-Semites.  The latest epitaph being used and promoted by the Jews is the phrase “White Supremacists” to describe their opponents.  Amalekite Jews are the worst of all in hurling charges of hate against their supposed enemies. 

 

 

Much Good Is Present 

 

In general, this writer likes several of the things which are occurring within the contemporary Messianic Jewish movement.  At this time in history, it is doing some things which are sadly needed among believers.  It stresses the Hebrew language and learning of Hebrew words.  It focuses favorably upon the land of Yisrael in Palestine and the coming Third Temple. 

 

It is very supportive of the Sabbaths, the festivals, the feast days, kosher foods, and many of the traditional Jewish customs and practices which have been hated and opposed by historic Christianity. 

 

The movement openly advocates and teaches the importance of the Torah as a guide to righteousness, honor and truth (although very few Messianic Jews make any effort to obey the Torah--thus, it is largely just talk in the motion without deeds, as is also true with almost all so-called, commandment keeping Christians).  And yes, Messianic Jewish groups generally advocate the use of the talith, tzitzityot and phylacteries. 

 

Assuredly, the Messianic Jewish movement offers some good here in 2003 for the Messianic believer.  Since it has been so spontaneous and so successful (despite all of the handicaps and opposition of both historic Christian Churches and Jewish synagogues), one must wonder if it has been fueled by The RUACH HA KODESH?  It is very possible that The HIGHEST has been involved in this movement. 

 

 

Some Remaining Bad Features 

 

However, there remains some very bad features about the contemporary Messianic Jewish entity, now being developed.  First, for Gentiles, the above mention of Messianic Israel does not seem to be the answer.  The identification of lost Yisrael was established in previous chapters herein. 

 

Suffice to say, there is no way that Christianity, per se, can represent lost Yisrael in any context.  Christianity is too broad of a religious definition (as well as being too unscriptural) to directly tie to Yisrael.  This statement will upset many Christian Identity people, as well as the Messianic Yisrael people, since both of them want to attach some importance to historic Christendom. 

 

Christianity has always been an international, global religion with outreaches to all humans/humanoids--Israelites, Adamites, behemah, chaiyah, nokri-nekar, etc.  It is predicated upon the brotherhood of man theology, which is a world apart from the Hebrew word “rea” and the Scriptures (as was addressed in former chapters).  Manifestly, Christianity is not Yisrael.  No way--Hose! 

 

Also, as was pointed out in the preceding commentary, some portion of the Messianic Jewish movement tries to hang on to Christian theology in terms of belief, ritual and worship practices.  To the extent that Messianic Jews maintain Christian approaches to truth and righteousness, the motion is hurt.  In other words, there is no advantage in trying to be a Christian Jew.  Something else is called for in order to realize truth. 

 

The Messianic Jewish adoption and/or use of the above noted calculated Jewish calendar (as used in contemporary Judaism) to establish festivals presents one more adverse feature of the movement.  The bad features of the presently calculated Jewish calendar will be described in later chapters. 

 

Another bad feature of this movement is the incredible obsession about alleged anti-Semitism and the disallowance of any and all criticism against Jews.  As is true in the contemporary Jewish mentality (especially among the evil Amalekites), one can criticize almost anyone on earth--except Jews (and now, it seems that Blacks are being added to this privileged, above-criticism class). 

 

As many Messianic Jews advocate, Gentile believers must “love” and praise Jews--apparently all Jews (both good Jews and bad Amalekites).  Anyone who criticizes a Jew or complains over the practices of Jews (of any one or more Jews) or the modern state of Israel are immediately hated and branded as anti-Semites (and now, as White Supremacists). 

 

Tragically, Messianic Jewish literature, authors and writers are obsessed with the WWII Holocaust, Jewish persecution and any statement that questions the alleged glory and greatness of the Jews.  As true with Ashkenazi Jews in general (especially Ashkenazi Amalekite Jews), Jewish evils and shortcomings must be totally overlooked--both generally and often individually. 

 

This obsession with the glory and righteousness of Jews deters from the good features of the Messianic Jewish movement.  It is a good movement in many respects.  What a tragedy it is that there must be such a devotion and obsession in it over real or alleged Jewish persecution and over how great Jews are. 

 

In terms of literature now being published by Messianic Jews, this obsession with Jews (in an ethnic sense) seems to be inordinately present (just as it is among other religious Jews and secular and atheist Jews--especially Ashkenazim).  Otherwise, there are often some good word studies on Hebrew words and an acknowledgment on the general value of the Tanakh in the establishment of righteousness. 

 

 

One More Big Problem 

 

Moreover, it is also indeed tragic that most of the writers and people in the Messianic Jewish movement have too much in common with the generic Christians and Jews.  They are utterly void and lost on the really big issues of the major sins now facing Adam and as affecting the end of the United States and the present system. 

 

Subsequent chapters will address modern secular humanism, liberalism, Socialism and the contemporary social gods which are completely dominating the present Christian West (particularly in the US and White British Commonwealth).  All of a sudden, homosexuality, globalism, abortions, feminism and racial miscegenation and amalgamation have become the gods of the state and the state’s religions. 

 

Christian churches and Jewish synagogues simply do not condemn, criticize or say anything about what all is going on.  Their silence effectively approves of the present motion of establishing and promoting this idolatrous worship of false, social gods.  This sickness and depravity will be assessed in subsequent chapters.  But for now, it needs mention. 

 

How many religious Christians or Jews have taken a stand to criticize and condemn the gross immorality and evil present in the US White House.  Very, very, few persons have said anything at all about it and the thousands of things now seriously wrong in the modern, Western, Christian culture. 

 

Can anyone imagine that the great prophets Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu or any of the others could live in this land and keep silent about this gross sickness that is enveloping the whole Christian West?  Categorically, the Tanakh prophets would all openly condemn the evil government leaders (i.e. Slick Clinton) and the present culture and they would not mince any words about this depravity. 

 

Messianic Jews are like other Christians and Jews.  They have closed their eyes to this sickness and depravity; or at least, they have refused to speak out and take a stand for righteousness.  This is one of their major shortcomings. 

 

 

The Amalekite Card 

 

This then brings up a point about the racial composition in many of these Messianic synagogues.  Admittedly, whomever the people are, they must be applauded for believing in YESHUA, even when there is so much hostile hatred and animosity toward them from the general Jewish community. 

 

However, in the US, it is plausible that some Amalekite Jews have adopted the Messianic Jewish belief.  Thus, the student of truth must wonder how sincere and legitimate this motion is for any Amalekites.  This writer is not saying that Amalekites cannot believe and worship in truth in this chapter on Messianic Jews (although the NT says it--Romans 9:3-21). 

 

But the Amalekites are so evil, genetically, that one must be concerned about what all is going on when some of them (perhaps a few or several) are supposedly becoming believers in YESHUA (and in face of much Jewish opposition). 

 

Are some of these Amalekites flocking to Messianic Judaism in order to hurt it and its theology in some manner?  This writer is not sure.  However, the observer must use his head on this possibility.  In the sense that the Messianic Jewish motion is perhaps Laodicean in philosophy (as will be covered in a later chapter), maybe the Amalekite presence has happened to promote the Laodicean thinking. 

 

The very fact that the Messianic Jewish movement has chosen to hide its face from the great social problems now present in the Christian West makes one be suspicious that the evil Amalekites are somehow to blame for this predicament.  After all, it has been the wicked Amalekites who have pushed and prodded most of this social sickness upon the Christian West for the past 100 years. 

 

Certainly, the Messianic Jewish motion is exploding today in places like America and the former Soviet Union (both of which have huge Amalekite populations). 

 

It is estimated that there are some 150,000 to 250,000 Messianic Jews in the US (with some 100,000 to 150,000 members who were former Jews), plus some 100,000 or more in the old Soviet Union (Jun 18, 2001, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 34).  The state of Israel may have some similar numbers.  Truly, it is a significant force worldwide. 

