The most damaging aspect of the Biblical identity doctrine has been the element of whatever someone new to the subject first hears, reads or learns of any given identity, it is this knowledge that becomes firmly entrenched and invariably never shifted. As Proverbs 18:17 ESV says, the first case heard always has the advantage, whether right or wrong by virtue of being first.
‘The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.’
Any secondary information has an uphill battle to gain attention, let alone replace the previously incorrect knowledge if such is the case.
Yet, the accurate definition and explanation of the nations’ identities in the Bible in our modern age is crucial in understanding prophecy and by extension history. The credibility of the Bible has been at stake and those who have taught erroneous identities have been unwittingly holding the Eternal’s word to ransom. Now is the time for the truth to go out to those who truly seek wisdom and understanding – for the latter days are upon us. J H Allen understood the foundational basis of this knowledge in proving the veracity of the Bible, as written under inspiration by holy men and not the ramblings of eccentric or fanatical prophets.
‘We have been moved by the Holy Spirit to thus write concerning the earthly history of God’s chosen race, because so very little of it is known by the masses of our people, and yet it is the foundation upon which the entire structure of Christianity must rest.A knowledge of these earthly things not only renders the claims of Christianity impregnable, but they are also the basis upon which we must rest our faith for better things. For Jesus has said, “If I have told you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” The truth… as set forth in this book – that is, the realization of the promises made to ISRAEL… has… [brought] more skeptics to the light of his truth, than in all our previous ministry… [and]… We are… sure… that the faith of those who have made shipwreck could not have failed, if they had known these things.’
Dictionary.com:
‘Genetic evidence has undermined the idea of racial divisions of the human species and rendered race obsolete as a biological system of classification. Race therefore should no longer be considered as an objective category… There are times when it is still accurate to talk about race in society. Though race has lost its biological basis, the sociological consequences of historical racial categories persist. While the scientific foundation for race is now disputed, racial factors in sociological and historical contexts continue to be relevant. First recorded in 1490–1500; from Middle French race “group of people of common descent,” from Italian razza “kind, species”…’
We can say, Scottish people or the English nation rather than calling them what they are. The scientific community has imposed a politically correct use, or rather less use of the word race. It would make sense if the word was banned outright, yet it is still allowable for social or historical definitions, just not for the actual aspect it is defining – our biological inheritance. Whether we use other words such as ethnicity or ancestry, it does not make the physical, biological differences between peoples less obvious or disappear.
Following are synonyms: tribe, clan, family, stock, line, breed, blood, colour, culture, nation, people, offspring, progeny, seed, stock, strain, ethnicity. Some of these words could have a more inflammatory impact than the word race in my opinion. There is an agenda to attack the White race. The expression, Black lives matter, could be better expressed as ‘all lives matter.’ There is pressure to make white people uncomfortable and to do away with a concept of white people. It is blatant discrimination. Will black, brown, red and yellow people also come under fire?
The term race is unhelpful in relation to all humanity. I prefer mankind, or if you will, humankind; not the human race. We are a kind, as there are animal kinds. The races are like species within the kind. It is very hard to do away with genetic lines of people that make them common to each other and different to other racial lines. They are simply, different races.
With this in mind, Greg Doudna reflects the frustration and division this issue causes, in the questions he poses. The division, confusion and strength of emotion it arouses exist in part, because people do not appreciate the differences in people. This is heightened due to the fact people do not know who they are. Yet, I observe online, mammoth interest in tracing family ancestry and forming a sense of self-identity; particularly with the breakthrough with Haplogroups. People want to understand their own race or racial heritage. Ironically, Haplogroups have also contributed to people becoming even more scathing, condemning and incorrect in their summations.
Showdown at Big Sandy, Greg Doudna, 1989, 2006, pages 143-144 – Italics his:
‘…consider three questions. Think:
(1) Is there any biblical basis to such a notion of classification as a “white race” in history?
Are Italians part of the “white race”? Why? Are Russians? What about Assyrian Christian Iraqis who descend from the Assyrians of old [not correct – refer Chapter XIV Mizra & Chapter XX Asshur]? What about Jordanians? Are Arab tribes who claim descent from Ishmael? Are Spaniards part of the white race? Are Portuguese? Are Greeks? Are Poles? How about Muslim Shi’ite Azerbaijanis from the Caucasus? How about Armenians and Georgians and Chechens from the Caucasus area, otherwise known as Caucasians, or in Russia known negatively as blacks (because their skin is typically darker and more “ethnic” looking than that of Russians)? Are these Caucasians, who are Russia’s blacks, members of the “white race”? (Remember, historically Armenians and Georgians from the Caucasus started out defining the so-called Caucasian/white race). Are Hungarians part of “the white race”? Rumanians? Czechs? Gypsies (Roma)? Albanians? Serbs? How about the Persians of Iran, Iran’s largest ethnic group, who descend from the ancient Aryan Persians [not correct – refer Chapter XVII Lud]?’
A resounding Yes to nearly all. Yes, they are white. They do descend from Shem. In the main, the author has selected the descendants from Shem’s sons Lud, Elam in part, Asshur and Aram in part, as well as a handful from Arphaxad in Eastern Europe. The exception above is the true Arab who descends from Mizra and Ham. It was white peoples living in the Caucasus Mountain area that were classified as Caucasian; not the Armenians or Georgians specifically, who came to dwell later. The Iranian Persians are Lud and not the original Persians from Elam, as we have studied [refer Chapter XVIII, Elam].
‘(2) What is the actual basis for such a notion of a “white race” in history?’
Again, a resounding yes. Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroups support the Bible record – of a major three way split as evidenced by Noah’s sons and the sixteen lines of variation represented by Noah’s grandsons – and provide the scientific data, for all those with a stubborn, ‘prove it to me with scientific facts only, and not all this Bible nonsense.’ [refer Chapter I Noah]
The author’s use of the word notion three times is insightful as notion means: a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something, an opinion, view, or belief, a fanciful or foolish idea; whim. The reality of the peoples of the earth being all one blood and from one source, yet each possessing a variety of physical, mental and emotional characteristics, is so much more than a notion.
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
New Century Version
18 Do not fool yourselves. If you think you are wise in this world, you should become a fool so that you can become truly wise, 19 because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
It is written in the Scriptures, “He catches those who are wise in their own clever traps.” 20 It is also written in the Scriptures, “The Lord knows what wise people think. He knows their thoughts are just a puff of wind.”
‘ Same questions as above, repeated. How did some of these groups get to be members of “the white race.” while others did not? Who decided, and why? And finally,
(3) Has this notion done more good or harm?
I leave these questions open, to encourage reflection. ‘
The constant reader knows the supreme Creator in His wisdom separated the races for His purpose. The powers that be, have separated peoples according to their self-serving agenda and yes, created more harm than good.
The Creator planned the different races. The Creator must be racist? The Creator chose to work more closely with one family. The Creator must be playing favourites? If both are true… deal with it. Or, if both are not true, then why do people think they are wiser than the Creator?
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016, pages 224-225, emphasis his, bold mine:
‘… Benjamin Disraeli… [British] prime minister… was a Christianised Jew whose writings on race are so profound that they are today largely ignored by politically correct present-day historians. In his book Tancred… 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race – there is no other truth”… and in his book Endymion… he wrote: “No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race – there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood”…’
In academic and scientific fields of research whether private or public, the key for support is monetary funding, sponsorship and donations. Hence, in the main there is pressure to only research, publish findings and to teach that which follows a curriculum or agenda as per the ones holding the purse strings. Independent research is thus few or far between or most often non-existent.
‘Scientists [Anthropologists, ethnologists, geneticists, theologians, ministers] joining an organization have to follow their managers’ orders. Those managers will have been through the same school of indoctrination, and probably additional levels of it too. So they know what’s at stake [if] they try to investigate something that’s even slightly outside the mainstream. The penalties include:
loss of credibility
loss of funding
loss of tenure
ridicule from their peers
refusal by their peers to review their work
refusal by mainstream publications to review or publish their work
As a result, mainstream scientists refuse to have anything to do with these things, even if you provide them with irrefutable evidence. They don’t want to be associated with it. They see it as potentially career-damaging, and, as we’ve seen, they label it “pseudoscience” or “yet another stupid hoax” to emphasize their dismissal of it, usually without even looking at it. Another problem with scientific teaching [doctrinal belief] is that it follows a single, rigid pathway [creed]. Anything that isn’t on that pathway “can’t possibly be true.”’
The reason this work and its findings, has been collated together and why many could and would, not. Though in so doing, this writer has unintentionally and reluctantly, become a contrarian and an iconoclast.
‘Contrarian: a person who takes an opposing view, especially one who rejects the majority opinion.
Iconoclast: a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition. A breaker or destroyer of images, especially those set up for religious veneration.’
Lloyd Pye, pages 64-65 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘[There is] resistance to change within any status quo of the mainstream scientific [and scholarly] community. Truth has nothing to do with it; proof has even less to do with it than truth; and forget logic – logic is wasted on people with a sharp axe to grind.
What counts in such disputes is usually about 50 years, two generations, which have to retire before any controversial new reality will be fully accepted. First is the status quo crowd at the time of discovery [or proposal]. They reject it because to them it means three very bad things:
being wrong on a major issue;
having to rewrite a large portion of their purview; and
a ripple effect of doubt cast on everything else they have achieved or profess to know.
The next generation spawns two groups: those who cling to the old status quo, and those who accept the new reality. As a whole they never fully embrace it, but they produce enough converts to grant it limited acceptance, allowing it to be openly supported without committing career suicide.
The converts then teach their views to the next generation, and when they take over they see to it that what had been a “heresy” is accepted wisdom. It always requires time, but time and the truth invariably win out.
For as harsh as criticism is toward dissent from outside the scientific [or the historic research] establishment, dissent from within [identity adherents] is often worse.’
Why it may take decades for this work to be even remotely valued or viewed as credible. And, how long for any would be detractors or academic intelligentsia in desisting from impugning or assailing the material contained herein. It is of little consequence; they will not inherit the last word, but ultimately the truth and those precious souls that embrace it will. If this work impacts only a handful of people, or even just finds one – you; it will have been worth every hour of the thousands invested over the past thirty years.
1 Kings 19:18
Complete Jewish Bible
“… Still, I will spare seven thousand in Israel, every knee that hasn’t bent down before Ba’al…”
Luke 12:32
Common English Bible
“[and] little flock… your Father delights in giving you the kingdom.”
Treasured reader, you have in your hands a seminal work. Not because of its author or writing; rather for its profound revelation, submitted humbly and solemnly. When we read to the end of the book that is called the Holy Bible; right through to the last chapter and on the very final page, it is the aspirants of truth and the followers of Him who declares it, that win…
Revelation 22:14-15
New Century Version
“Blessed are those who wash their robes so that they will receive the right to eat the fruit from the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside the city are the evil people, those who… love lies and tell lies.
Dedicated with heartfelt encouragement and admiration to those faithful and true sojourners some three centuries hence; who will complete the good work of the way to the One who gives life eternal and whom will value what is yet concealed herein, for today’s generation will not; for they look, but do not see, read, but do not comprehend, listen, but do not hear.
… “Go, and say to this people:
“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”
Isaiah 6:9–10 ESV
“The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise – with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”
Abraham Lincoln [1809-1865]
“About the times of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.”
Isaac Newton [1643-1727]
“… To the righteous and the wise shall be given books of joy, of integrity, and of great wisdom. To them shall books be given, in which they shall believe… and all the righteous shall be rewarded, who from these shall acquire the knowledge of every upright path.”
We have learned the identities of half the sons of Jacob. So far, all have been located in the British and Irish Isles. The other half have migrated to the New World and beyond. It is recommended that Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin, and Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad are read prior to this chapter. We have also addressed the over defining of the sons of Jacob by researchers in concluding Joseph as all the English speaking peoples and then attributing the other tribes to nations in northwest Europe. Yet these nations are invariably the descendants of Abraham and Keturah, Lot or even Ishmael. Certain tribes were prophesied to not live in the north and west from Canaan as the British and Irish do today. Two were predicted to live in ‘the midst’ of the earth, one was to live in ‘the southwest’ and another was described as a ‘great southern land.’
Historically, identity adherents have been consistent in identifying Zebulun, Issachar’s younger brother and twin of Dinah as the Dutch of the Netherlands. The description of ports, ships and trade has led to this conclusion. We have addressed the Netherlands previously [refer Chapter XII Canaan, Chapter XXIII Aram and Chapter XXVII Abraham], as the Dutch descend from Abraham’s son Midian. Issachar has been linked to Switzerland due its landlocked position and watch making expertise, though the predominant identification for Issachar has been with Finland. As we learned in Chapter XXIV Arphaxad, Finland is not descended from Abraham or his two brothers, let lone Jacob; but rather possibly from Joktan, the brother of Peleg or more likely judging by Haplogroups, from Arphaxad’s other sons Anar and Ashcol. The Swiss are descended from Haran, Abraham’s brother [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon]. A key point we will find in identifying Issachar is that they are geographically next to Zebulun and therefore to be found together. A further pairing to add to those we have highlighted already with Judah and Benjamin; Simeon and Levi; Reuben and Gad. Thus, wherever one is located the other will be next to them. The Netherlands and Finland – likewise the Netherlands and Switzerland being separated – are very far apart and could not fulfil this requirement, geographically, genetically or linguistically. Identity expert Yair Davidy comments:
‘Finland was settled by peoples from the Israelite tribes of Gad [Ireland], Simeon [Wales], and especially Issachar. The earliest written histories of Finland repeat the tradition that they were descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Descendants of several Israelite tribes are to be found in Switzerland [Haran]. Issachar judging from tribal names and national characteristics prevails.’
Asher has been historically attributed principally with Belgium – because of the blessing of good food or pastries – and more recently as Scotland and Ireland. Naphtali has been attributed to Sweden – because of a love of freedom – as well as with Norway. Yair Davidy adds: ‘Norway was colonized by Naphtalite Huns and other groups of Naphtali.’ We will discover that Yair Davidy is correct initially and that these Naphtalites continued their migration in to Britain and Ireland and then beyond.
Location of the Tribes of Israel, Herman Hoeh, circa 1950 – capitalisation his, emphasis & bold mine:
‘Issachar is compared to a “large-boned ass,” Jacob continues: “For he saw a resting-place that it was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and he BOWED HIS SHOULDER TO BEAR, and became a SERVANT UNDER “ASSWORK.” (Genesis 49:14-15.) An ass is not the most intelligent of animals, but it is a willing worker. Such is Finland. Finland is the ONLY nation that has voluntarily taken the full responsibility of her debts. She is today paying off a huge indemnity to Russia. Her land is pleasant and good, not extraordinarily rich. According to Deuteronomy 33:19 she derives wealth from fishing and from hidden treasures of the sand gigantic peat bogs and the finest sand for glass-making. Issachar is not a colonizing people they dwell pastorally “in tents,” said Moses.’
Not the most gracious of comments, though the intent is correct. But, we are searching for a British and Irish descended, or Celtic-Saxon-Viking peoples that have shouldered a burden of some kind. They will also be living with Zebulon.
‘Zebulun settled in Holland (The Netherlands). Zebulun dwell at the “shore of the sea, and he shall be a shore for ships, and his flank shall be upon Zidon” a Gentile country. Moses said: “rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out.” She takes also treasures from the sea and the sand, Zebulun, then, is a colonizing people. She is not a pillaging people as Benjamin.’
Hoeh is accurate on the colonising aspect of Zebulon as well as drawing attention to their dwelling by Zidon. Recall, we spent time looking at the connection between the Kenites, the Hivites, the Midianite Dutch and their ancient Phoenician association with the city of Sidon. We have now located Zebulun and Issachar. By a strange twist of irony, the very identity ascribed to Zebulun by identity researchers is Holland and it is the Dutch and tribes of Zebulon and Issachar who are in fact entwined. Thus Zebulun comprises the British element, with Issachar of South Africa – and Issachar is also within Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. In the Bible, this territory that includes Canaanites, Midianites, Issachar and Zebulon is called Sidon [refer Chapter XII Canaan and Chapter XXIII Aram] and is fulfilled in modern day South Africa.
‘Asher “his bread shall be fat and he shall yield royal dainties” (Genesis 49:20).
This peculiar expression could have reference alone to Belgium and the kindred state Luxembourg. From Belgium have come the finest Flemish paintings, the royal tapestries which graced the halls of kings, fine cut diamonds, porcelain and Belgian lace. Belgium and Luxembourg are blessed above many [other sons] of Jacob “Blessed be Asher above sons; let him be the favoured of his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil” prosperity.
Iron and brass shall [be] thy bars; and as thy days, so shall they riches increase. Because of uranium, Belgium’s prosperity will continue to grow.’
Hoeh is correct to highlight Asher’s blessing being disproportionate to his brothers; though after Jospeh and Judah the birthright and sceptre recipients. The blessings are far more, than the nation of Belgium possesses. The people of Belgium being descended from Abraham’s grandsons Sheba and Dedan [refer Chapter XVII Abraham].
‘Nepthali represents Sweden “satisfied with favor, full with the blessings of the Lord.” She is compared to a prancing hind or deer and “giveth goodly words” (Genesis 49:21). From Sweden, with a well-balanced economy, come the Nobel prizes in token to great world accomplishments. Sweden, during two world wars and the recent trouble in Palestine, sent her emissaries to speak words of conciliation and peace.
The promise by Moses to possess “the sea and the south” is applicable both to ancient Nepthali and modern Sweden: notice the position of the Sea of Galilee and Baltic relative to the position of this tribe. (It may be of interest to note that the word translated as ‘west’ regarding Napthali is also defined as roaring sea, which is how Herman Hoeh explained it. Sweden is basically on the west border of the Baltic Sea).’
Both Hoeh and Nickels who comments in the parentheses, have missed the reference to the south and west is from Canaan’s perspective. Therefore, the Baltic is a far cry from fulfilling this clue. Naphtali is the nation of New Zealand and Asher is Australia.
Genesis 49:13-15
English Standard Version
13 “Zebulun shall dwell [H7931 – shakan: lodge] at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border[H3411 – yrekah: flank, quarters, recesses] shall be at [unto] Sidon.
Regarding Jacob’s prophecy, the New English Translations says that the verb ‘shakhan means “to settle,” but not necessarily as a permanent dwelling place. The tribal settlements by the sea would have been temporary and not the tribe’s territory.’ This is significant as since 1994 and the handing over of White control of South Africa’s political process to all South African’s, the British descended peoples of Zebulun in particular, have begun to migrate en mass to North America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.* We will shortly learn that this was predicted.