 

So, what does the future hold for the Messianic Jewish movement?  Frankly, this writer is not totally convinced of which direction it will take.  Surely, the motion or its people must now be or will eventually become a part of YHWH’s seven assemblies--to be described in subsequent chapters.  Can some of its people merge later with Philadelphia?  Maybe. 

 

But the overall movement more likely will become a part of Laodicea, as noted above and as will be further addressed in the later chapters on the seven assemblies. 

 

At this point in time, the movement must be praised for its good features.  But it deserves criticism for its shortcomings.  In any case, it must be watched carefully because many Messianic Jews are devoted to Aliyah to Israel and even the building of the Third Temple.  These are very good features which support truth. 

 

 

Daniel Botkin, Revisited 

 

The words and thinking of Catholic leader Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on the need for Jews to abandon Judaism and convert to Christianity predominate in much of Christendom (as will be precisely quoted in a later chapter herein).  However, there seems to be a contrary viewpoint that is far more valid and closer to truth. 

 

The previously quoted Daniel Botkin offers a story that he read in New York’s “Forward” paper about an old Hasidic Jew in Paris--as told by a “Forward” reporter (“The Ghost of Marcion,” p. 8).  Apparently, the reporter met this old Jew some years ago and related what he said in a later “Forward” paper (which is a leading Jewish paper in the US). 

 

It seems that this old Jew had a fervent faith in YESHUA as The MESSIAH.  The reporter asked him about the compatibility of Orthodox Judaism with a faith in YESHUA.  The old Jew said that “Who then should believe in Him -- the Gentiles?” 

 

The old man then went on to add that “only Jews can truly accept belief in YESHUA as The MESSIAH and regard Him as the last prophet, for Gentiles can never accept such a lofty faith.  It is next to impossible for them to walk in His ways, for first of all, YESHUA... commanded to observe all the Jewish laws, the entire Torah, and Gentiles do not even know this.” 

 

This old Jewish man in Paris was very close to truth in his remarks--although it isn’t just some Jews who can understand and appreciate YESHUA and His commandments on the Torah.  In fact, the Scriptures themselves spell out that it is only Yisrael who can understand and appreciate the Word of The EL (Who, by the way, is manifested as YESHUA The MESSIAH). 

 

 

One More Illustration 

 

The Apr-Jun 2003 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 38-39) had the story of 77-year-old David Ben-Meir of the Ultra Orthodox community of Mea Shearim in Jerusalem (which will be described in some detail in later chapters).  Ben-Meir is an Orthodox Jew who has believed in YESHUA, apparently since he was a small boy. 

 

David came to Israel in 1945 and has always been an observant Jew.  The fact that he has consistently sustained his faith in YESHUA has meant that he has suffered persecution at the hands of the Jews that he maintains fellowship with.  He notes the number of Messianic Jewish groups in Israel.  Many of these follow Christian traditions, but some are returning to their Jewish roots. 

 

The fact that a person (a Jew or whomsoever) can come to The New Testament MESSIAH and have a relationship with Him outside the bounds of Christianity likewise does not set well with most Christians or Christian organizations. 

 

Certainly, groups found in the Christian Identity motion could never conceive that a Jew could be a full-fledged, 100% Jew and yet be in fellowship with YESHUA The MESSIAH.  Too many Christians and Christian groups have been fed a diet of evil and stupidity from historic Christianity that Judaism is all bad.  They simply cannot grasp the fact that there is good in Judaism. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 181--Good and Bad Jews

 

 

Figs, Revisited 

 

At this juncture, one must recall that YHWH long ago went on record to say that there were good Jews as well as bad Jews which He figuratively described as figs (Jer 24:1-10, discussed earlier).  Yes, as Orlando Smith of Milan, Tennessee once pointed out to me--there truly are both good Jews/figs and bad Jews/figs in the world today. 

 

Please note, the good ones are very good and the bad ones are very bad (perhaps the worst people possible). 

 

To add to the problem of identification, they are mixed together.  On this reality of the presence of some "very good" Jews assuredly mixed in with some "very bad" Jews, it must be observed that there is a point where, from an untrained naked eye, the two types seem to blend together and are not always distinguishable. Surely, in time, YHWH will intervene to sever and divide the bad figs from the good figs. 

 

Shaul wrote a wonderful message of hope for the good ones when he said that while certain Jews were being disobedient (in rejecting the Good News), they would, in time, receive mercy (Rom 11:15, 31).  They will have their call. 

 

 

Two-Thirds Are Bad? 

 

While the ability to identify and distinguish between the good and bad figs and the earlier discussed wheat and tares may seem complicated, the Word may give the student some perspective of the overall numbers of each. 

 

The prophet Zekharyah makes mention of some 2/3 of the people of the land (either Jerusalem or Judea in general) will be cut off while 1/3 will be refined and saved (Zech 13:8-9). 

 

In an article on “The History of the Tribe of Judah,” appearing in the March 1997 ”New Beginnings,” Leonard W. J. Bailey applies this distinction to the Edomites and true Jews.  He uses this prophecy to suggest that 2/3 of the so-called Jews are Edomites while 1/3 are correctly of Yisrael.  Is it possible that 2/3 of the present Jews are bad figs and tares while only 1/3 are good figs and wheat? 

 

While this proportion might seem large, many modern Jews do seem to be Khazars.  Arthur Koestler quoted Tel Aviv University Professor A. N. Poliak who noted that the Khazars constitute the large majority of world Jewry (“The Thirteenth Tribe,” p. 16). 

 

Could the non-Israelite figure be 2/3 worldwide? 

 

If the Edomite (and Kenite) bad fig and tare figure is this great, it will probably mean not only that many Ashkenazi Khazars are Edomites, but also some portion (perhaps small) of the rest of Jewry could be Edomites, as well, with roots probably going back to Second Temple days (like possibly the Roosevelt family, to be discussed later, and other very evil Sephardim). 

 

In any event, it is important to note that in the modern Israeli state, about half of the population is Sephardim (Jan 15, 2001, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 40). 

 

While the case might be made that some of the Sephardim are Amalekites, the better position has to be that they are largely true Jews (as will be commented upon in later chapters).  Thus, maybe more true Jews are in Israel, while Amalekite Jews are out in the Diaspora. 

 

 

Not True Jews At All, But Children of Satan 

 

Truly, there are people out in the world, posing as Jews and calling themselves Jews; whereas, in fact, they are not Jews at all.  They are both physically and spiritually descendants of Satan.  Therefore, they are correctly members of his group (Rev 2:9; 3:9). 

 

Even those Amalekite Jews who say that they are atheists or agnostics are, in fact, members of the same synagogue of Satan since they are physical children of the Devil who really work for and serve the Adversary, even unconsciously. 

 

In terms of the previously discussed prophecy of the wheat and tares, it must be pointed out that in addition to having a fulfillment among the Jews, there is every reason to believe that it could also have some application to the House of Yisrael generally. 

 

Tragically, the House of Yisrael has had the same problem in mixing in with non-Israelites (through racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation) that the House of Yehudah has had historically, as described at some length herein. 

 

Both peoples have had an enormous admixture of non-Israelite, mamzer, behemah and chaiyah aliens which have had an extraordinary adverse impact on their whole populations.  Yirmeyahu wrote about this mixture or mongrelization of both Houses (Jer 31:27).  Certainly, the parable of the wheat and tares focuses on both groups--the Houses of Yehudah and Yisrael.  

 

Obviously, this parable of the wheat and tares links to both YESHUA and Yechezkel’s remarks about the coming day of judgment when the sheep peoples are separated (segregated) from the goat peoples, as described earlier (Ezek 34:17; Matt 25:32-33).  One day, YHWH will separate the elect Israelites of both houses from the contamination of the other present seed lines. 

 

 

Judeans or Jews? 

 

One more interesting fact on this line of identity surfaces when one realizes that many of the English translators translate a Greek word, correctly meaning Judean(s), to Jew(s)--in the context that many of these evil people in the Jerusalem area were posing as Jews (as indicated in former commentary). 

 

The earlier mentioned Dr Ray Pritz, head of the Bible Society in Israel, writes that the book of John particularly uses the expression Judeans for certain religious leaders in Jerusalem (in his article on “Who Is A Jew in the Gospels,” in the Sep/Oct 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 6). 

 

Often, in Yohanan’s writings, the Greek Ioudaioi (nom. or voc., pl., m., adj., “The New Analytical Greek Lexicon,” p. 209) is used instead of its root Ioudaios. 

 

Pritz notes that sometimes the context is plain enough that the word involved has to be (geographical) Judeans as opposed to Jews--for example at John 11:7-8 when the disciples said that the Judeans tried to kill (stone) YESHUA.  It might be that such references were intended for use only as a geographical residency definition with no other implication, as can be ascertained from the context. 

 

Dr David H. Stern, in his “Jewish New Testament Commentary” (p. 157-161), takes the position that in almost all of the 197 uses of Ioudaioi in the four “Gospels” and up through Acts 8, the references were to Judeans and not to Jews, per se.  He suggests that when Second Temple Jews referred to Ioudaioi, they were distinguishing Judean Jews from Galileans and other Jews. 

 

Stern adds that in the religious sense, they used the words “people of Israel,” evidently in reference to religious Jews.  From Acts 9 forward, where the focus shifts from the land of Palestine to the Diaspora, the Ioudaioi term is used to distinguish between religious Jews, as opposed to Gentiles (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 160). 

 

 

The Judeans Were Essentially Amalekites 

 

Otherwise, it is also quite plausible that the New Testament writers used these words Judean/Judeans contextually, fully realizing that the people involved were actually Amalek-Edomites or Kenites (who were not racially or ethnically of the line of Yehudah at all, but were sons of Satan).  Because of their great wickedness and deceitfulness, it is very doubtful that they could even be called Jews from a religious perspective. 

 

This background of a geographical reference in particularly the book of John opens up much new understanding about the criticism and complaint which YESHUA lodged against the Jews (correctly the Judeans). 

 

In other words, it was the Judeans who were the evil, children of Satan and not the collective or generic Jews.  It was the Judeans who constantly opposed YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.  It was the Judeans (in Judea and the Jerusalem area) whom YESHUA condemned as the murderers of the prophets in Matthew 23 (as commented upon in prior chapters). 

 

These persons were not Yehudim (Jews) at all from a religious or racial definition.  In reality, they were Satanic Kenites and Amalekites, pretending to be scribes and Shammai/Haverim Pharisees (per Matt 23:33). 

 

And interestingly, it was the Judeans (correctly Amalekites) who the general Jewish people feared in John 7:13.  This is an important point to grasp.  The Jews in the Galilee were generally true Israelites of the Jewish Hillel religion (i.e. Kepa).  The same is true with many of the Jews in the Diaspora (i.e. Shaul). 

 

These religious Jews (in the Galilee and out in the Diaspora) were entirely different people (collectively and/or generally) from the Amalekite Judeans, mentioned so often in the NT. 

 

Tragically, English translations fail to make this distinction.  So the two peoples are confused and often mingled together in some eyes (as in the case of the misinformed Christian Identity movement).  

 

Like the earlier described people at Qumran, the true Jews in Second Temple days seem to have had little use for the generic Judeans (called Jews in the KJV) in the Jerusalem area (who were in authority in the form of the Amalekite Herodians, Shammai/Haverim Pharisees and Sadducees).  In fact, the true, religious Jews feared these Amalekite Judeans. 

 

Yes, the Essenes, Nazarenes and other true Jews did not approve of the Amalekites and Kenites of Judea/Jerusalem (however they chose to define themselves).   

 

 

The Same Today 

 

One can find the precise same situation in today’s world.  Many of the so-called Jews with an origin from Eastern Europe are, in fact, Khazars (who likely are of a Amalek-Edomite and/or Kenite lineage, as discussed previously).  The point of this is that they could never be properly called Jews racially.  Furthermore, it is correctly out of the question to try to label many of these Khazars as Jews religiously. 

 

Many of the modern Eastern European Jews (and their descendants) are assuredly professed atheists, agnostics, New Agers or something else, as will be discussed at length in later chapters.  Even the Amalekites who attempt to hold out some pretense of religion are often of the modern Reform persuasion, with all that that faith entails. 

 

It should be noted that the Reform believers in Judaism are a lot like most of liberal Churchianity.  They don’t believe in much of anything, nor do they practice much of anything in terms of obedience and faith.  Like so many Christians, their religion is an open ticket which allows them to do just about whatever they want to do with no concept of duty, standards or responsibilities. 

 

About all that one can say for Reform Jews (in the European tradition) is that they seem conscious of the benefits of going to synagogue on Yom Kippur and reciting the Kol Nidre declaration three times in Aramaic (the revocation of all personal vows and promises in advance for the coming year--in other words, when they tell a lie, it’s like making a promise with their fingers crossed, one which they are not bound to keep). 

 

The Kol Nidre response is more honest and may have some logic behind it in the Babylonian (Sephardic) tradition by covering the past year instead of the coming year (see Num 30:2-16; Deut 23:21-24). 

 

Religious Jews say that the context is clear that the revocation applies only to vows made unwittingly, rashly or unknowingly to The ELOHIM and not to other persons (“Messianic Jewish Manifesto,” p. 96).  But the Kol Nidre does not seem to read that way! 

 

Anytime one sees a so-called Jewish man with a clean shaven face (as so often with Reform Jews), it is quite manifest that he is not a religious Jew.  Religious Jews wear beards.  Similarly, those Jewish women who are out front with no head coverings and leading the way in the liberal, feminist movement are not religious women. 

 

 

True Versus False Jews 

 

Although “true” Jews are more apt to be religious and dedicated to the Torah and their faith, as discussed elsewhere herein, it is appropriate to recognize here the reality that while “true” Edomites might claim to be ethnic Jews, they are typically not religious at all, nor do they have any particular love, respect or support for historic Orthodox Judaism, which many disdain and secretly work against and oppose. 

 

One must ponder and wonder to what extent wicked Edomites would associate with Orthodox Jewish groups, but such an option must not be dismissed (as in the case of the alleged  fag, Senator Joseph Lieberman, discussed earlier).  There could be a few Edomites (like Lieberman) even in these better organizations. 

 

Regardless, and seemingly in all cases for Amalek-Edomites, their publicly professed or pretended religion is essentially not in conformity with the real world of their thinking and truth.  Importantly, the thing which characterize almost all Amalek-Edomites is that they are secretly or clandestinely of the Satanic religious persuasion, as was established in other comments in this study. 

 

Beyond being professed atheists and/or luke warm Reform Jews, as any student of truth can quickly determine, many Amalek-Edomites in the modern House of Yisrael nations are public Christians, as elaborated upon at length in other presentations herein.  Amalekites will pretend to be anything if its helps to fulfill their plans and purposes (to make money and destroy Yisrael). 

 

The point is that deceitful and crafty Amalek-Edomites will pretend to be of any religious faith of the host country where they live and draw their sustenance as parasites.  They are masters at deception.  So the student of truth must always be on guard in any dealings with them.  Yes, the believer should be as wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. 

 

 

Same Thing in Second Temple Days 

 

That’s why in Second Temple days, Amalek-Edomites could easily pretend to be Jews, Shammai Pharisees, Zealots or Hellenists.  They will always pretend to be people that they are not in order to deceive and mislead their host country as to their true purposes.  They are classic parasites drawing the life blood out of the host country where they have attached themselves. 

 

It is quite manifest that wicked, deceitful Edomites will identify with any religious faith, belief or presentation (if it will help them in their personal goals of greed, get and acquire and in their collective motivations to destroy Yisrael).  Clearly, they will readily adopt any religion or pretend to be of any faith if it will personally benefit them. 