StatsSA, July 2012:
‘…provided a breakdown of demographics, including the estimated shifts among different racial population groups. Black South African estimates increased… the country’s coloured population grew… [and] The Asian/Indian population group… South Africa’s white population, however, declined by 17,311 people between 2020 and 2021… Notably, while South Africa’s white population still maintains its proportionate make-up of the overall population, at 7.8%, this has steadily declined over the years, from 7.9% in 2019, 8.1% in 2016, and 9.0% in 2011. Stats SA pointed to emigration as a key factor in this declining trend.’
South Africa has a population of 60,799,352 people, thus the White population equates to 4,742,349 people. Of which an approximate sixty/forty split divides the Afrikaan speakers from the English as a first language. The British descended people account for approximately 1,896,939 people, less those who have left South Africa and Zimbabwe. In the past, the total White population was nearer eight million people and closer to fifteen to twenty percent of the population.
British Red Ensign used in South Africa until 1928
The Cape of Good Hope was a welcome stop in any journey going past Africa, east or west. The cape originally was called the Cape of Storms by the Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias in the 1480s.
14 “Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds [saddle bags or two burdens].
15 He saw [H7200 – ra’ah: perceive, vision] that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant, so he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a [tributary] servant at forced [slave] labor.
The New English Translation comments – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The verb forms in this verse {“sees,” “will bend,” and “(will) become”} are preterite; they is used in a rhetorical manner, describing the future as if it had already transpired. The oracle shows that the tribe of Issachar will be willing to trade liberty for the material things of life. Issachar would work (become a slave laborer) for the Canaanites,a reversal of the oracle on Canaan[refer Chapter XI Ham].’
The descendants of Issachar have in the main, chosen to stay in the Republic of South Africa; with many having fled from Zimbabwe. The two burdens are the Black Canaanite peoples and the Afrikaans Hivites, descended from Midian and the Kenites [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham].
South African flag 1928 to 1994. The flags in the centre are the Union Jack, The Orange Free State
and the South African Republic flags. The main flag is based on the flag of the Netherlands,
before the orange was changed to red.
The connotation is that as Zebulun chose to live by the Sea, such as in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban; Issachar has chosen to dwell inland and landlocked, like most of the Dutch Afrikaans in Bloemfontein, Pretoria, Johannesburg, Zimbabwe and so forth.
Ezra 3:7
English Standard Version
So they gave money to the masons and the carpenters, and food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians [South Africa] and the Tyrians [Brazil] to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from Cyrus king of Persia.
Deuteronomy 33:18-19
English Standard Version
18 And of Zebulun he said, “Rejoice, Zebulun, in your going out* [H3318 – yatsa’: depart, pull out, spread], and Issachar, in your tents [at home].
19 Theyshall call peoples to their mountain [H2022 – har: hill country]; there they offer right [H6664 – tsedeq] sacrifices; for they draw [H3243 – yanaq: to suck] from the abundance [H8228 – shepha: resources] of the seas and the hidden [H2934 – taman: conceal, bury, secretly] treasures [H8226 – saphan: valuable, covered] of the sand.”
Flag of South Africa
Notice Issachar and Zebulun are included together in both verses and are not receiving separate prophecy’s; just different futures within the same oracle from Moses. Much of South Africa is high above sea level. Johannesburg is some 5,600 feet above sea level on a plateau, where the air is thinner than the coast and it apparently takes an egg one minute longer to boil. The Hebrew word for right, tsedeq means ‘righteousness’ but also ‘just, justice’ and a ‘righteous cause.’ Particularly linked with ‘government’ and a ‘vindication’ against ‘controversy’ and ‘victory’ or ‘deliverance’ to bring about an ‘ethically right’ result. This remarkably parallels the monumental political changes in South Africa since 1994. The reference could also be pointing to a Messianic fulfilment.
Matthew 4:13-16; Isaiah 9:1-2, 4.
English Standard Version
13 And leaving Nazareth [Christ] went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.
15 “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, 16 the people dwelling in [deep] darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling [and walking] in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned [shone].”
For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.
The Messiah is speaking of Himself as a light in revealing the gospel of the Kingdom of God and He is also speaking of His return. Thus, we learn that at the time of the Son of Man’s second coming, either the earth has spun on its axis and the magnetic north and south poles have reversed or the Lamb approaches earth from the south. For this is where Zebulun [33.9249 S] and Naphtali [36 50’54.4596 S] reside today at a similar latitude in the southern hemisphere of the globe. It is another coincidence that Midian is mentioned in verse four of chapter nine of Isaiah. Not only does Zebulun dwell with a branch of the Midianites in South Africa; New Zealand was discovered by the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman and named after the Dutch province of Zeeland, from Sea-land in 1642.
Southern Rhodesia flag 1924 to 1964
The prediction of mineral wealth from the soil is incredible in its fulfilment and not something that could be attributed to the Netherlands or Finland. Of the world’s top mineral producing countries, South Africa is number one and a mining powerhouse. South Africa’s geographic location is in a continent that is considered the richest in biodiversity and natural resources and it abounds with mineral reserves that are estimated to be worth over $2.5 trillion dollars, according to World Mining Statistics.
Flag of Rhodesia 1968 to 1979
This dominant African nation is the largest producer and exporter of important and high in demand minerals and gems in the world, such as platinum [nearly 50% of world production], diamonds of gem quality – as opposed to industrial quality of which Australia, Russia, Zaire and Botswana produce more – chrome, manganese, vanadium and vermiculite. It is the second largest producerof ilmenite, palladium, rutile and zirconium. It is also the world’s third largest coal exporter and fifth in the world for gold. South Africa is also a huge producer of iron ore. In 2012, it overtook India to become the world’s third-biggest iron ore supplier to China; the world’s largest consumer of iron ore.
‘The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in South African global shipments during 2021.
Gems, precious metals: US$35 billion
Ores, slag, ash: $18.6 billion
Vehicles: $10.7 billion
Mineral fuels including oil: $10.3 billion
Machinery including computers: $6.6 billion
Iron, steel: $6.3 billion
Fruits, nuts: $4.5 billion
Other chemical goods: $2.1 billion
Aluminum: $1.9 billion
Electrical machinery, equipment: $1.7 billion
Gems and precious metalswas the fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 75.3% from 2020 to 2021. In second place for improving export sales was iron and steel which rose 58.9%. South Africa’s shipments of mineral fuels including oil posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 49.51% year over year.’
Flag of Zimbabwe
Judges 5:14-15
English Standard Version
14… from Machir marched down the commanders, and from Zebulun those who bear [H4900 – mashak] the lieutenant’s staff [H7626 – shebet]; 15 the princes [chiefs, rulers] of Issachar came with Deborah, and Issachar faithful to Barak [from the tribe of Naphtali, Judges 4:6];into the valley they rushed at his heels…
When the majority of Israelite tribes – though not all as we have discovered earlier – aided the Judge Deborah in her war against Jabin the King of the Canaanites, both Zebulun and Issachar were enthusiastic in their support on the battlefield. The Hebrew word mashek means, ‘to draw’ as in a bow, ‘to march’, ‘to be tall.’ The Hebrew word shebet means, a ‘rod, staff, club, sceptre’ as in a ‘mark of authority’ and a ‘shaft of’ a ‘spear’ or ‘dart.’ Its wider application a ‘literally a stick for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling’ and ‘walking.’ The verse could be paraphrased as: ‘… from Zebulon, those with military authority and competency.’
Rhodesian Coat of Arms 1924 to 1981
Notice two symbols on the Rhodesian Coat of Arms. Firstly, the prominent Lion of England and Thistles of Scotland, showing the common familial tie with Judah and Benjamin. Even more significant is the pick axe, a tool used for digging and also representative of mining; while indicative of Issachar’s servitude.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘As a loyal British colony, Southern Rhodesia called up 5,500 young white men – a significant proportion of that age group in the country at the time – and sent them to fight for Britain on the Western front in France. During World war II, double that number served in the British forces, with eleven Rhodesian Air Force pilots given “ace” status…
Rhodesia’s superb fighting force was never defeated militarily [raids against Mozambique and Zambia guerrilla forces], but this helped little when the demographic war had been lost.’
We have discussed the significant pairing of Jacob’s sons. Some between blood brothers like Simeon and Levi and now Issachar and Zebulon and other pairings between half-brothers such as Judah, Benjamin, Reuben, Gad and also Asher and Naphtali. The final pairing are the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim. The odd one out is Dan.
2 Chronicles 30:18
English Standard Version
For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, “May the good Lord pardon everyone…”
2 Samuel 24:6-7
English Standard Version
Then they came to Gilead, and to Kadesh in the land of the Hittites; and they came to Dan, and from Danthey went around to Sidon and came to the fortress of Tyre and to all the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites…
1 Chronicles 12:38-40
English Standard Version
38 All these, men of war, arrayed in battle order, came to Hebron with a whole heart to make David king over all Israel. Likewise, all the rest of Israel were of a single mind to make David king. 39 And they were there with David for three days, eating and drinking, for their brothers had made preparation for them. 40 And also their relatives, from as far as Issachar and Zebulun [2 Chronicles 30:10] and Naphtali, came bringing food on donkeys and on camels and on mules and on oxen, abundant provisions of flour, cakes of figs, clusters of raisins, and wine and oil, oxen and sheep, for there was joy in Israel.
Coat of Arms of Zimbabwe
These verses confirm the closeness of Zebulon and Issachar as one people; albeit spread in part over two countries. The third passage highlights that in the past as it is today, that Zebulon and Issachar, with Naphtali once lived furthest north in Canaan and today – South Africa and New Zealand are – furthest south below the equator. An interesting verse regarding Issachar.
1 Chronicles 12:32
English Standard Version
32 Of Issachar, men who had understanding [H998 – biynah: ‘wisdom, knowledge’] of the times [H6256 – eth: ‘season, occasion’], to know [H3045 – yada: ‘percieve, understand’] what Israel ought to do [H6213 – asah: ‘offer, prepare’]…
Former South African Coat of Arms
Notice the more Dutch or Midianite looking Lion than an English one; though there is homage to seafaring and trade represented by the figure of Britannia and the anchor. The Hebrew word for understanding means, ‘discernment, perfectly.’ The word for know means, ‘to discriminate, distinguish’ ‘to make known, declare.’ The Hebrew word for ought means, ‘to attend to, put in order, to observe, celebrate, appoint, ordain’ and ‘institute.’ The Tribe of Issachar were given the responsibility and skills to perform the function of regulating the calendar, so that the dates for the Holy Days, Sabbaths and new Moons were observed correctly. This was a function that in time, the Levite priesthood took over responsibility.
Remarkably, in Cape Town there is the southern suburb of Observatory where the world renowned South African Astronomical Observatory [SAAO] is located and where the McClean Dome is situated. Another dome onsite houses the Victoria telescope, built in 1897. The Southern African Large Telescope [SALT] has the largest single optical telescope in the southern hemisphere based in Sunderland – some two hundred and fifty miles to the north – though they conduct research in astronomy and astrophysics at SAAO. In the library are two clocks. The first shows normal South African time and the second shows sidereal time – ‘based on the Earth’s rate of rotation measured relative to the fixed stars – something like the time kept by a sundial, so roughly four minutes slower than an average day.’
South Africa’s current Coat of Arms, including observations on its symbols
Genesis 30:17-20
English Standard Version
17 And God listened to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son [1742 BCE]. 18 Leah said, “God has given me my wages because I gave my servant [Zilpah] to my husband.” So she called his name Issachar [there is reward, there is recompense]. 19 And Leah conceived again, and she bore Jacob a sixth son [1740 BCE]. 20 Then Leah said, “God has endowed me with a good endowment; now my husband will honor me, because I have borne him six sons.” So she called his name Zebulun [honour, dwelling].
Genesis 46:13-15
English Standard Version
13 The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puvah, Yob [Job], and Shimron.
14 The sons of Zebulun: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. 15 These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, together with his daughter Dinah [Zebulun’s twin]…
Recall in Chapter XXIX Esau, how Job’s second wife was possibly a descendant of Dinah. And here we see that Job is a family name in Dinah’s brother’s line. The name is also listed in Genesis 10:29 as a son of Joktan. The Book of Jasher also refers to this Jobab of Genesis 10:29 and to the Job [Iob] listed here.
Book of Jasher 45:5-7:
5… Issachar went to the land of the east, and… took [for himself a wife from]… the daughters of Jobab the son of [Joktan], the son of Eber; and Jobab the son of Yoktan had two daughters… and the name of the younger was Aridah. 6… Issachar took Aridah, and… came to the land of Canaan, to their father’s house… 7 And Aridah bare unto Issachar Tola, Puvah, Job [Iob or Jashub Numbers 26:24, 1 Chronicles 7:1] and Shomron, four sons;
Job married an equivalent of an eastern European. The identity of Jobab is not clear, though an example of a Czech may not be far amiss* [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad]. Recall, Levi also married Aridah’s elder sister. The Book of Jubilees records Issachar’s wife’s name as Hezaqa.
Book of Jubilees 34:20-21
And after Joseph perished, the sons of Jacob took unto themselves wives… the name of Issachar’s wife, Hezaqa: and the name of Zabulon’s wife, Ni’iman… and the name of Naphtali’s wife, Rasu’u, of Mesopotamia… and the name of Asher’s wife, ‘Ijona…
The Book of Jasher continues regarding the wives of Naphtali, Asher and Zebulun.
Book of Jasher 45:9-10, 12-20
9… Naphtali went to Haran and took from thence [a daughter] of Amuram the son of Uz, the son of Nahor… 10… the name of the elder was Merimah… and Naphtali took Merimah… and brought [her] to the land of Canaan, to their father’s house. 11 And Merimah bare unto Naphtali Yachzeel, Guni, Jazer and Shalem, four sons…
12 And Asher went forth and took Adon the daughter of Aphlal, the son of Hadad, the son of Ishmael,for a wife, and he brought her to the land of Canaan.
13 And Adon the wife of Asher died in those days: she had no offspring; and it was after the death of Adon that Asher went to the other side of the river and took for a wife Hadurah the daughter of Abimael, the son of Eber, the son of Shem. 14 And the young woman was of a comely appearance, and a woman of sense, and she had been the wife of Malkiel the son of Elam, the son of Shem. 15 And Hadurah bare a daughter unto Malkiel, and he called her name Serach, and Malkiel died after this, and Hadurah went and remained in her father’s house. 16 And after the death of the wife [of] Asher he went and took Hadurah for a wife, and brought her to the land of Canaan, and Serach her daughter he also brought with them, and she was three years old, and the damsel was brought up in Jacob’s house. 17 And the damsel was of a comely appearance, and [Serach] went in the sanctified ways of the children of Jacob; she lacked nothing, and Yahweh gave her wisdom and understanding. 18 And Hadurah the wife of Asher conceived and bare unto him Yimnah, Yishvah, Yishvi and Beriah; four sons.
19 And Zebulun went to Midian, and took for a wife Merishah the daughter of Molad, the son of Abida, the son of Midian [the son of Abraham and Keturah], and brought her to the land of Canaan. 20 And Merushah bare unto Zebulun Sered, Elon and Yachleel; three sons.
Naphtali like his half brother Gad, married from the line of Nahor [Italian] as his father Jacob and his grandfather Isaac had done. Asher took a first wife from Ishmael [German] who died childless and Asher’s second wife Hadurah was descended from Eber, which could mean Peleg or Joktan* [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad]. Fascinatingly, the strong link between Zebulon and Midian – the British and Dutch South Africans – continues, with Zebulon taking his wife Merishah from the line of Abraham’s son Midian [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham].
Numbers 1:28-31, 41, 43
English Standard Version
28 Of the people of Issachar, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war: 29 those listed of the tribe of Issachar were 54,400.
31 those listed of the tribe of Zebulun were 57,400… 41 those listed of the tribe of Asher were 41,500… 43 those listed of the tribe of Naphtali were 53,400.
1 Chronicles 7:1-5
English Standard Version
The sons of Issachar: Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four. 2 The sons of Tola: Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their fathers’ houses, namely of Tola, mighty warriors of their generations, their number in the days of David being 22,600.
3 The son of Uzzi: Izrahiah. And the sons of Izrahiah: Michael, Obadiah, Joel, and Isshiah, all five of them were chief men. 4 And along with them, by their generations, according to their fathers’ houses, were units of the army for war, 36,000, for they had many wives and sons. 5 Their kinsmen belonging to all the clans of Issachar were in all 87,000 mighty warriors, enrolled by genealogy.
Strangely, further sons or grandsons for Zebulon are missing from the 1 Chronicles genealogical lists.
Genesis 30:7-13
English Standard Version
7 Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son [1742 BCE]. 8 Then Rachel said, “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed.” So she called his name Naphtali[wrestlings of God, my struggle, cunning].
9 When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife… 12 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son [1744 BCE]. 13 And Leah said, “Happy am I! For women have called me happy.” So she called his name Asher[happy, happy one].
Genesis 46:17, 24
English Standard Version
17 The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, with Serah their sister. And the sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel… [1 Chronicles 1:31-32: who fathered Birzaith. Heber fathered Japhlet, Shomer, Hotham, and their sister Shua…]
24 The sons of Naphtali: Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem.
Australian Flag
In Asher’s family there is the family name of Heber [Eber, Hebrew, Iberia, Hiberi, Hibernia, Hebrides] and Naphtali has a son, Jahzeel similar to Zebulon’s son Jahleel.
Genesis 49:20-21
English Standard Version
20 “Asher’s food shall be rich [H8082 – shaman: plenteous, lusty, robust], and he shall yield [be granted or permitted] royal [H4428 – melek: (fit for a) king] delicacies.
21 “Naphtali is a doe [deer] let loose [H7961 – shalach: let free], that bears [granted, given] beautiful [beauty, goodness] fawns [(offspring) or confusingly, ‘he gives beautiful words’].
Australian Coat of Arms
Notice the strong link with the tribe of Judah in the symbols of Crowns, Lions and the St Georges Cross. The Good News Translation for Asher says: ‘Asher’s land will produce rich food. He will provide food fit for a king.’ Australia is one of the bread basket nations of the world, with the market opening up to its neighbours in East Asia infinitely. A more helpful paraphrase of verse 21: ‘Naphtali is a female deer running free, that has been bestowed beauty and goodness.’ This verse explains itself for anyone who has been able to visit New Zealand.
Deuteronomy 33:23-29
English Standard Version
23 And of Naphtali he said, “O Naphtali, sated with favor [H7522 – ratsown: pleasure, delight], and full of the blessing [prosperity] of the Lord, possess [inherit] thelakeand the south [H3220 – yam: west (47 times KJV), south (1)].”