 

Since Reform Judaism is popular in the Christian West, Edomites tend to identify with that faith and particularly so since it is so watered down and meaningless.  However, if Orthodox Judaism should become popular in the West, it is certain that more and more Edomites would associate with it.  In the state of Israel, Orthodox Judaism is well established and growing. 

 

Surely, this reality would induce some Edomites to link up with it in Israel in order to achieve personal benefits and particularly any benefits or rewards the state may offer to the more popular religions. 

 

Obviously, the popularity of Shammai Pharisaism among the upper crust Jews in Second Temple days would appeal to Edomites. 

 

 

Khazar Edomites 

 

As pointed out in the above comments, a vast number of Amalek-Edomites have abandoned any hypothetical links they may have had with historic Judaism over the years to become professed atheists, New Agers and/or liberal Christians--since true Judaism (especially Orthodox, Conservative and even many Messianic congregations) is a world apart from the genetic philosophy and mind-set of most wicked Edomites. 

 

In fact, it is a strange thing, but numbers of apparent Edomites stand ready to criticize and condemn Judaism (along with Christianity) as a religion at the drop of a hat.  They seem to have no appreciation at all for the Jewish religion (or any other religion for that matter, although they may use a particular religion for their own diabolical purposes, as just suggested). 

 

Actually, the history of the Khazar Edomites has always included deception as to their true religious motives, beliefs and practices.  It is not just something that has cropped up in modern times.  From the earliest Khazar linkage to Judaism, religious deception has been a crucial part of their philosophy. 

 

In the early years, following their “so-called” conversion to Judaism (c740 CE), “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 948) suggests that the central Jewish authorities (in Iraq) had little interest in the Khazars partly because of their imperfect adherence to Judaism which is illustrated in their retention of a number of pagan (shamanist) customs, dating back to their Turkic past. 

 

 

More on the Religious Attitudes 

 

One of the realities of identifying Jewish people in the Diaspora is the fact that the Khazars formed the primary gene pool of Ashkenazi Jews found in Europe (especially in Russia and Eastern Europe).  It is not to say that all Ashkenazi Jews are automatically of Amalekite Khazar stock (although various Jewish authorities so argue).  But certainly, much of European Jewry comes from this stock. 

 

Conversely, the Sephardi and Oriental Jews, found essentially in Spanish and Arabic lands, typically have genetic roots that go back to Second Temple days.  Clearly, the non-Ashkenazim are people with closer genetic ties to Yehudah.  With the better gene pools going back to Second Temple days, it has been the non-Ashkenazi Jews who have more correctly retained Jewish philosophy and thinking. 

 

Technically, the Sephardim are Jews who went to Spain and Portugal in First and Second Temple days and migrated from there to other lands.  Oriental Jews are generally thought to be those in Arabic lands and especially in the East.  However, in modern times, all of the non-Ashkenazi Jews have been generally lumped together as Sephardim (although this may not always be technically correct). 

 

Anyway, over the years, there have been developing differences between the Ashkenazim and their tragic ties to the diabolical and evil Khazars and with the more true Jews, as found in the Sephardim communities.  This phenomenon has created whole separate bodies of Jewish theological approaches to the Scriptures.  The result has been two separate sets of Orthodox Jews--one Ashkenazi and the other Sephardi. 

 

 

Cairo Genizah Fragments 

 

This clash or distinction manifested itself sharply in an article by Daniel Orenstein in the Mar 12, 2001, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 44-45) on “Fitting the Pieces Together,” which addressed the find of a large body of Jewish literature from a Cairo synagogue about 100 years ago. 

 

These documents are known as the Cairo Genizah fragments.  They are almost as valuable as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the NT in defining early Judaism.  A modern Jewish scholar and writer named Stefan C. Reif has written extensively about these magnificent documents--which were compiled some 1,000 years ago.  Orenstein’s article assessed these documents and the contributions of Reif. 

 

One of Reif’s important conclusions was that the Western/European “rabbis” suffered discrimination at the hands of their “oriental” colleagues.  Reif adds that the Oriental leaders even ridiculed and insulted the European “rabbis” for their lack of Arabic and their supposedly more “primitive approach to the study of the Bible and Jewish philosophy” (implying that the Oriental Jews might be the moderns).  

 

The point of these amazing findings from a Jewish library of one thousand years ago is that even then there was a continuing sharp distinction between the Oriental, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jewish movements.  While there may be different reasons for the distinction, it seems highly likely that the Khazar influence of evil was at work to adversely affect European Jewry. 

 

 

Christian and Muslim Amalekites? 

 

Previous commentary suggested some presence of Christian and Muslim Amalekites, in addition to the more obvious Jewish Amalekites. 

 

Manifestly, as will be described later herein, some Christian people (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Rockefellers and even some of the historic Bushes) are racial Amalekites.  The same is true with the Muslim Yasser Arafat and other Muslims (as noted elsewhere herein). 

 

Since the Amalekite racial/ethnic definition has been essentially linked to Jews over the centuries, some explanation must be made here as to how there can be Christian and Muslim Amalekites--who are actually blood brothers of the Amalekite Jews. 

 

Two methods have been followed by Satan over the ages to bring this reality into play.  In the first place, there just has been some conversions of so-called Amalekite Jews to Christianity or Islam. 

 

In the case of Palestine, the fall of Rome and the removal of Jewish power allowed a spiritual vacuum to surface which permitted evil Amalekites (who had been historically Jews) to become Muslims (once Islam was later established and gained power and influence in the global arena). 

 

Of course, these Amalekites greatly intermarried with the Arabs who either were in the area or immigrated into the area over the years.  So the modern Palestinian people are some mixture of Amalekites, Arabs, etc. 

 

Some modern Muslim leaders have simply been children of Amalekite Jews--like with Arafat and the leader of Black September.  While these persons have been raised as Muslims, they carry Amalekite genes from their Amalekite Jewish parents.  Since it takes three generations to breed the evil out of an Amalekite, they remain very evil people. 

 

The Sabbatians will be addressed in a later chapter.  As will be established, this motion was founded by Amalekite, Khazar, Ashkenazi Jews.  Yet, over the ages, many of these so-called Jews have converted to Islam or Christianity. 

 

 

More on the Problems

 

Of course, the intermarriage phenomenon has likewise persisted in Christianity.  Christians have never been much concerned over whom they marry. 

 

Consequently, many Christians marry Amalekite Jews.  Often, they raise their children as Christians (as this proves to be beneficial in the more dominant Christian society).  As will be proven in later commentary, this is the source of the Amalekite evil in Bill and Hillary Clinton, in John Kerry (whose real name is Kohn), in Wesley Clark, in Elvis Presley, in the Rockefellers, in the Roosevelts, in George W. Bush, and so forth. 

 

Finally, as noted above, some Amalekites have simply converted to Christianity over the ages.  People like former Defense Secretary William Cohen and French Catholic Cardinal Lustiger are perfect examples of Amalekite Jews who converted to Christianity. 

 

 

Usage of the Term 

 

Throughout this production, this writer uses the terms Amalekite and Amalek-Edomite.  Sometimes, herein, the message concerns the generic sense of the words, as applying to any and all Amalekites (as the context will sometimes indicate). 

 

However, the context of other usages is plain enough that the subject really involves just Amalekite Jews and not necessarily Amalekite Muslims or Amalekite Christians.  Actually, this is the usual sense of usage of the term Amalekite in this production. 

 

Thus, the general Amalekites (both Christian and Jew Amalekites) have ruled supreme over the US, certainly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  However, by around 1960, Christian Amalekites (like the Rockefellers) were gradually displaced in power; until today, the US is totally owned and controlled by Amalekite Jews (who are extremely clannish in their own right). 

 

So while this writer sometimes uses the term Amalekite for all of them, it more often is limited to simply mean Amalekite Jews which comprise the bulk of modern Amalekites. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

If there is a bottom line on this theme, it is that all Amalekites tie together racially by genetics.  And as outlined earlier, they can be known through their deeds, fruits and works. 