24 And of Asher he said, “Most blessed of sons [or blessed with children] be Asher; let him be the favorite [acceptable, a pleasure, delight] of his brothers, and let him dip [plunge] his foot in oil.
25 Your bars shall be iron and bronze, and as your days, so shall your strength be.
It is clear from these verses that Asher considerably and Naphtali in large part, have been granted special favour above their brothers – aside from Joseph and Judah. Both Australia and New Zealand regularly make the top ten lists for best or safest countries to live in. The CEV says: ‘The Lord is pleased with you, people of Naphtali. He will bless you and give you the land to the west and the south.’ The nation furthest from the original land of Canaan – as well as from the British and Irish Isles – in a southwest direction is, New Zealand. It is also separated by vast oceans and sea. Even taking its name from the word Sea-land inherited from the Netherlands and Denmark before that.
The original Hebrew says that Asher would be blessed with children, a favourite amongst his brothers and possess immeasurable wealth beneath his feet. After North America and England, Australia has the highest population of the sons of Jacob with 26,077,567 people. It is a very popular destination to visit or emigrate and has a high level of wealth relative to its population. Though Belgium is a blessed nation, it does not match the oracle as given by Moses, like Australia does. Australia has the highest average wealth in the world, passing Switzerland in 2018.
Australia is the 13th largest economy in the world with a GDP of $1.40 trillion in 2019.Australia combines an open domestic economy, with an extensive network of free trade arrangements with trading partners principally around the Asia-Pacific Rim. Australia ranks at number ten in the nations with the most natural resources. Australia, which is similar in size to the continental United States, is known for its large reserves of coal, timber, copper, iron ore, nickel, oil shale and rare earth metals. Australia is also one of the world leaders in uranium and gold mining. The country has the largest gold reserves in the world, supplying over fourteen percent of the world’s gold demand and forty-six percent of the world’s uranium demand; while being the top producer of opal and aluminum.
If that wasn’t enough, it is number three in the world for mineral producing nations. It is interesting that Australia is called the ‘lucky country’ especially as this if the meaning of his blood brother’s name, Gad. The link with Ireland doesn’t stop there. Some thirty percent of Australians claim Irish descent and they share a love of the unique yet similar sports of either Gaelic football and Australia or Aussie Rules football.
The nation continent of Australia has approximately $737 billion worth of seaborne ore reserves alone. It also houses massive reserves of important minerals, such as bauxite – twenty-three percent of the world’s total reserves – and nickel, with some thirty-five percent of the world’s total reserves. It may not exceed the scale of South Africa and Russia in terms of mineral reserves, but Australia is more popular among international mining investors due to its government’s credibility and track record of performance in protecting the mining industry. As Russia [2] and the Ukraine [4] are top five mineral powers, the counter balance to the mighty Assyrians and Orphir of Joktan, is Sidon-Midian-Zebulon, South Africa and Asher, Australia.
A coincidence is that Asher of Jacob and Asshur of Shem have similar names and both possess enormous countries of mineral wealth, with allies also possessing huge reserves.
‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Australian global shipments during 2021.
Ores, slag, ash: US$132.1 billion
Mineral fuels including oil: $91 billion
Gems, precious metals: $20.7 billion
Meat: $11.6 billion
Cereals: $10.1 billion
Inorganic chemicals: $6.4 billion
Machinery including computers: $4.8 billion
Aluminum: $4.7 billion
Copper: $3.9 billion
Electrical machinery, equipment: $3.7 billion
Cerealswas the fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 164.1% since 2020. In second place for improving export sales was aluminum which was up by 52.6%. Australia’s shipments of ores, slag and ash posted the third-fastest gain in value up by 45.6% year over year. The most modest advance among Australia’s top 10 export categories was for gems and precious metals thanks to its 5.6% gain.’
Judges 5:17-18
English Standard Version
17 … Asher sat still at the coast of the sea, staying by his landings. 18 Zebulun is a people who risked their lives to the death; Naphtali, too,on the heights of the field.
Judges 4:10
English Standard Version
And Barak called out Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. And 10,000 men went up at his heels, and Deborah went up with him.
We learn that Asher like Reuben, Dan, Gad, Simeon, Levi and Judah was reticent to get involved in a war that didn’t directly impinge on their territory. Meanwhile, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Zebulon, Issachar and Naphtali took part. With Zebulon, Naphtali was the most courageous.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘ANZAC [Australia and New Zealand Army Corps] Day is still celebrated on April 25th each year to honour New Zealand’s military dead. An astonishing 103,000 New Zealander’s served in the armed forces during the First World War – out of a total population of one million. Of this number, 16,697 were killed. This meant that 1.6 percent of all New Zealanders died in the conflict… the highest death [rate] per capita of any country in the war. An even greater number of New Zealanders served in World war II. Some 140,000 soldiers fought overseas in Europe, North Africa, and in the Pacific… 11,928 were killed, or just under 1 percent of the total population… in 1939.’
It can be no small coincidence that the two greatest Rugby Union teams in the world consistently for over one hundred years with three Rugby world cups each out of a possible nine are the New Zealand All Blacks and the South African Springboks. For what is rugby, but a battle without the weapons or result of death. Blood and injury though are par for the course in the most brutal sport in the world outside of cage fighting, boxing and American Football. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, Hitler’s commander in North Africa during World War II insightfully said about the Australians and New Zealanders after facing their infantry divisions [ANZACs]: “If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it.”
Judges 7:23
English Standard Version
And the men of Israel were called out from Naphtali and from Asher and from all Manasseh, and they pursued after Midian.
When the Judge Gideon fought the Midianites, his main allies apart from his own tribe of Manasseh, were Naphtali, with their neighbour Asher, in the far north of Canaan.
Joshua 19:24-29
English Standard Version
24 The fifth lot came out for the tribe of the people of Asher according to their clans.
25 Their territory included Helkath, Hali, Beten, Achshaph, 26 Allammelech, Amad, and Mishal. On the west it touches Carmel and Shihor-libnath, 27 then it turns eastward, it goes to Beth-dagon, and touches Zebulun and the Valley of Iphtahel northward to Beth-emek and Neiel. Then it continues in the north to Cabul, 28 Ebron, Rehob, Hammon, Kanah, as far as Sidon the Great. 29 Then the boundary turns to Ramah, reaching to the fortified city of Tyre…
The inheritance of Asher in Canaan is described in the Book of Joshua. It is interesting, as it a condensed description of their current neighbours today. Zebulun and Sidon equating to South Africa in the African continent to their west, separated by a vast expanse of sea and similarly to the west; Tyre equates to Brazil in the South American continent [refer Chapter XXIII Aram]. A curious prophetic verse is in the Book of Isaiah, which describes where certain tribes of Israel were dispersed.
Isaiah 49:12
Christian Standard Bible
See, these will come from far away, from the north and from the west, and from the land [H776 – ‘erets: land without return (under) [the] world] of Sinim.
We know the north and west relates to the British and Irish Isles. The counterpoint to that is Sinim, which is inferred as the opposite direction of, southwards [and far away]. Some researchers propose that Sin-im relates to China [as the Arabs called the Chineses Sin(a)] or to Canaan’s son Sin; but both these options are an incorrect interpretation. The Jerome translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible for Isaiah 49:12 says: ‘ecce isti de longe venient et ecce illi ab aquilone et mari et isti de terra australi.’ The key phrase being: isti de terra australi.
By a strange turn, the word Australia is derived from the Latin word australis, meaning ‘southern.’ Australia has been colloquially referred to as Oz, slang for Aus’ since the early twentieth century. It is the ‘land down under’ and literally the great ‘southern land.’ Australia has been called ‘the Oldest Continent’, ‘the Last of Lands’ and ‘the Last Frontier.’ Australia is the last of lands, in the sense that it was the last continent, apart from Antarctica to be explored by Europeans.
The term Terra Australis Incognita, or an ‘unknown land of the South’ dates back to Roman times. After European discovery, names included Terra Australis. An online quote:
‘The earliest recorded use of the word Australia in English was in 1625 in “A note of Australia del Espíritu Santo, written by Sir Richard Hakluyt”, published by Samuel Purchas in Hakluytus Posthumus, a corruption of the original Spanish name “Tierra Austral del Espíritu Santo” (Southern Land of the Holy Spirit) for an island in Vanuatu. The Dutch adjectival form Australische was used in a Dutch book in Batavia (Jakarta) in 1638, to refer to the newly discovered lands to the south.
Australia was later used in a 1693 translation of Les Aventures de Jacques Sadeur dans la Découverte et le Voyage de la Terre Australe, a 1676 French novel by Gabriel de Foigny, under the pen-name Jacques Sadeur. Referring to the entire South Pacific region, Alexander Dalrymple used it in An Historical Collection of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean in 1771.’
The name Sinim [סינים siyniym] occurs nowhere else in the Bible and it is evident that it is a remote country; remarkable in that it is the only such land specified by name in the Bible. The Chaldee also interprets it as Jerome has done: of the south. Whereas the Syriac has not translated it but retained the name Sinim… In Origin, Yair Davidiy adds:
‘The Egyptians referred to the southernmost known area of land as “sin-wur”. This corresponds to the Land of “Sinim” meaning Australia. There are reports of Egyptian and Phoenician remains being found in Australia.’
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel… Found! Steven M Collins, 1992 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Another large mass of people, the Yuechi, was being pushed out of inner Asia toward Scythia and Parthia. Early Chinese chronicles record that the “Ephthalites” were one of the tribes of the Yuechi. The Ephthalites were also called “White Huns” because they were “fairskinned” (indicating a Semitic origin).
Other names for the Ephthalites include the “Hephthalites” or “Nephthalites,” although the Encyclopaedia Britannica adds that “the initial N… is believed to be a clerical error.” It should be easy for anyone with a knowledge of biblical history to identify this tribe as the Israelite tribe of Naphtali! The consonants of Ephthali (or Nephthali) precisely match Naphtali, one of the ten tribes of Israel.’
New Zealand Coat of Arms
‘It is interesting that the Encyclopaedia Britannica observed that the ancient historians who recorded that this tribe’s name began with an “N” are “believed… (to have made) a clerical error.” No evidence is offered to support a claim that it was a clerical error, but it is “believed” to be one. Why? The reader must realize that “establishment” histories have a strong bias against “finding” any of the “lost” ten tribes of Israel (doing so would draw interest toward the Bible). While many Israelite tribal names can be found in Asia, this similarity between the “Nephthalites” and an Israelite tribe (the Naphtalites) is glaringly obvious.
The presence of a tribe in Asia bearing a Hebrew name unchanged from biblical times is an academic “hot potato”! A “belief” that the “N” is an ancient “clerical error” helps to obscure the Israelite nature of this tribe. Indeed, if establishment histories were to examine Scythian or Parthian history in much depth at all, their identity as the ten tribes of Israel would be impossible to miss. Perhaps that is why their history (prominently cited by Greek and Roman historians) is mostly ignored in the modern world.
The fact that the Ephthalites were “fairskinned” further verifies their identification as Israelites (since the Israelites were of the Semitic, or “white” race). The fact that the Ephthalites were called “White Huns” indicates that while they came out of Asia, they were differentiated from the rest of the Huns, who were not fairskinned or white. Indeed, the Encyclopaedia Britannica itself refers to the Sakas (or Sacae Scythians), the YueChi and the Ephthalites as being related “Indo-Scythian” tribes.
In chapter eight, it was documented that the Nephthalites were undoubtedly the Israelite tribe of Naphtali which went into Asia in 741 B.C. as captives of the Assyrians.Since the tribe of Naphtali did not go into captivity in a piecemeal fashion, but rather in one complete mass (II Kings 15:29), they retained their original Israelite tribal name longer than the other tribes.
The Ephthalites waged war on the Sassanian Persians (which was natural since the Ephthalites were kinsmen of the Parthians and Scythians). As late as 484 A.D., the Ephthalites defeated the Persians and extended their control into India, establishing a capital as Sakala (which bore the name of Isaac).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica cites the Greek writer, Procopius, as stating the Ephthalite Huns were “far more civilized than the Huns of Attila.” Ephthalite power in Asia was not broken until 557 A.D. when they were beaten by the Persians and Turks… the Ephthalites, as a whole, simply disappeared from Asia. Where did they go? They were likely pushed toward Europe, arriving in a later migration. This would make the tribe of Naphtali one of the first to go into Asia and the last to leave it.’
Origin, Yair Davidiy – emphasis & bold mine:
‘In the very far east of Scythia in what is now eastern Siberia and western China a good portion of the Naphtalite horde had remained. In the 450-500 CE period the Naphtalites began to move west eventually entering Scandinavia in the 500’s and 600’s CE. The Naphtalites themselves settled mainly in Norway.’
As we have discussed in the previous two chapters, the waves of invaders into Britain and Ireland match the sons of Jacob and their tribal groupings. Though ultimately the twelve sons became fourteen tribal splits, they were to form ten nations in the modern world. The tribal divisions being Reuben, Gad, Benjamin, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Ephraim, the half tribe of West Manasseh and the half tribe of East Manasseh.
These fourteen tribes became the ten English speaking nations of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. Levi was scattered which leaves thirteen. Issachar and Zebulun are together as one, which leaves twelve. Ephraim and the half tribe of West Manasseh are together as one and are called either Ephraim or Joseph in the Bible, which leaves eleven… and Dan the enigma, remains unidentified until later, which leaves ten.
The waves of invaders also follows the pattern of ten, rather than fourteen arrivals. They are the Britons, the Cruithni, the Fir Bolg, the Tuatha de Dannan, the Hiberi or Goidels, the Jutes, the Frisians, the Angles, the Norsemen and the Danes. Sandwiched in between those are the Royal Milesians who were a branch of Judah from Zarah and the Normans who were predominantly a branch of Judah from Pharez.
The ancient Britons were the Cymru and are the Simeon Welsh; the Cruithni from Benjamin were Picts and became Scottish; the Fir Bolg became the Ulaid and Reuben Northern Ireland; the Dannan are simply the tribe of Dan; the Goidels or Gaedhals of Gad became Gaels and are now the Irish; the Jutes from true tribe of Judah are the English; the Frisians from Zebulun and Issachar became the British South Africans and Rhodesians; the Angles – to be yet revealed – became known as Americans and Canadians; the Norsemen or Norwegians from Naphtali, became New Zealanders [notice all the Ns]; and the Danish Vikings became Australians from Asher.
Just as the Norwegians, Danes and Normans were known as Vikings and the earlier tribes to arrive were called Celts, so too were the tribes of Jutes, Angles and Frisians collectively known as Saxons. The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is made up and is somewhat misleading as it implies two separate peoples, when in fact the Angles were Saxons. It is interesting to note that the first letter of many of Jacob’s son’s names have survived either to the present day or at least until their arrival in Ireland or Briton. Especially noticeable, with the tribe of Naphtali.
Both Collins and Davidy’s comments are informative regarding Naphtali who had remarkably, kept his identity for some fifteen hundred years. An important point to understand is that as peoples migrated they pushed against those in front of them and in turn were pressed from behind. The Naphtalite Huns made their way to Scandinavia as had many of the tribes before them. They with the Danes and the Normans were the last to vacate Scandinavia. The Normans had dwelt in Brittany and Normandy for two centuries before they invaded Kent and Sussex. Meanwhile, the Danish Vikings had the numbers to establish a capital at York and to inject their royal line into the British Saxon kings. The Norwegian Vikings raided and then settled the north of England, Scotland and Ireland. Though there is some overlap between the two Viking peoples.
A handful of interesting similarities are that the Vikings were expert sailors and navigators who had designed practical yet fast open going vessels, known as longboats. This interest and ability is mirrored today by the Australians and New Zealanders in the love of sailing and yachting. The biggest city in New Zealand, Auckland is known as the City of Sails, as there are more yachts per head of population than anywhere else in the world. Both Australia and New Zealand have shook up the most famous Yachting regatta in the world, the America’s Cup in recent decades, with New Zealand leading the innovation within the competition.
The Vikings were known for living near water outlets and on the coast. Today Australians and New Zealanders live principally within striking distance of a beach and have built their largest cities all on the coasts. An interesting correlation is just as the Vikings either established or grew the five main coastal cities of Ireland: Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Limerick and Cork; they then went onto Australia and built the famous and thriving five cities of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.
Though Norwegian and Danes today claim to be Vikings, they in reality as descendants of Abraham and Keturah have inherited the name. The true vikings have either been assimilated within Britain and Ireland as the the Norman aristocracy, or ventured on to Australia and New Zealand, the Danes and Norsemen now Aussies and Kiwis.
The United Tribes of New Zealand flag from 1834 to 1840
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel… Found! Steven M Collins, 1992 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The Phoenicians also mined tin and other ores in Britain, and exported them to other nations in the Mideast. George Rawlinson states:
“The Phoenicians had one more colony towards the west… Phoenician ships from Gadeira… crossed the mouth of the English Channel… to the Scilly Isles and conveyed thither a body of colonists who established an emporium. The attraction which drew them was the mineral wealth of the islands and of the neighboring Cornish coast… It is reasonable to suppose that the Phoenicians both worked the mines and smelted the ores.”
Historical evidence points to the Israelite tribe of Asher as being directly involved with the mining of tin in early Briton. William Camden, a British historian who lived from 1551 to 1623, states in his historical work, Britannia, that:
“The merchants of Asher worked the tin mines of Cornwall, not as slaves, but as masters and exporters.” A British historian of the nineteenth century, Sir Edmund Creasy, also noted that: “The British mines mainly supplied the glorious adornment of Solomon’s Temple.”
Notice the tribe of Asher were involved in mining, just as Australians are heavily involved today. The tribe of Asher took on the Danish name which may or may not have derived from the name of Jacob’s son, Dan as discussed previously. By coincidence the peoples today now called Danes in Denmark are the descendants of Me-dan. The Denes or Danes are thought to have had a female leader called Danu or Dana, that they worshipped the Goddess Dana, or that Dan is the legendary founder of the ancient Danish kingdom, as he is mentioned in medieval Scandinavian texts.
Unrest in Scania led to war and a new order, represented by the Scyldings and the Healfdena. They led the migration of Danes from Sweden into the Cimbric Peninsula, thus putting pressure on the Jutes in the north. This may have resulted in feuds and local power struggles, which would have in turn impacted the sizeable tribe of the Angles. In 420 CE a man named Hoc seemed to be allied to the Scyldings by blood or marriage. The Danish side of his parentage is covered by the epic poem, Beowulf, which describes him as the son of Beowulf the elder, while the other side is probably Jutish or Anglian.
New Zealand Flag
In 448 CE Hnaef a prince of a group of Danes called the Hocingas, and as a Sæ-Dene [Sea Dane], is involved in the struggle for power in the North Sea. His family is likely to have settled in modern Jutland. Hnaef winters with his elder sister, Hildeburh, who is married to Finn, king of the Frisians. Fighting appears to be sparked by a feud between the Jutish allies of either side, as those with the Frisians are angry that some of their people have sworn loyalty to the Danes who are ‘stealing’ Jutish territory.
Hnaef is killed during the Freswæl, the ‘Fight at Finnesburg’. Finn is then killed in revenge by Hengist, Hnaef’s Jutish comrade in arms. As his duty is done to his deceased lord Hnaef, Hengist with his brother Horsa leads his people to Britain to take up temporary service under another lord, the high king of Britain, but this soon turns into a conquest of the southeastern territory of England in 455 CE. Large numbers of Jutes and Angles follow Hengist and this has the effect of leaving Jutland almost deserted for the incoming Dene.
The Danish migration was complete by about the sixth century, but a single, fully unified kingdom took approximately three more centuries to emerge. During the ninth and tenth centuries the Danes, along with the Norwegians, became the scourge of Britain and Ireland. The Danes staged a major invasion of the English kingdoms during 879 to 880 CE, conquering a swathe of eastern and northern territory Britain. The Danish army under Guthrum formalised its rule under the Peace of Wedmore in 879. Guthrum secured the Danish kingdom of East Anglia, which was founded to exist alongside the Scandinavian kingdom of York.
By 918 CE the failure to apply a concentrated force meant that the Danes were defeated. They lost a large number of men, particularly at Bedford, where the besieged English garrison inflicted a severe defeat upon them, putting their army to flight. The Danish kingdom in England fell to Edward the Elder of Wessex, as he began to unify the country under one king. At the very end of the tenth century a Danish dynasty took the English throne, heralding a new Anglo-Scandinavian period which was ended with the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and the arrival of the other Scandnavians, the Normans. The Danes also settled in Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Iceland.
The Frisians as Issachar and Zebulun and being a smaller tribal unit are invariably lost as part of the larger Saxon tribe of the Angles from an historical perspective. This is not surprising as in the Bible, Issachar and Zebulun are often quoted with Ephraim and Manasseh. Zebulun and Issachar are also the younger brothers of Judah and so their close association with the Jutes explains the Jutish, Angle and Frisian triangular nucleus of the Saxon peoples.
The word viking became associated with someone who goes on a ‘pirate raid’, a predatory ‘sea robber’ but this is a later interpretation of the word based on their reputation for attacking the medieval kingdoms of England and France. The word was originally used to denote a trader. Indo-European languages contain cognates of the root word for trader, such as the Latin vic [vicus: village, habitation], along with the Saxon wic and the Germanic wich.
All of these relate to the Scandinavian vik, from theOld Norse, vikingr. A Vikingr or Viking was someone who went on expeditions, usually abroad and usually be sea and usually in a group with other Vikingar [plural] to wics or wichs to trade. Norway is called the North Way as it was the north way or sea path. Without roads the only reliable travel was by water, so trading centres would be sited in protected inlets. The use of vik became transferable from the trade location or village to its location on inlets. In England, this double usage did not apply, but many Saxon villages still retain their trading names, such as Harwich, Ipswich, and Norwich, while Hamptonwic was modified to Southampton.
The Norse feminine vik, means an inlet, small bay or creek. As the Vikings dwelt beside creeks that fed to the sea, the name also incorporates the fact that viking means a ‘creek dweller.’ The origin of this interpretation though may go back to earlier etymology that derives Viking from the same root as Old Norse vika, meaning ’sea mile’. This was originally ‘the distance between two shifts of rowers’, from the root weik or wik, as in the Proto-Germanic verb wikan, meaning ‘to recede’ and the Proto-Nordic verb, meaning ‘to turn’, The Old Icelandic equivalent is vikja, meaning ‘to move, to turn’, with a nautical usage.
Linguistically, this explanation is probable as the term predates the use of the sail by the Germanic peoples of Northwestern Europe, as the Old Frisian spelling Witsing or Wising shows that ‘the word was pronounced with a palatal k and thus in all probability existed in North-Western Germanic before that palatalisation happened, that is, in the 5th century or before…’ If such is the case, that the tired rower moved aside for the rested rower on long sea journeys, a vikingr would originally have been a rower; so that the ‘word Viking was not originally connected to Scandinavian seafarers but assumed this meaning when the Scandinavians begun to dominate the seas.’
When the Norsemen were invaded by the Roman Catholic soldiers, they asked the people who their king was, and they replied “Viking,” which means; “We’re King.” A very antipodean response. Coincidently, the Vikings were known as Ascomanni, or ‘ash-men’ by the Germans for the Ash wood of their boats. The Gaels called them Lochlannaich, ‘people from the land of lakes’, the Saxons called them Dene and the Frisains called them Northmonn.
As mentioned previously, most Australians and particularly New Zealanders do not live very far from water. In Australia, Vickers and Vickermans are popular surnames. The Vikings imprint on history is less piratical raider and more, sea-faring traders, fishermen, farmers and craftsmen; with their own laws, art and architecture.
Dutch explorer Captain Willem Janszoon landed in Australia in 1606, though it was in 1770 when Captain James Cook maps the eastern coast and claims the continent for Great Britain. The first British settlement was founded in 1788. In 1824 the Island is called Australia, changed from New Holland – coined by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1644 – at the request of Governor Lachlan Macquarie.
In 1841, New Zealand became its own colony separate from Australia. The year 1868 saw the end of convicts being sent to Australia. Some one hundred and sixty thousand convicts were shipped to Australia between 1788 and 1868.
Six colonies were formed in Australia: New South Wales, 1788; Tasmania, 1825; Western Australia, 1829; South Australia, 1836; Victoria, 1851; and Queensland, 1859. These same colonies later became the states of the Australian Commonwealth. In 1911, the Northern Territory became part of the Commonwealth and the city of Canberra was founded. It was named as the Australian Capital Territory or ACT. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 and a national flag was adopted. Even though it was adopted one year before New Zealand, the New Zealand flag of 1902 had originally been designed earlier in 1869.
In 1986, Australia became fully independent from the United Kingdom. Australia is the sixth largest country in the world and the biggest island, though as it is officially a continent, Greenland is deemed the biggest island in the world. In 2021, Australia signed a significant security treaty with the United Kingdom and the United States [AUKUS] aimed at countering the growing threat of China in the region.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Australian and New Zealand participation in the disaster of the Gallipoli Campaign – which was an attempted invasion of the Turkish mainland during World war I – forged the antipodean nations into a heightened sense of national consciousness [and camaraderie]. The brutality of the battle… ended in an Allied defeat…’
New Zealand is called by the indigenous Maori: Aotearoa, translated as ‘land of the long white cloud.’ Maori had several traditional names for the two main islands, including Te Ika-a-Maui, ‘the fish of Maui’ for the North Island and Te Waipounamu, ‘the waters of greenstone’ or Te Waka o Aoraki, ‘the canoe of Aoraki’ for the South Island. New Zealand also has some seven hundred smaller islands, covering an area of 103,500 square miles and a population of 4,900,310 people.
By comparison, Japan has an area of 145,937 square miles and a population of one hundred and twenty-five million people. The area of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is 93,628 miles with a population of sixty-eight million people. Naphtali was prophesied to be free as a deer let loose and so it is for the small population of New Zealand compared to its area. Saying that, there are still two nations in the world who could increase their population sizes dramatically as they have enough land – unlike Australia say, that has a vast interior of desert and only coastal regions suitable for the bulk of their population – to be able to sustain them satisfactorily. Those nations are New Zealand and Canada; both of which are under-populated and have potential for massive growth. We will look more into this when we study Canada in the next chapter.
Due to their remoteness, ‘the islands of New Zealand were the last large habitable landmass to be settled by humans.’ Approximately 1000 CE, Maori had become the dominant Polynesian culture and society. In 1642, the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman sighted and officially recorded New Zealand. In 1840, representatives of the United Kingdom and Maori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, declaring British sovereignty. A year later, New Zealand became a colony of the British Empire and by 1907 it had become a self-governing dominion. New Zealand gained full independence in 1947, with the British Monarch remaining head of state.
In 1951 the United Kingdom increasingly focusing on its European interests, led to New Zealand joining Australia and the United States in the ANZUS security treaty. A variety of ethical conflicts, particularly New Zealand’s nuclear free policy led to the United States’s suspension of ANZUS obligations. The treaty remained in effect between New Zealand and Australia, whose foreign policy has followed a similar historical trend of close political cooperation, free trade agreements and mutual citizen rights between the two nations, so that citizens can visit, live and work in both countries without restrictions.
New Zealander’s, consistent with their identity as Naphtali have been involved and contributed man power in many conflicts – including: Vietnam, the two World Wars, the second Boer War, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Gulf War and the Afghanistan War. It has also contributed forces to numerous several regional and global peacekeeping missions since World war II.
New Zealand has an advanced market economy, ranked 14th in the Human Development Index and 3rd in the Index of Economic Freedom. New Zealand is identified as one of the world’s most stable and well governed nations. As of 2017, the country was ranked fourth in the strength of its democratic institutions and first in government transparency and lack of corruption.
It was the ascent of Mount Everest by New Zealander Sir Edmund Hillary with Sherpa Tenzing Norgay in 1953 that was one of the defining moments of the 20th century. Hillary stated: “In some ways, I believe I epitomise the average New Zealander: I have modest abilities, I combine these with a good deal of determination, and I rather like to succeed.”
The British diaspora in Sub-Saharan Africa includes British and Irish descended people not just in South Africa but also in lesser numbers in counties such as Zimbabwe, Namibia [formerly South West Africa, a German colony and then administered by South Africa from 1946 to 1966], Kenya, Botswana and Zambia.
Though Great Britain had settlements and ports along the West African coast to facilitate the Atlantic slave trade, British settlement in Africa began in earnest at the end of the eighteenth century, at the Cape of Good Hope and following the second British occupation of the Dutch Cape Colony in 1806.
British settlers were encouraged to Albany [Settler Country], in 1820 to bolster the Cape’s eastern frontier against the Xhosa. Natal was added as a colony in 1843. After defeating the Boers in 1902, Britain also annexed the Boer Republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal.
Map showing population density of the Black Africans in South Africa
The discovery of gold in the Witwatersrand in 1886 after diamonds in Kimberly in 1866, encouraged additional settlement not just by the British but also Australians, Americans and Canadians. Mining magnate and empire builder, Cecil Rhodes [1853-1902] envisioned a British Africa linked from Cape Town to Cairo in Egypt. Cecil Rhodes was the founding chairman of the board of directors of De Beers Mining Company, funded by Nathaniel, the first Lord Rothschild.
Rhodes foundered the British South Africa Company in 1889 which controlled the territory named after him from 1895 to 1911 and then as Southern – first used in 1898 – Rhodesia from 1911 to 1964. The region had originally been known as Zambesia. Later called Rhodesia from 1964 to 1979 and then finally Zimbabwe. Northern Rhodesia is now known as Zambia. Meanwhile, British East Africa became Kenya. In 1923, the company’s charter was revoked and Southern Rhodesia attained self-government and established a legislature.
With the exception of South Africa, the British populations of Zimbabwe, Zambia and Kenya are relatively small, with approximately 30,000, 40,000 and 32,000 people respectively. These peoples may or may not be descended in part from Issachar.
Zimbabwe is next to South Africa and large numbers of Zimbabwean British White people have left, especially to live in South Africa. The Republic of Zimbabwe shares a one hundred and twenty-five mile border on the south with South Africa.
Map showing population density of White Africans in South Africa
The rapid decolonisation of Africa in the 1950s and 1960s alarmed a proportion of Southern Rhodesia’s white population. In an effort to delay the transition to black majority rule, the white Southern Rhodesian government issued its own declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom in 1965. At first seeking recognition as an autonomous realm within the Commonwealth, it instead reconstituted itself into a republic in 1970. Hostility between Black political factions and the White government, led to war weariness, diplomatic pressure and an extensive trade embargo imposed by the United Nations. These pressures prompted Rhodesian prime minister Ian Smith to concede to majority rule in 1978.
Rhodesia was once known as the Jewel of Africa for its great prosperity. The name Zimbabwe derives ‘from a Shona term for Great Zimbabwe, a medieval city (Masvingo) in the country’s south-east whose remains are now a protected site.’ Zimbabwe may stem from ‘dzimba-dza-mabwe, translated from the Karanga dialect of Shona as “houses of stones”. Archaeologist Peter Garlake says that Zimbabwe represents a contracted form of dzimba-hwe, which means venerated houses in the Zezuru dialect of Shona and usually references chiefs’ houses or graves.’
The modern equivalent of the Aramean Phoenicians discovered Southern Africa in 1488, when Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias sailed around the southern tip of Africa [refer Chapter XXIII Aram]. It was many years later in 1652, when the modern equivalent of the Midianite Phoenicians via the Dutch East India Company established a small settlement at the Dutch Cape Colony; with the intent to be a small port town for ships traveling to India, that eventually became a full settlement of German, French, Dutch and British settlers [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham].
The Dutch Colony in 1795 was occupied by British forces after the Battle of Muizenberg. In 1802, the Dutch regained control of Cape Colony with the Peace of Amiens agreement. Then in 1806, the British again gained control after the Battle of Blaauwberg. By 1814, the Dutch formally agreed that the colony was to be part of the British Empire.
The British outlawed slavery in 1833 and so began the Great Trek inland by the Dutch Boers, who founded two republics. The republic of Transvaal formed in 1856 was annexed by the British in 1877, sparking the first Boer War in 1880. The Boers won and gained independence for Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In 1889, the Second Boer War began, with the British winning and taking over Transvaal and the Orange Free State. In 1910 the Union of South Africa was formed – within the British Empire – from the four colonies of Cape Colony; Natal Colony; Transvaal Colony; and the Orange Colony. In 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) party was formed.
In 1931, the Union became fully sovereign from the United Kingdom. Three years later, the South African Party and National Party merged to form the United party. They sought reconciliation between Afrikaners and English speaking White people. Then in 1939, the party split over the entry of the Union into WWII as an ally of the United Kingdom; as the National Party followers strongly opposed the decision.
In 1948 the ethnic Afrikaners of the National Party were voted into power and they initiated the apartheid policy of separating White people and Black people based on their race and entrenching a system of segregation in the land.
Many of the British diaspora had voted ‘No’ in a 1960 referendum on South African independence, but it was approved by a narrow margin. The Natal majority voted against the republic and some residents called for secession from the Union after the referendum. In 1961, South Africa was declared a republic and became a fully independent nation, ending the British Monarch as the head of State with Queen Elizabeth II losing the title Queen of South Africa. Pressured by other Commonwealth nations, South Africa withdrew from the organisation in 1961, to later rejoin in 1994.
It is at this time that ANC leader Nelson Mandela formed an armed branch of the ANC to fight against apartheid. He was arrested in 1962 and jailed. Mandela was incarcerated for twenty-seven years while fighting for equal rights; becoming a worldwide symbol against apartheid.
Frederik Willem de Klerk was elected president in 1989. He immediately began to work to end apartheid, with Public facilities desegregated. In 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from prison. Subsequently, Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and by 1994 Apartheid had been fully repealed. Equal rights were attained and Black people voted; electing Nelson Mandela as South African president.
Constant readers will appreciate this is the point where we study the Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroups. As mentioned in the previous chapter [refer Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad], the assumption by geneticists is that the White Celtic-Saxon-Viking peoples of the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, are composite peoples of the English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and Ulster Scots. In other words, their Haplogroups will be the same as these five antecedent lines from Britain and Ireland. Though they will be similar, the contention proposed here is that the percentages for R1b, I1, I2a1, I2a2 and R1a will be slightly different as these five nations are individual, separate and distinct tribes descending from different sons of Jacob.
The Biblical identity community has also arrived at the same erroneous conclusion as scientists, in that these nations are all the descendants of Joseph and hence the exact same peoples. The difference in facial features, national characteristics, social mores, administrative processes, spoken accents, cultural and sporting interests seems to have completely bypassed everyones attention and perception to see and acknowledge the differences that clearly point to different family members, of the same family group. As there are no studies known to this writer to enlist as support, we will look at some of the individual demographics and statistics for each tribe. As it is possible that Issachar and even Zebulun have spilled over into Rhodesia we will include the British White people from Zimbabwe.
Of significance amongst the White community of Rhodesia was its transience. Settlers were as likely to leave Rhodesia after a few years as permanently settle. For example, of the seven hundred British immigrants who were the first white settlers in 1890, only fifteen were still living in Rhodesia in 1924. As the white population of Rhodesia had a low birth rate [18 per 1,000 people] it was dependent upon immigration, which accounted for sixty percent of the growth of the white Rhodesian population between 1955 and 1972.
American historian Josiah Brownell noted: ‘the turnover rate for white residents in Rhodesia was very high, as Rhodesia took in a total of 255,692 white immigrants between 1955 and 1979 while the same period a total of 246,583 whites emigrated.’ During the boom of the late 1950s Rhodesia took in an average of ’13,666 white immigrants per year, mostly from the United Kingdom and South Africa’ but conversely, an average of 7,666 whites emigrated annually.Between 1961 and 1965, Rhodesia took in an average of 8,225 white immigrants per year, yet lost more people each year with an average white emigration of 12,912 people.
Most people arriving were uninterested in settling in Rhodesia permanently and did not apply for Rhodesian citizenship, despite a 1967 campaign urging them to do so.Brownell explains that ‘patriotism in the white community was “shallow” due to its essentially expatriate character.Brownell also claimed that the majority of white immigrants in the late 1960s and early 1970s were unskilled laborers who competed with the country’s black African workforce and did not contribute badly needed technical or professional skills to the country. He argued that this was due to a government policy aimed at making white immigration as “unselective as possible” and guaranteeing every white immigrant a job.’