 

Though most Amalekites are today thought to be Jews, one must not lose sight of the fact that there are also Christian and Muslim Amalekites, just as evil as Jewish Amalekites. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 182--The Delimma of Defining Jews

 

 

A Classic Illustration of Contrast Between Good and Bad Jews 

 

The modern Moslem state of Azerbaijan was once in the Southern part of the old Soviet Union.  The Muslim majority there appears to be descendants of Keturah and possibly Esau in some fashion.  But while these Muslims dominate, in the context of 93% of the population, there are some 20,000 Jews in Baku. 

 

The “Jerusalem Post” of Feb 11, 2000, had a story by Elli Wohlgelernter on “Community at a crossroads,” which addressed this most fascinating Jewish community--or correctly two different Jewish communities (since there really are two distinctively different communities in the area). 

 

The story notes the presence of about 5,000 Ashkenazi European Jews who descent from immigrants who came into the area at the end of the 19th century.  It is a good bet that most (but perhaps not all) of these persons are Amalekite Khazars.  But there is another unique Jewish presence in Baku. 

 

Wohlgelernter notes that there are another 15,000 Jews--who are called Mountain Jews and who are different Jews (evidently Sephardim).  They descent from Jews who reportedly came to the area over 2,500 years ago (when they escaped the fall of Yehudah to the Babylonians in about 554 BCE).  Apparently, these Mountain Jews stayed and never went back to Palestine during Second Temple times. 

 

A previous chapter discussed the situation in the Diaspora.  As Emil Schurer reported, quoted earlier, there were vast numbers of Jews in the Diaspora whose roots seemingly came from people who escaped Nebuchadnezzar’s army.  These Diaspora Jews are not to be confused with Israelites from the House of Yisrael who escaped the Assyrian conquests some 140 years earlier. 

 

In the “Jerusalem Post” article, Wohlgelernter discussed the problem of trying to understand the number of Jews in Baku.  Like in other areas, it appears that numbers of the Ashkenazi Jews changed their names to local names upon coming into the area.  So it’s hard today to be sure of how many people live there of Jewish ancestry. 

 

Regardless, this situation in Baku demonstrates the real dilemma of trying to distinguish between real, true Israelite Jews, as opposed to Amalekite Khazar pretenders.  Manifestly, Baku offers a condition where the two communities stand side by side and both are considered to be of the Jewish religion.  Beyond the distinction of Ashkenazim versus Sephardim, an outsider could be confused. 

 

Manifestly, it is a situation like this at Baku which supports YESHUA’s instructions to just leave the wheat and tares alone and let them grow together.  Most people are far too incompetent or inadequate to ever begin to differentiate between good Jews and bad Jews (unless their deeds are public knowledge to allow the differentiation, as outlined in earlier comments heretofore). 

 

 

The Mizrahim in the Caucasus 

 

Beyond the Mountain Jews of Baku, there have been some similar groups of Jews in the Southern parts of the old Soviet Union in the Caucasus region (in a border area North of Azerbaijan and South of the old kingdom of Khazaria).  All of this territory of Southern Russia has been essentially occupied by Muslims (from Keturah/Esau) for over a thousand years.  Jews there have been in a minority. 

 

The “Jerusalem Post,” of Apr 28, 2000 (p. 15-18), had an article on “The Russo Eurasian Rift,” by Larry Derfner, which focused upon various groups of these Jews that have immigrated to Israel.  Since they are a little darker in color than the Ashkenazi European Jews, they have generally been discriminated against in Israel. 

 

Derfner calls these Mountain Jews “Mizrahim” and links them to similar Jewish communities in North Africa and the Middle East.  Apparently, they are largely the same as the Mountain Jews of Baku. 

 

By being physically located closer geographically to the Ashkenazi Khazars over the centuries, the Mizrahim logically may have picked up some Khazar genes and ideology over time (and especially, when the Khazars ruled over much of this area)--despite the fact that the Mizrahim isolated themselves from other peoples and have faced very little intermarriage or assimilation with outsiders. 

 

But these Mizrahim Jews must be distinguished from the Ashkenazi Khazars since they are a totally different people.  As Derfner outlined, any reference to Russian Jews in the modern state of Israel can cause some confusion because there are two distinct types--the better known Ashkenazim and the Mizrahim.  Thus, it is unfair to lump these Mountain Jews in with the evil Amalekite Khazars. 

 

While the Yiddish language (using Hebrew alphabetic characters) seems to be the language of the historic Amalekite Khazars, the Mizrahim speak a mixture of Farsi (Iranian), Turkish, Aramaic and Hebrew.  Even in Israel, the Mizrahim speak this historic language, still in their homes today.  Whereas the Khazars are more prone to be bankers and merchants, the Mizrahim are peasant farmers and craftsmen. 

 

According to “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 12, p. 478), these Mountain Jews of the Caucasus and Georgia arrived there at the time of Nebuchadnezzar (which would approximately date to the Babylonian exile of Jews from Palestine). 

 

As was true with the Baku Jews, the same is true with the Mizrahim Jews in terms of identification.  YHWH will ultimately separate the wheat from the tares since that distinction can be difficult for us presently.    

 

 

An Illustration on the Problem of Identification 

 

Hollywood has produced many extremely beautiful and enticing women actresses over the years.  Perhaps one of the most beautiful women of all was a woman originally named Hedwig Kiesler (now deceased).  She was born in Vienna, Austria of Jewish parents in about 1914.  As a young woman, she became an actress and married a German big shot. 

 

The German became fascinated with the Nazi movement and chose Adolf Schicklgruber over the beautiful Hedwig (they split and divorced).  In many ways, an honest observer would have to look at the lovely Hedwig, as opposed to Schicklgruber, and conclude that the husband was absolutely mad.  It would seem to be better to be with Hedwig than a million Schicklgrubers. 

 

So Hedwig came to Hollywood in the 1930s.  She really wasn’t much on acting ability.  But she was so incredibly beautiful and desirable that she was quickly propelled into the big leagues with two starring roles opposite Clark Gable (who was the king at MGM in the 1930s). 

 

In any assessment of Hedwig, one must always wonder and ponder whether a woman as utterly beautiful as she was could be an Amalekite.  With her European Jewish (and probable Ashkenazi) background, a person would have to be immediately suspicious.  She was so fantastically beautiful that the normal man would want to discount that possibility and hope that she was a true woman of Yehudah. 

 

However, some other facts about her should make an honest observer take stock and allow that indeed she could have had some Amalekite genes.  In later life, she was caught shoplifting on at least two or more times (per her obituary, in the Jan 20, 2000, “Spokesman-Review”). 

 

Certainly, she made a pile of money in Hollywood and it’s hard to fathom that she would need to steal anything.  Also, she was a woman of some brains.  In 1942, she obtained a patent on a wireless communications system that became today’s cell phone.  One of her favorite sayings was that “Any girl can be glamorous.  All she has to do is stand still and look stupid.” 

 

When her film career started in the early 1930s in Europe, she appeared in nude scenes in a romantic and erotic film about a young woman married to an older man (the film was the 1933 “Ecstasy”).  In the early 30s, it’s hard to imagine a nude woman in an erotic movie when the age (at that time) was still extremely prudish and opposed to such open vulgarity. 

 

Another fact about her life which has to also manufacture suspicions about her ancestry was the fact that upon coming to Hollywood, she changed her name from Hedwig Kiesler to Hedy Lamarr (a routine Edomite trick). 

 

It was Hedy Lamarr which Americans came to know.  Perhaps her most important role was as the enticing and evil Delilah, opposite Victor Mature, in the 1950 “Samson and Delilah.”  Was this film indicative of the real Hedwig Kiesler? 