White Zimbabweans make up about 0.22% the total population today and are mostly of British origin, though there are also Afrikaner, Greek, Portuguese, French and Dutch enclaves. The white population peaked at around 278,000 people, or 4.3% of the population in 1975, though it was 7.3% of the population in 1960 with some 223,000 people. What is interesting is that in 1890 the Black population was only about 150,000 people, yet in fifty years it had exploded into the millions. This was due to what the White settlers brought: food, medicine and employment. In 1921, Rhodesia had a total population of 899,187 people, of which, 33,620 were European, 1,998 were mixed race, 1,250 were Asiatic and 761,790 were Bantu natives and 100,529 people were Bantu aliens [not native to the territory]. Most emigration has been to the United Kingdom, then South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique,Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
White South Africans are split in two from a descent, linguistic, cultural and historical perspective, into the Afrikaans speaking descendants of the Dutch East India Company’s original settlers the Afrikaners and the Anglophone descendants of the colonial Britons. White Afrikaners trace their ancestry to the mid-seventeenth century, developing a separate cultural identity and distinct language; whereas the English speaking South Africans trace their ancestry to the settlers of 1820. The remainder of the White South African population consists of immigrants who arrived later from Europe, including Germans, Italians, Greeks and Jews, of which many left when apartheid was abolished. Portuguese immigrants arrived after the collapse of the Portuguese colonial administrations in Mozambique and Angola.
In 1911, White people comprised 22.7% of the population. By 2020, they numbered just 7.8% of the total population. Just under a million white South Africans also live as expatriate workers abroad, the majority of South Africa’s brain drain.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016:
‘Australia and New Zealand were unique among the European colonies because they were the only areas of the New World where nonwhite slaves were never imported as part of the colonization process. The result of this significant difference was that the new colonies in Australia and New Zealand were homogenous in their early years and for this reason, established a record for stability and progress virtually unmatched in history.
[Their] racial history… is therefore focused on the interaction between the white immigrants and the native populations of the Aborigines… and the Maori… It was only in the last part of the twentieth century that significant numbers of nonwhites… entered… [and] that development, even more… [is altering] the racial dynamics of Australia and New Zealand – and not in favour of the Europeans.’
Australians of European – including Celtic-Saxon-Viking – descent are the majority, estimated at seventy-six percent of the population. The vast majority of early settlers came from their own free will, with the convict – and prison guard – element very much the minority; some twenty percent, while the majority were of British and Irish descent. Many of the first Australian settlers came from London, the Midlands, the North of England and Ireland; then from the southeast and the southwest of England and also Scotland.
In 1888, sixty percent of the Australian population had been born in Australia, and almost all had British ancestral origins. From the remaining forty percent, thirty-four percent had been born in the British isles and six percent were of European origin, mainly from Germany and Scandinavia. In the 1840s, Scottish born immigrants constituted twelve percent of the Australian population. The European population grew from 0.3% of the population of the continent in 1800 to 58.6% in 1850. Germans constituted the largest non-British community for most of the nineteenth century. ‘The census of 1901 showed that [98%] of Australians had Anglo-Celtic ancestral origins, and [were] considered as “more British than Britain itself”.’
During the 1950s, Australia was the destination of thirty percent of Dutch emigrants and the Netherlands born became numerically Australia’s second largest non-British group. ‘Abolition of the White Australia Policy in 1957 led to a significant increase in non-European immigration, primarily from Asia and the Middle East. This is ironic as the White Australia policy was enacted after gold was discovered in the 1850’s bringing an influx of peoples, including Chinese. With them came Triad gangs, smuggling and other crimes that led to public agitation and eventually the State of Victoria in 1856 passed a law forbidding Chinese to enter. The exclusion law was then adopted by every other colony.
Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean and Sri Lankan are the most commonly nominated Asian ancestries in Australia. Chinese Australians constituted 5.6% of the Australian population and Indian Australians constituted 2.8% at the 2016 census. In 2019, 30% of the Australian resident population, were born overseas.
New Zealand is one of the last major landmasses settled by humans. Most European New Zealanders have British or Irish ancestry, with smaller percentages of other European ancestries such as Germans, Poles [historically noted as ‘Germans’ due to partitions of Poland], French, Dutch and Scandinavians. Lesser minorities include: Greek, Turkish, Italian, Lebanese, Arab and South Slavs.
The ethnic makeup of the New Zealand population is undergoing a process of change because of waves of immigration, higher birth rates and increasing interracial marriages which are resulting in the New Zealand population of Māori, Asians and Pacific Islanders growing at a higher rate than those of solely European descent. Over one million New Zealanders recorded in the 2013 Census were born overseas.
Most New Zealanders are resident in New Zealand, though there is also a significant diaspora, estimated at around 750,000 people. Of these, around 640,800 live in Australia and others are heavily concentrated in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. In 1961 the European element in New Zealand comprised 92% of the population and the Maori 7%. By 2018 the Whites comprised 72% of the total, the Maori 17% and others 11%. The United Kingdom remains the largest source of New Zealand’s immigrant population, with around a quarter of all overseas born New Zealanders born in the United Kingdom. Other major sources of New Zealand’s overseas born population include: China, India, Australia, South Africa, Fiji and Samoa.
Despite their reputation for raping the Vikings left little trace of their DNA, Mail Online, November 1, 2020 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Analysis of thousands of DNA samples from the UK, continental Europe and Scandinavia revealed a surprising lack of Viking genes in England, despite the Norsemen once occupying much of the country. The international team led by scientists from Oxford University and the Wellcome Trust… [and their] research, published in the journal Nature, did not find any obvious genetic footprint from the Romans or Danish Vikings. However, this is not down to a lack of virility – merely that they were not here in large enough numbers to have had enough children for their genes to live on today. Study co-leader Sir Walter Bodmer said:
“You get a relatively small group of people who can dominate a country that they come into and there are not enough of them, however much they intermarry, to have enough of an influence that we can detect them in the genetics… At that time, the population of Britain could have been as much as one million, so an awful lot of people would need to arrive in order for there to be an impact.”
‘His colleague Professor Peter Donnelly added:
“Genetics tells us the story of what happens to the masses. ‘There were already large numbers of people in those areas of Britain by the time the Danish Vikings came so to have a substantial impact on the genetics there would need to be very large numbers of them leaving DNA for subsequent generations. The fact we don’t get a signal is probably about numbers rather than the relative allure or lack thereof of Scandinavians to English women.”
‘Others said that the Danes may actually have been more attractive to local women because their habit of washing weekly meant they were seen as cleaner. Even in Orkney, which was a part of Norway from 875 to 1472, the Vikings contributed only about 25 per cent of the current gene pool. It suggests that the Vikings mixed very little with the indigenous population they initially terrorised and then conquered.’
On the surface, this is a valid point it would seem, but the reality is that the vast bulk of ‘Danish Vikings’, the tribe of Asher – and probably some of Naphtali too, as many ‘Australians’ from Britain later moved to New Zealand had left the United Kingdom. As they are 1. related to the English, Welsh and Scots and 2. though a different tribe have left en masse; one would not expect to find genetic ‘evidence’ of them in the United Kingdom.
It is not about size of people and impact. The Angles were the biggest tribe of Saxons, far outnumbering the Picts, Cymru, Frisians, Jutes, Norsemen, Danes and Normans. Their genetic footprint is also negligible. This only makes sense if the vast bulk left British shores. The Romans, mainly soldiers would have intermarried some and so their DNA is likely still in Britain. The key piece of information is that as the Romans are the Germans [refer Chapter XXVIII Ishmael], with similar Haplogroup sequencing, spotting their DNA is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It is there, but not going to be visibly distinct.
‘The Vikings, from Norway, Sweden and Denmark, carried out extensive raids and occupations across wide areas of northern and central Europe between the eighth and late 11th centuries. Danish Vikings in particular took over large parts of England, eventually settling in an a region stretching from Essex to County Durham which was ruled by ‘Danelaw’.
The findings support previous research from the University of Oslo suggesting that Viking men were family-orientated and not particularly bothered about the British women they conquered. Rather than Viking raiding parties consisting wholly of testosterone-charged men, researchers found that significant numbers of women, and possibly whole families, travelled on the longboats. DNA extracted from 45 Viking skeletons showed that women played an integral part in establishing settlements in the UK.’
The other salient point is that comparing DNA from the UK with ‘continental Europe and Scandinavia’ will not add anything useful as the original Vikings left Scandinavia and now live in Australia and New Zealand. Not only are the Antipodeans unlike the English, the Scots and Welsh they are also not the same as the Swedes, Norwegians and Danes who are children from Abraham and his second wife Keturah [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham]. Added to this, is that fact that the ‘Vikings’ that swarmed out of Sweden and colonised the vast tracts of Russia were not the same peoples as now in Britain or Scandinavia [refer Chapter XX Asshur].
Recall in Chapter II Japheth, we looked at the prophecy in Genesis chapter nine, verse twenty-seven regarding Japheth ‘dwelling in the tents of Shem.’ We also detailed the global agenda to ‘water-down’ the European nations in the drive towards eliminating particularly, the pure White stock of the nations of Israel [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].
In Australia, between the years 1984 to 1995, forty percent of all migrants were of Asian origin. In 2003, a report revealed that fourteen percent of the residents of Perth were born in Southeast Asia, principally Vietnam. Demographic trends are that Australia will be twenty-seven percent Asian by 2025. Considering Third world reproduction rates and the natural shrinkage of the First World population, Australia will be close to a Third World majority population well before 2050.
An example of an irony of the savage kind is that the largest mosque in Australia, located in Sydney, New South Wales is called the Auburn Gallipoli. This is in reference to the World War I battle where thousands of Australian troops were killed and defeated in an attempt to invade the Islamic Ottoman Empire [refer Chapter XVIII Elam].
The First World element of New Zealand’s population is projected to drop to less than sixty percent by 2026; with the Asian population set to increase by 145%, between 2001 and 2021. Predictions from the 2001 census include European children making up 63% of all children in New Zealand in 2021 compared with 74% in 2001. The 2006 census showed that the Asian ethnicity had overtaken the Pacific Polynesian peoples into third palace and that by 2026, they will overtake the second place Maori. These stats show that it is highly likely that New Zealand will lose its majority First World population status before the year 2050.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The lesson of Rhodesia proves that no matter how technologically proficient, no matter how militarily-capable, no matter how determined, no minority can indefinitely resist the power of demographics…The White Rhodesians failed to understand the relationship between demographics and political power… Rhodesian whites were imbued with the nineteenth century white supremacist belief that they had a paternalistic right to rule over nonwhites “for their own good”… white rule caused an explosion in black numbers as Western medicine, education, and technology boosted black numbers way beyond their natural reproduction levels. As a result, white supremacism created a racial demographic time bomb which swept away all vestiges of Western rule.
This reality underlines the truth that demographic replacement is the sole driver of cultural change and that the majority of the population determines the nature of the society. It is a lesson that the Western world, which has imported vast numbers of nonwhites through mass immigration policies which started in the last part of the twentieth century, must learn. Failure to do so will result in them sharing the same fate of the white Rhodesians.’
There is a time to look for something and a time to stop looking for it. There is a time to keep things and a time to throw things away… There is a time… to speak… The Teacher was very wise and taught the people what he knew. He very carefully thought about, studied, and… looked for just the right words to write what is dependable and true. Words from wise people are like… nails that have been driven in firmly… that come from one Shepherd. So be careful, my son, about other teachings. People are always writing books, and too much study will make you tired.
Ecclesiastes 3:6-7; 12:9-12 New Century Version
“The overwhelming majority of people never think and those who think never become the overwhelming majority. Choose your side.”
For the constant reader, those reading the chapters in order, you may have a good idea now, on what is to be unfurled on the next several pages, let alone the remaining chapters. For others, the information that follows will undoubtedly challenge, annoy or disturb, without a background of a comprehensive context. Cries of racism and simple mindedness could be the thoughts of many. The weight of proof thus far for the identities we have studied, means there is little room to manoeuvre in trying to deny the palpable truth. For truth is singular and any other versions of it, whether it be our own or someone else’s, is still, but a mis-truth. Thus, it is a hopeless and forlorn endeavour indeed, to try and support old errors over new evidence, but alas it is a given that many will continue along a path that is comfortable, yet restrictive rather than one that is challenging, yet enlightening.
Judah is the fourth son of the Patriarch Jacob and was his fourth son with first wife, Leah. It is interesting to learn that of all his twelve sons, it is Judah that is most like his father, Jacob. For all this, Jacob favours his second youngest son Joseph; the eldest son by his favourite wife, Rachel. It is to Joseph that Jacob passes the birthright blessings – normally given to the literal eldest son – the blessing that was passed from Abraham to Isaac and then Isaac to Jacob. Yet, the most similar son is not ignored, in that Judah was promised a unique and separate blessing of his own, the royal orb and sceptre of kingship.
This was not just any royal kingly line, for it has two distinct components not possessed by other nations’ royalty. First, someone from Judah and particularly from his descendant King David, would always be alive in qualification of being able to sit on the throne.
The massive spin on this and one that many Israelite identity believers have missed, is that the Creator did not promise that someone from Judah would always sit on the throne; just that the throne would perpetually exist and there would be a descendant of Judah and David, eligible to rule. This throne does exist today and those that sit on it are not true descendants of Judah, but usurpers [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].
The second component of Judah’s blessing was that the throne given him was on loan; that those that sit on it are temporarily holding it for someone else. The identity of that person means the incumbent King or Queen is behooved to reign justly and to be righteous themselves.
For the seat belongs to the Son of Man and it is to Him that it will be given at His second coming. A throne He qualified for – and one that He will rule the whole world from – when He defeated sin and death; the two main instruments of weaponry, Samael uses in his ongoing war of enslavement against humankind.
Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, June 2, 1953, Westminster Abbey, London, England
Israelite identity or British Israelite proponents have failed to interpret the Bible, history and world events for they they have mis-identified Judah. We have seen the disastrous results of this in Chapter XXIX Esau. Esau is the second most mentioned identity in the scriptures – some 30%, of all biblical identity references. The tribe of Judah is stated the most – some 60%, of all Biblical identity references – with the remaining 10% accounting for all the sons of Japheth, Ham and the other descendants of Shem, even including Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim. Yet the identities ascribed to both Edom and Judah, as well as Joseph have been incorrect for some five hundred years as the subject gained universal knowledge and appeal. Granted, most understand half of Joseph, that is his eldest son Manasseh, yet even here the identities of Joseph’s two sons have been in continual error until the early 1970’s, when it was first highlighted that the identity for Manasseh was incorrect.
So, the four main peoples in the Bible, Judah, Edom, Ephraim and Manasseh have been incorrect since the subject was first addressed hundreds of years ago. The truth on Ephraim – to my knowledge – first came to light nearly fifty years ago, yet has remained very much in the shadows. The truth on Edom has been known far longer in some circles outside of the identity movement, particularly amongst the Jews, though it too has only been discussed and revealed since the 1970’s. Unlike Ephraim, a number of works have been written on Edom and the truth has been available to the public for some time.
Given the many, clear and distinctive clues available in the scriptures, it is baffling how blindness has afflicted it would seem, nearly everyone to the real identities of Joseph and Edom. More puzzling still, are the profound verses surrounding the tribe of Judah and how they have remained hidden while in plain sight all along. We will learn that the identity of Judah is the key… the Key, that unlocks the whole third of the Bible that is prophetic. Judah is the key that unlocks the second third of the Bible that is historical. Finally, the remaining third of the Bible, though written by extension, to the whole world – as Gentiles can be grafted in to the family of Israel – and generally written to the remaining tribes of Israel, it is to Judah that it primarily pertains.
Matthew 10:5-6
Common English Bible
5 Jesus sent these twelve out and commanded them, “Don’t go among the Gentiles or into a Samaritan city. 6 Go instead to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
New Century Version
Jesus answered, “God sent me only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”
I appreciate this is unpalatable to some readers and maybe abhorrent to others, as it appears to be a statement that is both racist and anti-Semitic all at once. The reader must understand and appreciate two points. First, the Jews as studied in Chapter XXIX Esau, are not the tribe of Judah.
Abraham of Ur, David A Snyder, 2014 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘It is very seldom that a father admits that he learned something from his son. But in my case, in a roundabout way that is what happened several years ago on our annual fishing trip to Alaska. One night after dinner at Redoubt Mountain Lodge on Crescent Lake, we were discussing the Incarnation. He asked why God chose the tiny country of Israel over the highly advanced cultures of China or India to send His son to mankind. Even with my Miller Light induced keen insight, I found I could not answer the question to his or my satisfaction. I must admit that this question has haunted me ever since.
Little did I know at the time that this question is known by theologians as The Scandal of Particularity and has been asked by theologians for centuries. Fortunately I think I have answered it, at least to my satisfaction, at the end of this book when I give my theories as to what part Abraham played in God’s plan of salvation. So, I must thank my son Paul for spicing my life with this riddle that had so much to do with the writing of this book.’
I found David Snyder’s book very helpful in my research on Abraham. The author highlights a major concern, that we looked at in chapter XXIX Esau. The Messiah was sent to His Father’s people, albeit small, of the tribe of Judah in the north of Judea [which included Idumea (Edom) in the southern portion]. It was not about the size of the populace, but the fact they were the Creator’s chosen people. Second, we shall learn that the Creator chooses whom He wills. If this is racist by our own individual definition, then it runs contrary to His.
In Acts 17:26 NIV it says:
‘From one man [Adam, via Noah] he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.’
If one thinks this world is marked by national boundaries that are either happenstance or merely the creation of Humankind, then this is not what has occurred. There is a curious verse in Deuteronomy 32:8 NET:
‘When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.’
The footnotes in the New English Translation says:
‘The Hebrew term (ʿelyon) is an abbreviated form of the divine name El Elyon, frequently translated “God Most High”… This full name (or epithet) occurs only in Genesis 14, though the two elements are parallel in Psalm 73:11; 107:11; etc. Here it is clear that Elyon has to do with the nations in general whereas in verse 9, by contrast, Yahweh relates specifically to Israel. The title depicts God as the sovereign ruler of the world, who is enthroned high above his dominion. The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel… a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads (angelōn theou, “angels of God”)… “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (Hosea 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Psalm 29:1; 89:6; Psalm 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (Daniel 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly [via the Archangel Michael].’
Thus, the nations and peoples of the world are actually allotted to and governed by, invisible higher authorities and powers – Angels. The Creator has reserved Israel – the twelve sons of Jacob for Himself. Verse eight is translated a number of ways in different versions.
English Standard Version
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
New International Version
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.
New Century Version
God Most High gave the nations their lands, dividing up the human race. He set up borders for the people and even numbered the Israelites.
The latter two have based their translation on the subject of verse nine, though the interlinear does not use the word Israel or God in verse eight: ‘When most High divided nations their inheritance, where separated sons of Adam, set bounds people, according to number children…’ The word ‘children’ is the word ben [H1121] and is translated in the KJV as: son [2978], children [1568], old [135], first [51], man [20], young [18], stranger [10]. Used as sons, it does mean sons of God or angels. The following verses clarify that the context is speaking of the sons of God, as the Creator is included.
Deuteronomy 32:8-12
Common English Bible
8 When God Most High divided up the nations – when he divided up humankind – he decided the people’s boundaries based on the number of the gods. 9 Surely the Lord’s property was his people; Jacob was his part of the inheritance. 10 God found Israel in a wild land – in a howling desert wasteland – he protected him, cared for him, watched over him with his very own eye. 11 Like an eagle protecting its nest, hovering over its young, God spread out his wings, took hold of Israel, carried him on his back. 12 The Lord alone led Israel; no foreign god assisted.
The Message verses 8-9
When the High God gave the nations their stake, gave them their place on Earth, He put each of the peoples within boundaries under the care of divine guardians.
But God himself took charge of his people, took Jacob on as his personal concern.
Living Bible verse 8
When God divided up the world among the nations, He gave each of them a supervising angel!
There are further verses that support angelic governance of specific nations and the Creator’s participation in this process.
Psalm 47:7-9
Common English Bible
7… God is king of the whole world! Sing praises with a song of instruction! 8 God is king over the nations. God sits on his holy throne. 9 The leaders of all people are gathered with the people of Abraham’s God because the earth’s guardians belong to God; God is exalted beyond all.
Psalm 2:1-2
New Century Version
Why are the nations so angry? Why are the people making useless plans? 2 The kings of the earth prepare to fight, and their leaders make plans together against the Lord and his appointed one [the Son of Man].
Isaiah 41:9, 14
New English Translation
9 … you whom I am bringing back from the earth’s extremities, and have summoned from the remote regions [the antipodes, southern Africa, northern America and the British Isles] – I told you, ‘You are my servant.’ I have chosen you and not rejected you… 14 Don’t be afraid, despised insignificant Jacob, men of Israel. I am helping you,” says the Lord, your Protector, the Holy One of Israel.
Daniel 10:1-6, 20-21
English Standard Version
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision… 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man [an angel] clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. 6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude… 20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince [the Prince of Israel].
Before we delve into Judah and his half-brother Benjamin, we will complete our discussion on Jacob that began in Chapter XXVII Abraham and continued in Chapter XXVIII Ishmael and Chapter XXIX Esau; for Jacob and Judah are much alike… though first; after we address the British Israelite Identity movement itself. British Israelism also known as Anglo-Israelism is the belief that the peoples of the British Isles are “genetically, racially and linguistically” the direct descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. There is an error right here already, in that we will learn that all twelve tribes – actually thirteen – were ‘lost’ and all thirteen after migrations through Europe, converged on the islands of Britain and Ireland.
The movement’s roots were in the sixteenth century, gaining increased popularity in the 1800s, with its formal beginning and works by John Wilson [1799-1870] and Edward Hine [1825-1891]; continuing on till the present day. A well known online encyclopaedia with a palpable bias, states that these central tenets of British Israelism ‘have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological, ethnological, genetic and linguistic research.’ It would be fascinating to learn of all this supposed evidence. It would also be spellbinding to know from this particular contributor, who then, are the descendants of ancient Israel today?
Any reader who has undertaken the dedicated and unswerving journey of reading every chapter in this quest, will now know that we have convincingly and undeniably found a modern counterpart for every Biblical identity. There only remains a handful of nations around the world that could be the sons of Jacob. Anyone not blinded, hard-hearted or dishonestly upholding a crooked agenda, would be severely exposed in seeking to refute the massive body of evidence now compiled and presented.
One of the earliest expressions of the Biblical identity doctrine was by a French Huguenot magistrate M le Loyer, in a work published in 1590, entitled, The Ten Lost Tribes. This may well be where the erroneous label Ten Lost Tribes originated, as well as presenting the Scandinavian and Germanic peoples as also sons of Jacob; when in fact, they are descendants of Abraham, just not through his son Isaac. Apparently James the VI of Scotland, [James I of England] believed he was the King of Israel. In 1919 the British Israel World Federation was founded in London and Covenant Publishing in 1922. The Federation has its headquarters in Bishop Auckland in County Durham.
From the 1930s Herbert Armstrong [1892-1986], founder of the Radio and later, Worldwide Church of God, promoted the doctrine to its widest appeal, as one of his central teachings in understanding Biblical prophecy. Much of is own book on the subject – The United States and Britain in Prophecy – was heavily based or copied from the earlier work in 1902 by J H Allen, Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright.
Criticisms of the movement by current scholars, include amateur research and scholarship in theology, anthropology, history and linguistics and of course the catch-all, sink the whole boat tactic, ‘its anti-semitic.’ As we have already addressed, the term anti-semitic is used in a linguistic context not a racial one and thus has been misleadingly misappropriated by opponents. One critic states: ‘the overwhelming cultural, historical and genetic evidence [is] against it.’ The presentation of this evidence would be enlightening. Granted, the link between Hebrew and English has shown to be a flawed argument – but not in every case. What no one seems to have considered, is the similarity between English and the germanic/teutonic languages it evolved from, revealing not just other language family members, but that they may be other genetic family members also [refer point three in the Introduction].
English has evolved from Old English and Old English evolved from Low German. As Germany is Ishmael [refer Chapter XXVIII Ishmael], the Germans and English are closely related cousins. Not as closely related as Scotland and England who are half brothers, but still a family kinship as evidenced by not only the link in philology, but also the migration of the Saxon hordes from Northern Germany to England and the fact that from the east coast of England to the western border of Germany, it is only two hundred miles.
Today there are provinces in both Germany and in Britain which are named after the Saxons and the primary tribe, the Angles. In Germany there are the federal states of Niedersachsen [Lower Saxony], Sachsen-Anhalt [Saxony-Anhalt], and Sachsen [Saxony]. In Britain there are the provinces Wessex [West Saxony], Sussex [South Saxony], and Essex [East Saxony]. Immediately south of the German-Danish border, in the German part of Schleswig, is the province Angeln [Anglia]. Until 1800, the primary language in Angeln was Danish, but during the first part of the nineteenth century German became the primary language. In eastern England there is a region called East Anglia. The name England itself is derived from Angle-land. In everyday language Anglo-Saxon is another name for the English speaking peoples, regardless of how many of their ancestors were Saxon Angles.
There is another movement called Christian Identity – a 1920s offshoot of British Israelism – which has a racial interpretation of Christianity and a theology focus including white supremacist, racist and anti-Semitic stances, as well as fundamentalist teachings. This writer confirms that no connection exists between themselves and the Christian Identity or even the British Israel Federation. Nor has any of the material presented in this work been inspired or influenced by either organisation or its beliefs. Any similarity of suppositions, points or teachings are purely coincidental and could not be perceived as the same or linked in either its formation or explanation.
Genesis 27:26-29
Christian Standard Bible
26 Then his father Isaac said to him, “Please come closer and kiss me, my son.” 27 So he came closer and kissed him. When Isaac smelled his clothes, he blessed him and said:
Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed. 28 May God give to you – from the dew of the sky and from the richness of the land – an abundance of grain and new wine. 29 May peoples serve you and nations bow in worship to you. Be master over your relatives; may your mother’s sons bow in worship to you. Those who curse you will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.
Isaac’s blessing to Jacob said he would inherit rich lands, be prosperous and have power over other nations, including his relatives: Edom, Ishmael and Hagar, Midian – and the other sons of Keturah – Haran, Moab, Ammon and Nahor – the Chaldeans. Today, they equate to the Jews and Israel, Germany and Austria, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, French Quebec in Canada and Italy. The non-Israelite countries descended from Abraham and his two brothers – the nations of principally northwestern Europe. We learned in chapter XXIX Esau, that Edom has turned the table on Jacob as prophesied.
Aside from any other information, once we understand who Abraham’s other descendants are, we would have to objectively look throughout the world and say honestly which nations have had dominion over all these nations for the past five hundred years. There are only two nations that could answer to that enquiry and now, the reader will have worked out who they are. What has alluded those who have already understood this mystery, is the exact identity of these two primary leading nations from the sons of Jacob. For the first time, they can be explained.
Recall that Rebekah had been blessed by her family in Genesis 24:60 NKJV: “Our sister, may you become The mother of thousands of ten thousands; And may your descendants possess The gates [doors, cities] of those who hate them.” Some by extension teach this includes pivotal sea-gates around the globe. If so, then Great Britain and the United States have shared the lion’s share of strategic ports: the Straits of Malacca, Singapore, the Suez Canal, Bab el Mandeb, Strait of Hormuz, Cape of Good Hope, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands; plus the Panama Canal and other locations throughout the Pacific ocean.
Jacob receives additional blessings. One from Isaac when Jacob hastily departs from home to escape a wrathful Esau and again, in a vision while sleeping.
Genesis 28:1-17
Christian Standard Bible
So Isaac summoned Jacob, blessed him… 3 May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you so that you become an assembly of peoples.4 May God give you and your offspring the blessing of Abraham so that you may possess the land where you live as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham.”
10 Jacob left Beer-sheba and went toward Haran. 11 He reached a certain place and spent the night there because the sun had set. He took one of the stones from the place, put it there at his head, and lay down in that place. 12 And he dreamed: A stairway was set on the ground with its top reaching the sky, and God’s angels were going up and down on it. 13 The Lord was standing there beside him, saying,
“I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your offspring the land on which you are lying. 14 Your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out toward the west, the east, the north, and the south.All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.
The promise of Jacob’s offspring being a blessing to all nations is a an echo of what the Creator spoke to Abraham. Genesis 22:18 NKJV: ‘In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.’ The apostle Paul explains that the fulfilment of this promise was through the Son of Man. Galatians 3:8, 16 ESV: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles [all nations] by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed” … Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
Hebrews 2:10-18
Common English Bible
10 It was appropriate for God, for whom and through whom everything exists, to use experiences of suffering to make perfect the pioneer of salvation. This salvation belongs to many sons and daughters whom he’s leading to glory. 11 This is because the one who makes people holy and the people who are being made holy all come from one source. That is why Jesus isn’t ashamed to call them brothers and sisters… 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he also shared the same things in the same way. He did this to destroy the one who holds the power over death – the devil – by dying. 15 He set free those who were held in slavery their entire lives by their fear of death. 16 Of course, he isn’t trying to help angels, but rather he’s helping Abraham’s descendants. 17 Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way. This was so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to wipe away the sins of the people. 18 He’s able to help those who are being tempted, since he himself experienced suffering when he was tempted.
It is vital to grasp, that a two-fold promise was given, material prosperity and spiritual salvation. This is not something that very many people understand.
15 Look, I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go. I will bring you back to this land, for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” 16 When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he said, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.” 17 He was afraid and said, “What an awesome place this is! This is none other than the house of God. This is the gate [stairway] of heaven.”
Jacob’s offspring were to be numerous and spread in all directions of the globe, north, south, east and west. In modern times this has been fulfilled as the British and Irish peoples have spread abroad to all continents, as well as making permanent homes in the antipodes, southern Africa and the Americas.
Verse three is worth looking at. An assembly of peoples hints at more than one nation. The Hebrew word qahal [H6951], is translated by the KJV, as congregation [86], assembly [17], company [17] and multitude [3]. The Hebrew word before it is rabah [H7235], which the KJV translates as multiply [74], increase [40], many [28], great [8], exceedingly [2] and abundance [2]; to be many and numerous.
Thus, Jacob’s children were to become numerous, while also more than one nation. Other versions translate in some insightful ways that assist in identifying the Israelite nations today.
NCV: … and may you become a group of many peoples.
NET: … and give you a multitude of descendants! Then you will become a large nation.
TLB: … may you become a great nation of many tribes!
NIRV: … May he make your family larger until you become a community of nations.
NLT: … And may your descendants multiply and become many nations!
VOICE: … and multiply your descendants so that you will give rise to nation after nation!
Genesis 29:1-35
English Standard Version
Then Jacob went on his journey and came to the land of the people of the east. 2 As he looked, he saw a well in the field, and behold, three flocks of sheep lying beside it, for out of that well the flocks were watered. The stone on the well’s mouth was large, 3 and when all the flocks were gathered there, the shepherds would roll the stone from the mouth of the well and water the sheep, and put the stone back in its place over the mouth of the well.
4 Jacob said to them, “My brothers, where do you come from?” They said, “We are from Haran .” 5 He said to them, “Do you know Laban the son [grandson] of Nahor?” They said, “We know him.” 6 He said to them, “Is it well with him?” They said, “It is well; and see, Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep!”
7 He said, “Behold, it is still high day; it is not time for the livestock to be gathered together. Water the sheep and go, pasture them.” 8 But they said, “We cannot until all the flocks are gathered together and the stone is rolled from the mouth of the well; then we water the sheep.”
9 While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess. 10 Now as soon as Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, Jacob came near and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. 11 Then Jacob kissed Rachel and wept aloud. 12 And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s kinsman, and that he was Rebekah’s son, and she ran and told her father.
It was love at first sight for Jacob, just as it had been for his father Isaac, when he saw Rebekah for the first time.
13 As soon as Laban heard the news about Jacob, his sister’s son, he ran to meet him and embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban all these things, 14 and Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” And he stayed with him a month.
15 Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” 16 Now Laban had two daughters. The name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 Leah’s eyes were weak [H7390 raw, meaning: tender, soft, delicate as in soft of words, delicate of flesh, shy],but Rachel was beautiful [H3303 yapheh, meaning: comely, fair] in form [body] and appearance [face]. 18 Jacob loved Rachel. And he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.” 19 Laban said, “It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to any other man; stay with me.” 20 So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.
21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed.” 22 So Laban gathered together all the people of the place and made a feast. 23 But in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to Jacob, and he went in to her. 24 (Laban gave his female servant Zilpah to his daughter Leah to be her servant.) 25 And in the morning, behold, it was Leah! And Jacob said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 Laban said, “It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also in return for serving me another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so, and completed her week.
Then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife. 29 (Laban gave his female servant Bilhah to his daughter Rachel to be her servant.) 30 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years.
31 When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren [like her grandmother, Sarah].32 And Leah conceived and bore a son [1], and she called his name Reuben [See, a son], for she said, “Because the Lord has looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.” 33 She conceived again and bore a son [2], and said, “Because the Lord has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also.” And she called his name Simeon [heard]. 34 Again she conceived and bore a son[3], and said, “Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi [attached]. 35 And she conceived again and bore a son [4], and said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Therefore she called his name Judah [praise].Then she ceased bearing[for the time being, as Leah had two more sons and a daughter].
Jacob fled from his brother Esau in 1760 BCE. The Seder Olam Rabba states that Leah and Rachel were themselves also twins and were twenty-two [or twenty-one in another version] when they married Jacob. In 1753 BCE, Jacob would have been sixty-four years old. His working for seven years makes sense if Rachel had been only fifteen when they first met. Laban certainly knew what he was doing and had his plan regarding his daughters, unbeknown to Jacob. Reuben was born in 1752 BCE, Simeon 1750 BCE, Levi 1748 BCE and Judah was born in 1746 BCE.
Genesis 30:1-43
English Standard Version
When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” 2 Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” 3 Then she said, “Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.” 4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. 6 Then Rachel said, “God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son.” Therefore she called his name Dan [judged].7 Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, “With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed.” So she called his name Naphtali [wrestling].
It is worth noting that when we investigate Dan [refer Chapter XXXIV Dan], we learn he was a troublesome son. Dan was conceived in an atmosphere of a marital argument, where Rachel was consumed with envy towards her sister and Jacob was angry. This maybe in part, due to further controversy surrounding Dan’s birth.
9 When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Then Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 And Leah said, “Good fortune has come!” so she called his name Gad [good fortune]. 12 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 And Leah said, “Happy am I! For women have called me happy.” So she called his name Asher [happy].
Dan was born later the same year as Judah in 1746 BCE and his brother Naphtali in 1744 BCE. Gad was also born in 1744 BCE and his brother Asher in 1742 BCE.
14 In the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” 15 But she said to her, “Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes also?” Rachel said, “Then he may lie with you tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes.” 16 When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come in to me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night. 17 And God listened to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son. 18 Leah said, “God has given me my wages because I gave my servant to my husband.” So she called his name Issachar [wages or hire].
19 And Leah conceived again, and she bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, “God has endowed me with a good endowment; now my husband will honor me, because I have borne him six sons.” So she called his name Zebulun [honour]. 21 Afterward she bore a daughter and called her name Dinah.
Issachar was born in 1742 BCE and his name may have been in part a homage to his grandfather Isaac. Zebulon and Dinah are thought to have been twins as it does not say Leah conceived Dinah, but rather she followed Zebulon – the Book of Jubilees corroborates twins. Leah was thirty-four when she had her last children; seven children in the space of twelve years. Additional information is provided in the Book of Jubilees reading Leah and her sons – with the spacing between the births given.
Book of Jubilees 28:11-23
28:11 And Yahweh opened the womb of Leah, and she conceived and bare Jacob a son, and he called his name Reuben, on the fourteenth day of the ninth month [November/December]… Yahweh saw that Leah was hated and Rachel loved. 13 And again Jacob went in unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob a second son, and he called his name Simeon, on the twenty-first of the tenth month [December/January], 14 And again Jacob went in unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare him a third son, and he called his name Levi, in the new month [1st – New Moon] of the first month [March/April]… 15 And again Jacob went in unto her, and she conceived, and bare him a fourth son, and he called his name Judah, on the fifteenth [Sabbath] of the third month [May/June]…
17 And when Rachel saw that Leah had borne four sons to Jacob… she said to him: ‘Go in unto Bilhah my handmaid, and she will conceive, and bear a son unto me.’ 18… and she conceived, and bare him a son, and he called his name Dan, on the ninth of the sixth month [August/September]… 19 And Jacob went in again unto Bilhah a second time, and she conceived, and bare Jacob another son, and Rachel called his name Napthali, on the fifth of the seventh month [September/October]…
20 And when Leah saw that she had become sterile and did not bear, she envied Rachel, and she also gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife, and she conceived, and bare a son, and Leah called his name Gad, on the twelfth of the eighth month [October/November]… 21 And he went in again unto her, and she conceived, and bare him a second son, and Leah called his name Asher, on the second of the eleventh month [January/February]…22 And Jacob went in unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Issachar, on the fourth of the fifth month [July/August]…and she gave him to a nurse. 23 And Jacob went in again unto her, and she conceived, and bare two (children), a son and a daughter, and she called the name of the son Zebulon, and the name of the daughter Dinah, in the seventh of the seventh month [September/October]…
Confirmation of Zebulon and Dinah being twins, with Zebulon the eldest. Levi was born on the New Moon or first day of the month. A day that was celebrated like a Sabbath and Judah was actually born on the second Sabbath day of the month, according to the lunar cycle calendar.