 

 

Two More Similar Cases 

 

Beyond the situation with the beautiful Hedy Lamarr, there have been a couple of similar cases also involving extremely beautiful women who likewise could have had some heavy Amalekite genes.  Miss America of some years ago was a Jewish woman named Beth Myerson.  Later, she was to become the Cultural Affairs Commissioner for New York City and surely had some money, along with the position. 

 

In 1988, while on the New York City payroll, Bess was caught shoplifting $40 worth of sundries at a drugstore in Pennsylvania (Dec 28, 2001, “Forward,” p. 1).  There is no question about it, an event like this from a former Miss America and person with sufficient money to pay for her needs completely boggles the mind.  Of course, the answer probably is that poor Bess had more than a fair share of Amalekite genes. 

 

And now, in December 2001, another case has surfaced involving another beautiful woman who also appears to be an Amalekite Jewess.  This one concerns popular Hollywood actress Winona Ryder.   Like Hedy and Bess, surely Winona has plenty of money to pay for her basic needs.  She has been a big star for some time.  Her movie roles must have given her a good income. 

 

In any case, Winona got caught stealing some $4,700 worth of clothes and accessories from a Beverly Hills Saks Fifth Avenue store in mid December 2001 (Dec 28, 2001, “Forward,” p. 1). 

 

 

The DNA Question? 

 

On a matter inherent in the question of good and bad Jews, some factors associated with DNA research are cited from time to time throughout this publication. 

 

On this subject, and of possible relation to the question of the evil Khazar presence in at least European Jewry, the Oct 4, 2002, “The Week” (p. 18) had a news item that 20% of all Jews have a particular gene (ADH2*2) which is believed to be a “hangover gene” that allows these Jews to not be as adversely affected by alcohol as other people.  Almost all White Europeans lack this gene. 

 

The report in the “The Week” did not state where the sample came from that was involved in the study (as done by Deborah Hasin at Columbia University in New York).  As it was a US study, the sample probably was drawn from American Jews and not Jews in Palestine or elsewhere.  Therefore, one must wonder if this finding is a trait of the Khazars (bad Jews) or the real, genuine Jews (good Jews)? 

 

 

The Essence 

 

The point of this outline on Hedwig, Bess and Winona and the question of genetic research is that one must sometimes be awful careful about drawing conclusions about whether a certain person is an Amalekite or not. 

 

In the WWII days, thirty million American service men chose actress Betty Grable as their favorite pinup.  Question, could 30 million young American men be wrong?  Truly, Betty was a beautiful blonde who looked very Adamic (with each of her legs insured by Lloyds of London for $one million).  While her father was apparently a majority male, her mother was a Jewess named Lillian Rose Hofmann.  Too, Betty showed her credentials by marrying the apparent Amalekite band leader Harry James.

 

Over the years, Hollywood has produced an array of both Jewish actors and actresses.  Who could have ever guessed that along with Betty Grable, there were other Jews like Joan Crawford, Betty Davis, Dorothy Lamour, Judy Garland, Barbara Stanwyck, Goldie Hawn, Joan Blondell, Cyd Chrisse, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Paulette Goddard, Judy Holliday, Jill St John, Tina Louise, Eleanor Parker, and so it goes.

 

At a first glance, it would be easy to believe that all of the beautiful ladies cited were real, genuine, good Jews.  But then, maybe not.  After all, the key to identifying an Amalekite is the matter of deeds, works, actions and fruits.  Amalekites always produce deceit, evil, treachery, wretchedness and depravity.  It’s easy for a person to be confused, hoodwinked and deceived in dealing with Amalekites. 

 

However, when seeing great wickedness, one must be suspicious of an Amalekite presence.  That’s one of the issues with Slick Clinton that will be addressed in a later appendix.  He is one of the most evil people in America.  Thus, could he be an Amalekite (as allowed in the Prologue)?  That question will be answered in the just noted later appendix. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 183--The Two Seedlines

 

 

Genesis 3:15, Revisited 

 

Former chapters beforetime discussed at some length the incredible message of Genesis 3:15 and the fact that both the woman (Eve) and the Serpent Nachash produced seedlines which were to play and have played fantastic roles affecting history for the last 6,000 years. 

 

One of the important features of that text is the first believed Messianic prophecy and promise.  Many Christian scholars say that the seed of the woman that will ultimately bruise the head of the serpent is The Coming MESSIAH. 

 

Manifestly, The ANOINTED ONE will finally have the victory over the seedline of Satan (the Canaanites, Kenites, Edomites [especially the Amalekites], etc., as outlined in former comments before time). 

 

Moreover, a few Christians even suggest that a woman cannot produce seed in the generic sense (the seed of progeny must come from a male).  Yet, the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 might refer to Miryam and perhaps her production of the Seed of YESHUA.  But this is a complicated point to ascertain; and certainly, does not support the first, literal reading of the text. 

 

Thus, the better view is that this prophecy is far reaching to cover the lines of both the woman and Satan over the 6,000 years history of Adam, to include the fulfillment of the time when YESHUA does finally achieve victory over the children of Satan in the age end, as described elsewhere in this production. 

 

 

Enmity Between the Seedlines 

 

However, that far reaching text also has another feature which is most extraordinary.  YHWH had it recorded that He would put “enmity” (in the KJV) between Satan and the woman in the context of those two seedlines.  The meaning here must be that there would be enmity between the two lines thereafter. 

 

This backdrop necessitates a careful look at what this reference means.  Here, the word enmity comes from the Hebrew “eybah,” which “Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary” gives as a meaning--to hate, be hostile, be an enemy, hostility, enmity, hatred.  The point of this is that there would be hatred or variance between the two seedlines. 

 

And this has happened (although YHWH commands Yisrael to not hate the Amalekites, despite their great evil and wickedness).  Yet, some few Adamites have wanted to hate or be hostile to some Edomites--particularly in past ages (but not so much today). 

 

The worthless and stupid kings ruling over the Adam people have liked Amalekite money and have generated support for the Amalekites.  This factor has given the Amalekites some status in many countries to downplay and nullify the distrust and animosity toward the Amalekites, as exhibited by certain people, historically. 

 

But this insignificant and minor Adamic suspicion and hostility have been child’s play compared with the prevailing outright hatred which the Amalekites have borne for particularly Yisrael during the past 3,800 to 3,900 years.  This hatred is genetic and it is very deep, passionate and continuous. 

 

Even today, when Amalekites have taken over control and rule of the House of Yisrael nations, the Amalekite hatred for Yisrael is still as intense as it has ever been.  The prophetic application of Genesis 3:15 is so fantastic and so extraordinary that it is hard to deny its presence historically and today. 

 

 

A Jewish Dilemma 

 

Many true Jews practicing true Judaism have been extremely racially conscious.  While Edomites are quite anxious to promote racial amalgamation and miscegenation among White people in general and among persons of the House of Yisrael in particular, that’s not always the real world in the state of Israel where the Edomites have had some fear of the religious authorities. 

 

True Judaism teaches racial consciousness and indeed even racial separation and segregation.  Liberal Edomites might cry and whine about the need for White Anglo-Saxons to go to school and mix with Colored peoples in America.  But in the state of Israel, there is no mixing with Colored Arabs.  And usually, more darker Jews suffer discrimination as well. 

 

Is Judaism wrong because of its racialist attitudes?  Of course not.  Racial separatism and segregation are paramount doctrines of the Scriptures.  This thinking represents the will and position of The MOST HIGH.  It is only stupid and Scripturally illiterate Christians (primarily led by evil Edomites) who are so rebellious toward the very teachings of YHWH on race. 

 

 

Good Jews 

 

Manifestly, there are good Jews and bad Jews out in the world.  This writer could write all day long about some wonderful, marvelous Jews who truly are/were good people.  Many of them have been great in terms of world history and have done much, much good for truth and righteousness. 