22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. 23 She conceived and bore a son and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” 24 And she called his name Joseph [may he add], saying, “May the Lord add to me another son!” [this was fulfilled literally, with the birth of Benjamin and also figuratively, when Joseph became two, by having his sons Manasseh and Ephraim] 25 As soon as Rachel had borne Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, “Send me away, that I may go to my own home and country.
26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, that I may go, for you know the service that I have given you.” 27 But Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, I have learned by divination that the Lord has blessed me because of you. 28 Name your wages, and I will give it.” 29 Jacob said to him, “You yourself know how I have served you, and how your livestock has fared with me. 30 For you had little before I came, and it has increased abundantly, and the Lord has blessed you wherever I turned. But now when shall I provide for my own household also?” 31 He said, “What shall I give you?” Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything. If you will do this for me, I will again pasture your flock and keep it: 32 let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted sheep and every black lamb, and the spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my wages. 33 So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, shall be counted stolen.” 34 Laban said, “Good! Let it be as you have said.” 35 But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in the charge of his sons. 36 And he set a distance of three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob pastured the rest of Laban’s flock.
37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. 40 And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban’s flock. 41 Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, 42 but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. 43 Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.
Book of Jubilees 28:25-30
28:25 And in the days when Joseph was born…Jacob’s possessions multiplied exceedingly, and he possessed oxen and sheep and asses and camels, and menservants and maid-servants. 30 And Laban and his sons envied Jacob, and Laban took back his sheep from him, and he observed him with evil intent.
Joseph was born quite sometime after Zebulon and Dinah, fourteen years later in fact, in 1726 BCE. A real battle of wills, mind games and trying to out smart the other is the core of Laban and Jacob’s relationship. This must have grown wearysome to say the least for Jacob after thirty-four years. It is though, another six years in 1720 BCE before Jacob finally has had enough and the call to return home to his parents has grown irresistible.
At some point, Jacob’s mother Rebekah dies and whether this influences Jacob’s return is not known. There are two schools of thought from Rabbis. The first is that Rebekah died at the age of 133 years, [1724 BCE], twenty-seven years before Isaac. Her death would have occurred prior to Jacob’s return to his parents’ home; ‘and it was [possibly] coincident with that of Deborah’ [Genesis 35:8]. Her decease is not mentioned because Jacob had not arrived in time; so Esau was the only son present to attend to her burial.
Tradition holds the ‘ceremony was performed at night out of shame that her coffin should be followed by a son like Esau.’ Alternatively, according to the Book of Jubilees 31:8-11, 48, Jacob, when he arrived home, found his mother alive; and she afterward accompanied him to Beth-el to accomplish his vow [Genesis 28:19-20]. This would mean Rebekah died at the age of 155 in 1702 BCE, some five years before Isaac’s death [Jubilees 35:1, 41], thus determining that her age when she married was twenty years old – while Isaac was forty. It is this version, I would consider the more accurate.
Most readers assume that Jacob worked for Laban for twenty years, though the biblical math does not support this premise. An unknown author helpfully provides the correct explanation:
‘In Genesis chapter 30 we find the entire account of Laban talking Jacob out of leaving Haran following the birth of Joseph, and Jacob agreeing to stay on and work for some of Laban’s livestock. But note the statement in Genesis 30:36, where it is noted that Laban separates himself from Jacob by 3 days journey. Now if Jacob is separated 3 days journey from Laban then he is certainly no longer in Laban’s house (Genesis 31:41). And so the 20 years mentioned in Genesis 31:41 cannot include the 6 years in which Jacob lived 3 days journey from Laban. Thus, it appears that there were two separate 20 years periods, one in which Jacob lived in Laban’s house (verse 41), and another in which Jacob lived in Haran but outside of Laban’s house (verse 38), which included the 6 years in which Jacob lived 3 days journey from Laban.
In all likelihood, the 20 years in Haran but outside Laban’s house included the 14 years working for Laban’s daughters as well as the 6 years working for Laban’s livestock. All together this would mean that Jacob was in Haran for a total of 40 years, not just 34 years, and certainly not just 20 years. And so Jacob would have come to Haran at 57 years old (6 years before Ishmael died), and stayed until 97 years old before returning to Canaan. Now recall one of the difficulties of Jacob being in Haran for only 20 years is that this forces him to have 12 children in just 7 years, and forces Joseph to be roughly the same age as his brothers, making Genesis 37:3 (i.e., Joseph the son of Jacob’s old age) nonsensical.
But now that we see Jacob was in Haran for 40 years, this allows Jacob to start having children when he was 64 years old (7 years after coming to Haran at 57 years old). In which case it is very much possible that all of Jacob’s children were born by the time he was 76 years old, with the exception of Joseph, who we know wasn’t born until 15 years later when Jacob was 91 years old. Now in this scenario the statement of Genesis 37:3 makes much more sense, given that Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old and his other children much earlier, when Jacob was probably between the ages of 64 and 76 years old.’
Genesis 31:1-55
English Standard Version
Now Jacob heard that the sons of Laban were saying, “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s [Bethuel], and from what was our father’s he has gained all this wealth.” 2 And Jacob saw that Laban did not regard him with favor as before. 3 Then the Lord said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your kindred, and I will be with you.”
4 So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah into the field where his flock was 5 and said to them, “I see that your father does not regard me with favor as he did before. But the God of my father has been with me. 6 You know that I have served your father with all my strength, 7 yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times… 14 Then Rachel and Leah answered and said to him, “Is there any portion or inheritance left to us in our father’s house? 15 Are we not regarded by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and he has indeed devoured our money. 16 All the wealth that God has taken away from our father belongs to us and to our children. Now then, whatever God has said to you, do.”
17 So Jacob arose and set his sons and his wives on camels. 18 He drove away all his livestock, all his property that he had gained, the livestock in his possession that he had acquired in Paddan-aram, to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac. 19 Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her father’s household gods. 20 And Jacob tricked Laban the Aramean, by not telling him that he intended to flee. 21 He fled with all that he had and arose and crossed the Euphrates, and set his face toward the hill country of Gilead [the future territory of the half tribe of East Manasseh].
22 When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled, 23 he took his kinsmen with him and pursued him for seven days and followed close after him into the hill country of Gilead. 24 But God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night and said to him, “Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad.”
25 And Laban overtook Jacob… 26 And Laban said to Jacob, “What have you done, that you have tricked me and driven away my daughters like captives of the sword? 27 Why did you flee secretly and trick me, and did not tell me, so that I might have sent you away with mirth and songs, with tambourine and lyre? 28 And why did you not permit me to kiss my sons [grandsons] and my daughters farewell? Now you have done foolishly… 30 And now you have gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house, but why did you steal my gods?” 31 Jacob answered and said to Laban, “Because I was afraid, for I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force.
32 Anyone with whom you find your gods shall not live. In the presence of our kinsmen point out what I have that is yours, and take it.” Now Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them. 33 So Laban went into Jacob’s tent and into Leah’s tent and into the tent of the two female servants, but he did not find them. And he went out of Leah’s tent and entered Rachel’s. 34 Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them in the camel’s saddle and sat on them. Laban felt all about the tent, but did not find them. 35 And she said to her father, “Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the way of women is upon me.” [an outright lie] So he searched but did not find the household gods.
36 Then Jacob became angry and berated Laban. Jacob said to Laban, “What is my offense? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued me? 38 These twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, and I have not eaten the rams of your flocks. 39 What was torn by wild beasts I did not bring to you. I bore the loss of it myself… 40 There I was: by day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes. 41 These twenty years I have been in your house. I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times. 42 If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my affliction and the labor of my hands and rebuked you last night.”
43 Then Laban answered and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. But what can I do this day for these my daughters or for their children whom they have borne? 44 Come now, let us make a covenant, you and I. And let it be a witness between you and me.” 45 So Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. 46 And Jacob said to his kinsmen, “Gather stones.” And they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap… 48 Laban said, “This heap is a witness between you and me today… The Lord watch between you and me, when we are out of one another’s sight. 50 If you oppress my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no one is with us, see, God is witness between you and me.”
51 Then Laban said to Jacob… 53 The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.” So Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac… 55 Early in the morning Laban arose and kissed his grandchildren and his daughters and blessed them. Then Laban departed and returned home.
An amicable parting and agreement to not do each other any harm. Jacob, with the Creator’s help extricated himself from a difficult domestic noose. Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation in 1720 BCE was discussed in Chapter XXIX Esau. The Book of Jubilees has additional details.
Book of Jubilees 29:5-20
29:5… Jacob turned his face toward Gilead in the first month [March/April], on the twenty-first thereof. And Laban pursued after him and overtook Jacob in the mountain of Gilead in the third month [May/June], on the thirteenth thereof… 7 And Laban spoke to Jacob. And on the fifteenth of those days Jacob made a feast [Pentecost?] for Laban, and for all who came with him, and Jacob swore to Laban that day, and Laban also to Jacob, that neither should cross the mountain of Gilead to the other with evil purpose.
8 And he made there a heap for a witness; wherefore the name of that place is called: ‘The Heap of Witness’… 9 But before they used to call the land of Gilead the land of the Rephaim… and the Rephaim were born (there), giants whose height was ten [15 feet], nine, eight down to seven [10’ 6’’] cubits. 10 And their habitation was from the land of the children of Ammon to Mount Hermon, and the seats of their kingdom were Karnaim and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, and Misur, and Beon. 11 And Yahweh destroyed them because of the evil of their deeds; for they were very malignant, and the Amorites dwelt in their stead, wicked and sinful, and there is no people today which has wrought to the full all their sins, and they have no longer length of life on the earth. 13 And he passed over the Jabbok in the ninth month [November/December], on the eleventh thereof [1720 BCE]. And on that day Esau, his brother, came to him, and he was reconciled to him, and departed from him to the land of Seir, but Jacob dwelt in tents.
14 And… he crossed the Jordan, and dwelt beyond the Jordan, and he pastured his sheep from the sea of the heap unto Bethshan, and unto Dothan and unto the forest of Akrabbim. 15 And he sent to his father Isaac of all his substance, clothing, and food, and meat, and drink, and milk, and butter, and cheese, and some dates of the valley. 16 And to his mother Rebecca also four times a year, between the times of the months, between ploughing and reaping, and between autumn and the rain (season) and between winter and spring.…
17 For Isaac had returned from the ‘Well of the Oath’ and gone up to the tower of his father Abraham [‘on the mountains of Hebron’], and he dwelt there apart from his son Esau [estranged]. 18 For in the days when Jacob went to Mesopotamia, Esau took to himself a wife Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, and he gathered together all the flocks of his father [Isaac] and his wives, and went up and dwelt on Mount Seir, and left Isaac his father at the ‘Well of the Oath’ alone… [that is, he took his inheritance early and took what was Isaac’s wealth – recall Issac was old and blind] 20 And thither Jacob sent all that he did send to his father and his mother from time to time, all they needed, and they blessed Jacob with all their heart and with all their soul.
Next, we learn of Jacob’s name change, a specification on his blessing and the death of Rachel and then Isaac.
Genesis 35:1-21
English Standard Version
God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there. Make an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” 2 So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you and purify yourselves and change your garments. 3 Then let us arise and go up to Bethel, so that I may make there an altar to the God who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.” 4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears. Jacob hid them under the terebinth tree that was near Shechem.
5 And as they journeyed, a terror from God fell upon the cities that were around them, so that they did not pursue the sons of Jacob. 6 And Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him, 7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother. 8 And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth.
9 God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel. 11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body [this has not been fulfilled by the Edomite-Jew]. 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.” 13 Then God went up from him in the place where he had spoken with him. 14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had spoken with him, a pillar of stone. He poured out a drink offering on it and poured oil on it. 15 So Jacob called the name of the place where God had spoken with him Bethel.
Verse eleven is applied to Jacob, yet we will find that it is specifically addressing Joseph and Judah in the future. In fact, Joseph’s part of the verse is split between his sons Manasseh and Ephraim. From Judah would issue kings, and from Manasseh a nation and from Ephraim, a company of nations. There is another way of interpreting the verse and that is the nation is Joseph and the company of nations are the other ten brothers and their specific nations.
The word Hebrew word nation is goy [H1471] and is translated: nation [374], heathen [143], Gentiles [30] and people [11]. We will study this further when we investigate Manasseh and Ephraim. Other translations of this verse include:
MSG: … A nation – a whole company of nations! – will come from you.
NLT: … You will become a great nation, even many nations.
VOICE: … You will give rise to a great nation; indeed nation after nation will come from you.
16 Then they journeyed from Bethel. When they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel went into labor, and she had hard labor. 17 And when her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for you have another son.” 18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni [son of my sorrow or son of my strength]; but his father called him Benjamin [son of the right hand].19 So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), 20 and Jacob set up a pillar over her tomb. It is the pillar of Rachel’s tomb, which is there to this day. 21 Israel journeyed on and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder.
Benjamin was considerably younger than Joseph, who had been born in 1726 BCE – and was himself fourteen years younger than Zebulon and Dinah, arriving in Egypt at the age of seventeen in 1709 BCE – coupled with Jospeh not having known Benjamin, until he met him in Egypt in 1687 BCE and the fact that Benjamin is described as a ‘little one’ or a boy, who was given extra servings of food by Joseph – an age of twelve [plus or minus 2 to 3 years] is plausible, when Joseph was age 39/40. This means a birth of circa 1699 BCE for Benjamin as well as the untimely early death of his mother Rachel, at the age of seventy-five.
Book of Jubilees 36
21 And Leah his wife died… and he buried her in the double cave near Rebecca his mother to the left of the grave of Sarah, his father’s mother. 23 And all her sons and his sons came to mourn over Leah his wife with him and to comfort him regarding her,for he was lamenting her for he loved her exceedingly after Rachel her sister died;24 For she was perfect and upright in all her ways and honored Jacob, and all the days that she lived with him he did not hear from her mouth a harsh word, for she was gentle and peaceable and upright and honorable.
24 And he remembered all her deeds which she had done during her life and he lamented her exceedingly; for he loved her with all his heart and with all his soul.
A difficult start to their marriage, with Leah being relegated behind Rachel [and hated], must have eased over time and particularly after Rachel’s death. We saw earlier that though Leah wasn’t unattractive, with a more gentle disposition, she was in the shadow of her more outgoing and alluring sister. Rachel is a definite reminder of Rebekah and Leah has a certain hint of Sarah about her. Leah dies after Rachel her twin, yet apparently before Jacob travels to Egypt in 1687 BCE, as Leah is buried in Hebron. This means she died rather early herself, somewhere between seventy-five and eighty-seven. If we say eighty-five, then she would have had ten years with Jacob after her sister died. Her death may have been a prompt for Jacob to depart to Egypt during the famine.
It is worth noting that Jacob just prior to his death, was inspired to split the family blessing, so that a son of Rachel received the physical birthright blessing of prosperity and a son of Leah received the spiritual blessing of the Messianic line and promise, in the ongoing war begun in Genesis 3:15. Leah’s elevation in Jacob’s and the Creator’s eyes may have played a part in this fateful decision.
We will complete learning about Jacob’s latter life when we study Joseph. The subject of the so-called ‘Ten Lost Tribes’ is a voluminous one and many works have been undertaken to expound on it. Some are better than others and some have considerable detail. My aim is not to rehash these when they are already available and have intrinsic value and merit; but some consideration to this aspect of the sons of Jacob, is required and it also ties in with their migratory routes from Palestine to the British Isles, either by way of the Mediterranean and southern Europe to Ireland, or via south-central Asia and across Europe to Britain. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints [Mormons] have an interest in the subject and regrettably misinterpreted the American Indian as one of the lost tribes [refer Chapter III Tiras]. A series of articles addresses the topic – emphasis & bold mine.
What Became of the Tribes of Israel? – emphasis & bold mine:
‘How long Israel remained in Assyria after they had been carried away captive by Sargon II is not known. In the Apocrypha, Esdras describes the following vision: “But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, that they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.
Then dwelt they there until the latter time.” (2 Esdras 13:41–46.) Elder George Reynolds commented on the direction of the travels of the tribes of Israel:
“They determined to go to a country ‘where never man dwelt,’ that they might be free from all contaminating influences. That country could only be found in the north. Southern Asia was already the seat of a comparatively ancient civilization; Egypt flourished in northern Africa; and southern Europe was rapidly filling with the future rulers of the world. They had therefore no choice but to turn their faces northward. The first portion of their journey was not however north; according to the account of Esdras, they appear to have at first moved in the direction of their old home; and it is possible that they originally started with the intention of returning thereto; or probably, in order to deceive the Assyrians, they started as if to return to Canaan, and when they crossed the Euphrates and were out of danger from the hosts of Medes and Persians, then they turned their journeying feet toward the polar star.”
Elder Reynolds’s explanation takes into account the numerous prophecies that indicate that when the ten lost tribes return, they will come out of the north… Where they went is not known, and this fact has led to much speculation about their present whereabouts. The Lord has not seen fit to reveal their location, however, and until He does so, it is useless to try to identify their present locality.’
This is quite some statement. One wonders how would the Lord reveal the tribes whereabouts, when He decides to? Would the Mormons be open to a source that did not derive from within their Church?
The Return of the Ten Tribes – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The prophets of old saw that in the last dispensation, the dispensation of the fulness of times, would come a complete gathering and restoration of the house of Israel… though the main body of ten of the tribes is lost, there are representatives of all twelve tribes scattered throughout the earth. This statement can be explained as follows:
When Assyria attacked the Northern Kingdom, many fled to the safety of the Southern Kingdom. As the ten tribes traveled north, some stopped along the way – many possibly being scattered throughout Europe and Asia.’
Thus, the tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel, either disappeared amongst the southern Kingdom of Judah, or as they travelled, numbers of them split off and disappeared amongst other peoples and nations.