 

This list would surely include Judas Maccabees, the great sage Hillel, Simon--the just, Gamaliel, the baptizer Yohanan, Joseph of Arimathea, the Apostle Shaul, Maimonides, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Alfred Edersheim, Eliezer Ben-Yahuda, David Flusser, Shmuel Safrai, Cyrus Gordon, David Stern, Barry Goldwater, Ovadia Yosef, the workers at the Jerusalem Temple Institute and literally thousands upon thousands of dedicated, sincere, religious, Jewish Orthodox teachers (the rav) over the ages. 

 

These were/are all good people because their deeds, works and fruits were/are good.  The thing that they held in common is that they were all born from Jewish ancestry.  While most of them practiced Judaism all of their lives (which includes the Nazarene Jews who followed YESHUA), many others were Christians--either converts or born Christians. 

 

The fact of their religion was totally irrelevant in their lives because they were basically good people.  Hence, it mattered not one yod whether they practiced Judaism, Christianity or whatever.  Their religion did not influence them appreciably in terms of being basically good people. 

 

The thing that sets them out, as evidently being good or workers for truth, is the probability or almost certainty that all of them were true, racial Israelites and that none of them were racial Amalekites.  If they were Amalekites, their works and deeds would have been evil and no one could attribute any goodness or truth to them (because Amalekites are totally evil). 

 

 

Jews on the Most Famous Jew of all History 

 

Beyond the good Jews, just cited, and some bad Jews in past ages (some of whom will be shortly identified below), there have been some more really good Jews in history.  Many of these intelligent, honest Jews have appreciated the reality of the best Jew of all.  The Apr-Jun 2002 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 32-34) quoted some honest and perceptive Jews on “The Most Famous Jew of All” --the first century CE YESHUA. 

 

The famous Albert Einstein suggested:  “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud.  I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” 

 

Rav Leo Baeck, religious leader of German Jewry added:  “Jesus is a genuine Jewish personality, all his struggles and works, his bearing and feeling, his speech and silence, bear the stamp of a Jewish style, the mark of Jewish idealism, of the best that was and is in Judaism.  He was a Jew among Jews.”

 

Yiddish novelist Sholem Asch wrote:  “I couldn’t help writing on Jesus.  Since I first met Him, he has held my mind and heart... I floundered a bit, at first; I was seeking that something for which so many of us search--that surety, that faith, that spiritual content in my living which would bring me peace and through which I might help bring some peace to others.  I found it in the Nazarene... Everything He ever said or did has value today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead... He became the Light of the world.  Why shouldn’t I, a Jew, be proud of it?” 

 

Joseph Klausner of Hebrew University reported:  “Jesus was a Jew and a Jew he remained till his last breath.  His one idea was to implant within his nation the idea of the coming of the Messiah and, by repentance and good works, hasten the ‘end...’  In all this, Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews... more Jewish than Hillel... From the standpoint of general humanity, he is, indeed, ‘a light to the Gentiles.’” 

 

Hyman Enelow, past president of the “Central Conference of American Rabbis,” wrote:  “Jesus has become the most popular, the most studied, the most influential figure in the religious history of mankind.   No sensible Jew can be indifferent to the fact that a Jew should have had such a tremendous part in the religious education and direction of the human race... Who can compute all that Jesus has meant to humanity?  The love he has inspired, the solace he has given, the good he has engendered, the hope and joy he has kindled--all that is unequaled in human history... The Jew cannot help glorying in what Jesus has meant to the world; nor can he help hoping that Jesus may yet serve as a bond between Jew and Christian, once his teaching is better known and the bane of misunderstanding at last is removed form his words and his ideal.” 

 

Zionist leader Stephen S. Wise said:  “Neither Christian protest nor Jewish lamentation can annul the fact that Jesus was a Jew, an Hebrew of the Hebrews.  Surely it is not wholly unfit that Jesus be reclaimed by those who have never unitedly nor organizedly denied him, though oft denied by his followers, that Jesus should not be so much appropriated by us as assigned to the place in Jewish life and Jewish history which is rightfully his own.  Jesus was not only a Jew but he was the Jew, the Jew of Jews... In that day when history shall be written in the light of truth, the people of Israel will be known not as Christ-killers, but Christ-bearers; not as God-slayers, but as the God-bringers to the world.” 

 

Scholar C. G. Montefiore concluded:  “We certainly do not get in the Hebrew Bible any teacher speaking of God as ‘Father’... like the Jesus of Matthew.  And this habitual and concentrated use rightly produces upon us an impression... we are moved by it to wish that we too could feel that doctrine, even as Jesus teaches that we ought to feel; and that we, too, could order our lives in its light and by its strength.” 

 

Orthodox Scholar Pinchas Lapide added:  “Jesus was utterly true to the Torah, as I myself hope to be.  I even suspect that Jesus was even more true to the Torah than I, an Orthodox Jew.”  

 

Benjamin Disraeli, Britain’s Prime Minister under Victoria, said:  “Perhaps, too, in this enlightened age, as his mind expands, and he takes a comprehensive view of this period of progress, the pupil of Moses may ask himself, whether all the princes of the house of David have done so much for the Jews as that prince who was crucified on Calvary.” 

 

Author Martin Buber said:  “It is a peculiar manifestation of our exile-psychology that we permitted, and even aided in, the deletion of New Testament Messianism, that meaningful offshoot of our spiritual history.  It was in a Jewish land that this spiritual revolution was kindled; and Jews were those who had spread it all over the land... We must overcome the superstitious fear which we harbor about the Messianic movement of Jews, and place the movement where it belongs, namely, in the spiritual history of Judaism.” 

 

The May 16, 2002, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 29) also quoted Buber as saying:  “I have found in Jesus my great brother.” 

 

 

Now Some Bad, So-Called or Alleged Jews 

 

Conversely, some of the most depraved and wicked people throughout history have also been born from alleged Jewish ancestry. 

 

This list of evil people includes Herod and his depraved family, the Herodians of Second Temple days, Kenite scribes, Amalekite Shammai Pharisees, Simon Magus, most or all of the genetic Khazars, the Roosevelt family, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, George W. Bush, Adam Weishaupt, Franz Boas, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Schicklgruber, Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz, Jacob Rubenstein (alias Jack Ruby), Jacob Javits, Chucky Schumer, Barney “the Fag” Frank and many others (as discussed herein). 

 

The thing about this list of bad Jews is that while most of them have pretended to be of the Jewish or Christian faith or atheists, their publicly professed faiths had absolutely no impact upon them and their lives at all.  Therefore, it hasn’t mattered one iota whether they were public Christians, Jews or atheists.  Their public religions have had assuredly no impression upon them physically, mentally, spiritually or however. 

 

In fact, the evidence is that all of the people on this list of bad Jews are sons of Satan, and are totally devoted to the Devil--both physically and spiritually.  Hence, if they practiced Judaism and converted to Christianity, nothing changed in their mentality and attributes.  If they became an atheist, again nothing changed.  When the Khazars converted from paganism to Judaism, nothing changed in their lives (as noted earlier). 

 

The reason for their incredible evil and wickedness is the persuasive evidence that none of them are true, racial Israelites.  Instead, it appears that all of the bad Jews are racial Amalekites.  Being Amalekites, their works, deeds, fruits and labors are totally evil (again, because Amalekites are totally evil).  With their racial heritage, they are dedicated, true sons of Satan. 

 

 

The Paradox 

 

There is no question about it whatsoever, the contrast between very good Jews and evil Amalekite Jews is totally mind boggling.  The good Jews have done so incredibly much for so-called humanity and to fulfill YHWH’s will.  Conversely, the Amalekite sons of Satan have brought immeasurable harm and hurt upon so-called humanity.  Truly, a paradox ensues.

 

Eliezer Ben-Yahuda was one of the great men of all history (far exceeding any Christian that can be named in Britain or the United States).  He has done as much or more to support truth and righteousness than anyone else imaginable in the last 1,930 years.  The same thing can be said for a number of extremely dedicated Jews who persevered and maintained the Hebrew Tanakh at all cost. 

 

Soon, some more good Jews will start work on the Third Temple.  This will be one of the most important events in 1,930 years.  The many Jews who have labored for ages to bring this event to fruition are some of the greatest people alive today in 2003. 

 

Manifestly, some extremely evil Amalekite sons of Satan (like Adolf Schicklgruber, Teddy Roosevelt/Rosenfeld, Franklin Roosevelt/Rosenfeld, Meyer Lansky, Adam Weishaupt, Franz Boas, Karl Marx, the Herods, the Rothschilds, the Bronfmans, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, some of the Bushes, and others) have brought enormous hurt, harm and injury upon so-called humanity.  Their deeds of evil seem unparalleled. 

 

But strangely enough, even some of the Amalekites have unconsciously served The MOST HIGH in extraordinary ways.  The probable Amalekite Theodor Herzl certainly fits into this category.  Here is a man who surely was a wicked, secular Jew--guilty of great evil.  Yet, he was one of the earliest of leaders of the wonderful Zionist movement.  He made a great contribution of good to history. 

 

 

But Change Has Been Coming 

 

Although some groups of people (like the Christian Identity movement) can never fathom it, there can be legitimate, genuine people of Israel in the overall Jewish population.  This seems to be the real world out there.  The Mountain Jews, cited in previous commentary, seem to be a classic proof of this reality. 

 

As has been and will be stressed throughout this study, the general Sephardic definition seems to be a presentation of people with true Israelite blood.  Admittedly, some Sephardim have been and can be Amalekites.  And of course, there is the reality that many Sephardim show evidence of miscegenation with the darker races (especially among many of the Oriental Jews). 

 

Because of this linkage of the Sephardim with true Israel, it also seems to be verity that historically many or most of the Ashkenazim have roots back to the Khazar Amalekites.  Thus, it seems to be reality that there have been vast numbers of Amalekites among the Ashkenazi definition. 

 

While this correlation has been true for centuries, there has been a change occurring in the Ashkenazi Amalekite population.  As mentioned elsewhere herein, many of the evil Amalekites have interbred and crossed with substantially better racial lines throughout America and Europe for the past one hundred years or so. 

 

Many modern Ashkenazi Jews are of extremely good blood lines from the fact that their ancestors have crossed with some Shemite European stock that carried heavy Adamic genes. 

 

 

Some Very Fair Jews 

 

This phenomenon is particularly true right now in the vein of some of the Russian Jews migrating to the state of Israel.  Many of these Russian Jews coming into Israel are very Shemite Adamic peoples from the years of miscegenation.  Even the famous Hittite noses (the mark of Amalekites for years) have been bred out of a lot of them. 

 

One must remember that it only takes three generations to breed the evil out of Edomites.  Some of these modern Ashkenazi Jews (coming out of Europe and supposedly Khazar Amalekites) are extremely fair and would never indicate the Edomite/Hittite characteristics. 

 

 

Some Unique Cases 

 

As mentioned elsewhere herein, Katherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, died in 2001.  Ms Graham was a daughter of an evident Amalekite father.  Her mother apparently was a beautiful Adamic woman.  Ms Graham carried many of her mother’s genes.  Accordingly, she simply never looked like an Amalekite at all.  She physically was very Adamic. 

 

One could also take the case of the Hollywood actor Kirk Douglas.  Assuredly, this man has many Shemite Adamic genes.  As his line has crossed back or does cross back with good Adamic stock, the Amalekite realties have been and are being bred out of this family.  Certainly, it is hard to envision many Amalekite genes in Kirk’s son Michael Douglas. 

 

The Paul Newman family is another one where the Amalekite genes would seemingly be a minority.  The previous chapter mentioned the beautiful Hedy Lamarr.  One has to pause and wonder how many Amalekite genes this woman could have had in her body.  There is next the case with actress Sharon Stone.  She is a Jewess who urges young girls to give their boy friends an oral sex job.  And the story goes on and on. 

 

As will be later commented upon, many of the Ashkenazi Jews coming to Israel from Europe come with very good Adamic stock.  Accordingly, many of them are becoming religious Jews (which is a marvelous step-up from just being atheistic Amalekites devoted to Satanic motivations or Adamite practitioners of historic sun worship). 

 

In fact, many of these European Jews to Israel are even accepting YESHUA.  People in the Christian Identity movement need to back off and accept the reality that the evil Amalekite genes in quantities of Jews have been bred out over the years. 

 

A significant number of Jews, particularly Sephardim and now even Ashkenazim, are definitely of good Shemite Adamic stock (and thus fully qualified to be members of YHWH’s congregation).  In fact, many of these same people today carry much true Israelite blood.  So the evils of Amalek have been bred out of a lot of them.  Hence, the best way to recognize a true Amalekite is by his deeds. 

 

 

Fooling So-Called Christians 

 

In the vein of the certainty that recognizing an evil Amalekite must ultimately be tied to works, there are a number of supposed Christians who show enormous prospects of being Amalekites.  On any list of people who demonstrate the works of evil and hate of the Amalekites, one must add the name of Christian Bill “Slick” Clinton. 

 

Though Clinton theoretically does not have obvious Jewish ties, it’s hard to fathom that any of the variously cited evil Amalekites have been or could ever be as morally corrupt and sorry as is Christian Bill.  He is the epitome of evil and a very definite son of Satan (perhaps through his Voodoo ties, to be later assessed).  He is a classic man of hypocrisy and indeed, subtle and diabolical hate. 

 

Now comes the kicker.  There is much evidence suggesting that Bill Clinton has some of the same, depraved, evil, Amalekite genes and ancestry as the bad Jews (which will be addressed in a future appendix herein).  The thing that makes Bill Clinton so incredibly evil is his works, deeds, actions and fruits.  Like The MESSIAH declared, men are known by their deeds (Matt 7:16-20; 12:33). 

 

While many persons will complain to no end about the obvious numbers of evil Amalekites (who are found in the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Defense League and other Amalekite hate groups, as noted earlier and to be further described in later chapters), there is also evidence suggesting that many similar Amalekites of hate are likewise found in the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is more popular among Christians. 

 

Thus, is it possible that SPLC head Morris Dees (who is not supposed to be Jewish) could be a genetic Amalekite worker of evil (as also seems true with Christian Bill Clinton, as just discussed)? 

 

Perhaps yes--since pictures of Dees from a side view show him to have a distinctive nose, which appears to closely resemble the famous hooked or curved Hittite nose (now found extensively among Ashkenazi Amalekites). 

 

 

Yes, Evil Christians 

 

The essence of the above presentation is that people need to pull their heads out of the sand on this theme.  Of course, there are evil Jews (with Amalekite ancestry) who are totally evil and dedicated sons of Satan. 

 

But by looking around, it is very easy to find so-called Christian goyim who are just as evil and dedicated sons of Satan (with certain clear and positive Amalekite genes) as the worst possible Jew.  Hypocrisy and evil is not limited to Jewish Amalekites! 

 

 

Some Good Quotes 

 

Irving Kristol, a wise Jew, correctly described American Christians as not wanting to persecute Jews.  But instead, they want to intermarry with Jews (Jun 14-20, 1999, “Washington Times,” p. 32).  Or more correctly, it might be that American Christians want to convert Amalekite Jews to Christianity and then intermarry with them (effectively polluting their own blood lines, in the case of marrying Amalekites). 

 

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), another wise Jew who was quoted above, said that “All is race; there is no other truth.  It is the key to history.  And every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed.” 

 

Automobile maker Henry Ford published a series of articles on the Jewish secular power in the Dearborn (MI) Independent of 1920.  Ford correctly understood the dilemma of race versus religion when he wrote that “Certainly, their (Jewish) religion has not given them world-control; instead, they have made their own sacrifices to keep it in violate against modernism.” 

 

The subject of race versus religion in terms of Jews and Judaism will be further explored in chapters to follow.  Suffice to say, Christianity simply has never understood Judaism or the Jews and the need to distinguish between race and religion.  There is a difference.