The Lost Tribes to Come to Zion – emphasis & bold mine:
‘In [the] April conference of 1916, Elder James E. Talmage… spoke of the lost tribes and their records:
“There is a tendency among men to explain away what they don’t wish to understand in literal simplicity, and we, as Latter-day Saints are not entirely free from the taint of that tendency… Some people say that prediction is to be explained in this way: A gathering is in progress, and has been in progress from the early days of this Church; and thus the ‘Lost Tribes’ are now being gathered; but that we are not to look for the return of any body of people now unknown as to their whereabouts. True, the gathering is in progress, this is a gathering dispensation; but the prophecy stands that the tribes shall be brought forth from their hiding place… [and their] scriptures shall become one with the scriptures of the Jews, the holy Bible…”
Then in [the] October conference Elder Talmage spoke again of the lost tribes and made this remarkable prediction:
“The ten tribes shall come; they are not lost unto the Lord; they shall be brought forth as hath been predicted; and I say unto you there are those now living – aye, some here present – who shall live to read the records of the Lost Tribes of Israel, which shall be made one with the record of the Jews, or the Holy Bible…”
The ten tribes, however, are to eventually receive their land inheritance with Judah … In that day will be fulfilled the statement of Jeremiah: “In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers” (Jeremiah 3:18). Elder Orson Pratt stated further:
“By and by, when all things are prepared – when the Jews have received their scourging, and Jesus has descended upon the Mount of Olives, the ten tribes will leave Zion, and will go to Palestine, to inherit the land that was given to their ancient fathers,and it will be divided amongst the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by the inspiration of the Holy [Spirit]. They will go there to dwell in peace in their own land from that time, until the earth shall pass away. But Zion, after their departure, will still remain upon the western hemisphere [the United States], and she will be crowned with glory as well as old Jerusalem [true Jerusalem, not the city by that name in the state of Israel – refer Chapter XXIX Esau], and, as the Psalmist David says, she will become the joy of the whole earth.’
These series of articles raise a seemingly small issue, with enormous repercussions if understood incorrectly, that until now has been just that… misunderstood. The scriptures pertaining to Judah and Israel being reunited are part of the blessing that was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The blessing wasn’t just to dwell in Canaan and that was the fulfilment [Genesis 28:14*]. Punishment was promised to the Israelites if they erred grievously from the commandments, laws and statutes of the Creator [Deuteronomy 28:37,64; Hosea 1:9; 3:4]. It was prophesied that they would be sifted as a people or peoples – not individually and thus completely lost – amongst the nations [Ezekiel 11:16].
Isaiah 8:16-18
Common English Bible
16 Bind up the testimony; seal up the teaching among my disciples. 17 I will wait for the Lord, who has hidden his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in God. 18 Look! I and the children the Lord gave me are signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of heavenly forces, who lives on Mount Zion.
The remnants of the two kingdoms would eventually re-unite as Jeremiah predicted. Christianity has, due to a misidentification of Judah, erroneously believed that the Jews – who are not Judah – and Israel have not yet re-united and that it will take place after the second coming of the Son of Man. Of course, the reason why Christians believe this error, is because they have swallowed the falsehood that Judah – falsely the Jews – were never lost and that only Israel was lost. The truth of the matter is that all twelve, actually thirteen tribes, went into captivities, all were sifted, all migrated, all arrived in Ireland and Britain and then beyond that even, they have all either been in a process of leaving* the British Isles, or are in different evolving political statuses with regard to their allegiance to the very kingship of Judah – which will be explained.
The nations comprising the sons of Jacob are predicted to go into captivity one more time before the advent of the Messiah, and this period in the Bible is referred to as the time of Jacob’s trouble, or the Great tribulation. The State of Israel [refer Chapter XXIX Esau] – which is not the tribe of Judah, nor does it comprise true Israelites – isnot going to dwell with them, before the end of this age or afterwards. The land that the Jews have usurped from the Palestinian Arabs, will be given to the Israelites during the millennial rule of the Son of Man.
Events came to a head during the reign of King Solomon, whom we have discussed in Chapter XIII Cush & Phut. His evil led to the splitting of the Kingdom after his death in 930 BCE at the age of sixty-nine. Solomon was born in 999 BCE and began his reign as king in 970 BCE, beginning the building of the Temple in 966 BCE and completing it in 960 BCE. It was exactly 480 years between the Exodus and the beginning of the Temple [1 Kings 6:1]. King Solomon’s son, Rehoboam became king and he was born in 971 BCE to Solomon’s Ammonite wife, Naamah. Rehoboam ruled seventeen years until his death at fifty-eight in 913 BCE.
The Kingdom was rent in two, when Jeroboam became king of the tear away Israelite tribes of the north. Jeroboam ruled until 910 BCE. Jeroboam was the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite [tribe of Ephraim] and Solomon’s servant [1 Kings 11:26, 28]. Jeroboam was a ‘mighty man of valour’ and Solomon recognising his worth, had made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Jospeh.
It was some two hundred years later that the Kingdom of Israel went into captivity to the mighty Assyrian Empire during 721-718 BCE [refer Chapter XX Asshur]. Josephus confirms their existence at the time of Christ when he wrote: ‘The entire body of the ten tribes are still beyond the Euphrates, an immense multitude not to be estimated by number.’ The early Church recognised that the tribes of Israel were ‘scattered abroad’ [James 1.1]. The Israelites were planted by the Assyrians, in Media [refer Chapter IV Madai], modern Iran [2 Kings 17:6].
It should come as no surprise that there is much debate regarding certain words and terms for historical peoples and equating them with the Lost Tribes. Identity believers place great credence in them, worldly scholars are very derisory and certain historians are somewhere in between. It appears to this writer that there is some correlation and substance to the argument and that a meeting in the middle would be mature, rational and scholastically honourable. We will look at examples and the reader can deduce for themselves. The key words used in this line of reasoning are the base words Isaac and the disobedient Israelite King Omri.
The full evolution of the etymological argument are the words Saxon and Celt, respectively. The words in between are numerous and varied. It is argued that the initial I of Isaac as a vowel was dropped and became known as Saaca, Sacae, Sacasone, Saka, Sakka, Sakki, and Saxe.
This word apparently, is also linked to Scyth and therefore Scythian. Though, the term Scythian includes other peoples that were not Israelites, such as the Turanian Scythians unrelated to the Sacae Scythians. This no doubt has led some scholars to be sceptical of equating the sons of Jacob with Scythians and thus they have rejected the argument in its entirety instead of recognising the subset within. The first appearance of the Scythians in Central Asia occurred during the reign of the Assyrian King Sargon [722-705 BCE]. Exactly the time period of the fall of the Kingdom of Israel and the subsequent flight of Israelites out of Palestine.
The Lost Tribes of Israel… Found! Steven M Collins, 1992 – emphasis & bold mine:
Herodotus, a Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., notes that the Scythians were interspersed with less civilized people. He describes the non-civilized nations of the steppes thusly:
“the ManEaters, a tribe that is entirely peculiar and not Scythian at all…[and] the Black Cloaks, another tribe which is not Scythian at all.”
Herodotus confirms the civilized qualities of the Scythians and the backwardness of the non-Scythian tribes in the following words.
“The Euxine Pontus [the Black Sea]…contains – except for the Scythians the stupidest nations in the world.”
Colonel Gawler cites Epiphanius as stating “the laws, customs, and manner of the Scythians were received by other nations as the standards of policy, civility, and polite learning.” He also cites the following from book viii, iii, 7 of Strabo’s Geography:
“…’but the Scythians governed by good laws…’ And this is still the opinion entertained of them by the Greeks; for we esteem them the most sincere, the least deceitful of any people, and much more frugal and self-relying than ourselves.”
Zenaide Ragozin’s, Media, states:
“…Scythians was not a race name at all, but one promiscuously used, for all remote, little known, especially nomadic peoples of the north and northeast, denoting tribes…of Turanian as of IndoEuropean stock: to the latter the Scythians of Russia are now universally admitted to have belonged.”
The Scythian tag included a broad range of peoples, wherein the newly arrived Israelites were enveloped. Unlike the rest, these Scythians – future Saxons and Celts – exhibited traits of a civilised, not an uncouth society, that were respected by their fellow ‘cultured’ relatives descended from Moab and Ammon [the French today], the later Greeks [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon].
Words derived from Omri, include, Ghomri, Khumri, Kimmerioi and Cymry that possibly have a link with the terms Cimmerii, Cimmerian and later, Celt. A similar tribe were known as the Massagetae, possibly linked to Manasseh. The ‘c’ in Cimmerian is pronounced with an ’s’ which is remarkably similar to the the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel, Samaria. The Samarians had been taken captive by Assyria and transplanted to the cities of the Medes. These ‘Simmerians’ had appeared out of nowhere, yet an historical account states that the Assyrian King Esarhaddon in 674 BCE confronted an alliance of Median and ‘newly-arrived Cimmerian’ forces.*
Samuel Lysons in his book, Our British Ancestors: Who and What Were They? 1865, linked the Cimmerians ‘to be the same people with the Gauls or Celts under a different name.’ Historian George Rawlinson wrote: ‘We have reasonable grounds for regarding the Gimirri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared on the confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century B.C., and the Sacae of the Behistun Rock, nearly two centuries later, as identical with the Beth-Khumree of Samaria, or the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel.’
Danish linguistic scholar Anne Kristensen confirms: ‘There is scarcely reason, any longer, to doubt the exciting and verily astonishing assertion propounded by the students of the Ten Tribes that the Israelites deported from Bit Humria, of the House of ‘Omri, are identical with the Gimirraja of the Assyrian sources. Everything indicates that Israelite deportees did not vanish from the picture but that, abroad, under new conditions, they continued to leave their mark on history.’ There are two main branches of Celts. The Goidelic Celts from whom the Gaels of Ireland descend and the Brythonic or Brittonic Celts from whom the Welsh and people of Brittany in France descend.
The famous King Darius of Persia, inscribed on a rock in northern Iran: ‘This kingdom that I hold is from Sakka [the region where the Israelites were living] which is beyond Sogdiana to Kush and from India to Sardis. Those scholars who disagree with equating any of the Scythians or Cimmerians with the lost tribes, do not then provide an alternative, viable identity; so it is a little difficult to entertain their arguments in a serious vein.
Amos 7:16
English Standard Version
Now therefore hear the word of the Lord. “You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not preach against the house of Isaac.’^
Jeremiah 3:11-12
English Standard Version
11 And the Lord said to me, “Faithless Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, “‘Return, faithless Israel, declares the Lord. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the Lord; I will not be angry forever.
We learn from the prophet Amos that the Israelites, specifically the Kingdom of Israel were known by the names Israel and Isaac. From the prophet Jeremiah, we find out that tribes of Israel were living due north of Jerusalem, not to the north east as those who were transplanted to the cities of the Medes. This is a different body of people, located in the Black Sea region.
Certain Scythians migrated westward from Central Asia to southern Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe. Approximately 300 to 100 BCE these Scythians migrated north west to Scandinavia. The Cimmerians steered a more southerly route through the Caucasus region and Asia Minor. At the time of the Apostle Paul, the early church congregation of the Galatians [Gael, Gaul], were believed to be comprised of Israelites [Cimmerians], from the ‘lost sheep of the House of Israel.’ About 650 BCE the first waves of Cimmerians migrating westwards through southern Europe, arriving in Gaul in northern France, then venturing onto Britain. The Scythians and Cimmerians were definitely kinsmen, with the Encyclopaedia Britannica calling the Cimmerians** a ‘Scythian tribe.’
Historian Tamara Rice confirms: ‘The Scythians did not become a recognizable national entity much before the eighth century B.C… By the seventh century B.C. they had established themselves firmly in southern Russia… Assyrian documents place their appearance there in the time of King Sargon (722-705 B.C.), a date which closely corresponds with that of the establishment of the first group of Scythians in southern Russia.’ Boris Piotrovsky adds: ‘Two groups, Cimmerians** and Scythians, seem to be referred to in Urartean and Assyrian texts, but it is not always clear whether the terms indicate two distinct peoples or simply mounted nomads… The Assyrians used Cimmerians* in their army as mercenaries; with a legal document dated 679 B.C. referring to an Assyrian ‘commander of the Cimmerian regiment’, but in other Assyrian documents they are called “the seed of runaways who know neither vows to the gods nor oaths.”’ When the Kingdom of Urartu [refer Chapter XVII Lud] crumbled, the Scythians established themselves in northern Persia [modern Iran], occupying Urartu and set up a capital at Sak-iz [Isaac?].
‘In addition to exile by land there was also an enforced maritime transportation: Amos (4:3) refers to the “cows of Bashan” “in the mountain of Samaria” (Amos 4:1) many of whom will be taken away in sailing vessels and the rest shall be cast “into the palace”. “Into the palace” has been translated from the Hebrew word “Harmona” which is also translatable as meaning “To the Mountain of Mannae”… Mannae was in the general area of Armenia to which Jewish and local sources say the Israelites were taken .
Amos said: HEAR, THIS WORD, YE KINE OF BASHAN, THAT ARE IN THE MOUNTAIN OF SAMARIA, WHICH OPPRESS THE POOR, WHICH CRUSH THE NEEDY, WHO SAY TO THEIR HUSBANDS, BRING, AND LET US DRINK… HE WILL TAKE YOU AWAY IN BIG SHIPS AND THOSE WHO REMAIN IN FISHING BOATS. EACH WOMAN WILL BE CARRIED STRAIGHT OUT THROUGH THE BREACHES AND CAST OUT BEYOND THE MOUNTAINS OF MANNAE” (Amos 4:1-3). The words rendered… as “BIG SHIPS” [Hebrew: “tsinot”] and as “FISHING BOATS” [“sirot-dugah”] are direct translations from the Hebrew.
The verse in the Hebrew Bible may therefore be understood as saying that one part of the exiles would be taken away in large and small sailing vessels and another part would be exiled to Mannae where the exiled Israelite “Cimmerians” and Scythians indeed appeared. “Isles of the Sea” [refers]… primarily to the Isles of Britain. Getting to the “Isles of the Sea” entails travel by boat.
The expressions “Isles of the Sea” (Isaiah 11:11), “Way of the Sea” (Isaiah 9:10), “large boats”, and “fishing-boats” (Amos 4:1-3) in connection with the exile of Northern Israel is consistent with transportation by sea which was logistically possible at that time and had been effected in other cases by Phoenician seafarers. Israelites had participated in Phoenician seafaring ventures.
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel were conquered and exiled… by the Assyrian [monarch], Tiglathpileser. The later Assyrian rulers Shalmaneser, Sargon, and Sennacherib were responsible for exiling the remainder. Tiglathpileser (745-727 BCE) had been responsible for transforming the Assyrian Empire from a powerful but decaying entity to [a] major world power. Prior to his reign Assyria had been seriously threatened by the kingdom of Urartu to the north of Assyria. Urartu was centered around Lake Van (in Armenia), and had exercised suzerainty over Mannae, over the region of Gozan at the headwaters of the Khabur river, and also over parts of Cilicia with its port of Anatolian Tarsis.
The Assyrians took their cavalry horses to Mannae for training. Mannae was between Assyria and Urartu and linked to both of them. It was one of the major places to which Israelites had been exiled. Mannae was also one of the first regions from which the Cimmerians were first reported, “The Cimmerians went forth from the midst of Mannae,” says an Assyrian inscription. Mannae was also destined to become a Scythian centre. The Scythians were one and the same people as the Cimmerians or at any rate Scythians and Cimmerians were: “… two groups of people who seem inclined to operate in the same geographical zones, and whose names seem to be interchangeable already in the Assyrian sources”. There were three main groups of people in the Cimmerian and Scythian forces: Cimmerians, Scyths, and Guti or Goths [the Guti or Goths were not Israelites – refer Chapter XXIII Aram].
Cimmerians and Scyths were frequently confused with each other by foreigners and by historians. “SAKAI” is the name later given in Persian inscriptions to the Scyths. In Afghanistan the appellation, “SAK” (from Saka) was much later understood to be a form of the Hebrew “Isaac”. Other names applied to the Scythians such as Zohak (by the Persians), and Ishkuzai (by the Assyrians) support the “Isaac” equation.
Van Loon identifies a people in north Armenia (near Lake Leninkan close to the border with Iberia in Georgia) named “ISQI-GULU” as Scythians. “ISQI-GULU” is the equivalent of “ISAACI-Golu”! i.e. “The Exiles of Isaac” since “Golu” in Hebrew connotes “exiled”. Variations of the name Isaac were applied to the Scythians who in many respects were identical with (or identified as) the Cimmerians. A city named after the Cimmerians and called Gymrias or Gamir was to be found in the ISQI-GULU area. This city in Armenian was later referred to as “Kumayri” and this name is considered a sign of Cimmerian presence as well as being an alternate Assyrian pronunciation of “Omri” which was the name they gave to northern Israel. In a few inscriptions the Scythians are referred to as Iskuzai (Ishkuzai) or Askuzai (Ashkuzai) though usually they are called either Sakai or Uman Manda or Gimiri like the Cimmerians. M.N. van Loon wished to emphasize this point: “It should be made clear from the start that the terms ‘Cimmerian’ and ‘Scythian’ were interchangeable: in Akkadian the name Iskuzai (Asguzai) occurs only exceptionally. Gimirrai (Gamir) was the normal designation for ‘Cimmerians’ as well as ‘Scythians’ in Akkadian.”
Both Cimmerians and Scyths were combinations in differing proportions of the same groups. The Cimmerians (i.e. West Scythians) were defeated by the Assyrians and disappeared. The East Scythians (Sakai) remained however for a time in the Middle East area, gained control of the Assyrian Empire, and eventually took the leading role in devastating the Assyrian cities. They too were destined to suffer defeat (at the hands of their Median and Babylonian allies who betrayed and ambushed them) and to be driven northwards, beyond the Caucasus Mountains into the steppe areas of southern Russia (“Scythia”) whence they ultimately continued westward into Europe.
The Cimmerians were driven westward. They invaded Phrygia, Lydia, and Ionia. These States were all in modern day Turkey. Ultimately the Cimmerians to the west of Assyria were to be defeated and to leave the area of Turkey, crossing the Bosporus and advancing into Europe. They became the dominant factor of Celtic civilization, the Galatae of Gaul, the Cimbri of Scandinavia, and the Cymry of Britain. Homer and other Greeks reported Cimmerians in Britain at an early date.
The Scythians in the north split into two sections, one was to the north of the Caucasus west of the Caspian Sea and the other was east of the Caspian.The Scythians in the west at an early stage sent offshoots into Europe who joined the Cimmerians already there. Later the Western Scythians migrated to Scandinavia, which at first was named “Scath-anavia” in their honor, and to Germany. The Mesopotamians and Persians called all of the Scythians “Sakae”, while the Greeks called them “Scythians”.
Modern historians in order to distinguish between the two sections of Scythians often use the term “Scythian” to refer to those Scythians from west of the Caspian Sea and north of the Caucasus, while “Sakae” is used for those situated east of the Caspian. The Scythian-Sakae were also known as “Sexe” and as “Saxon” and the Anglo-Saxons emerged from them.
Diodorus Siculus (32:4 7) linked the Cimmerians of old, the Galatians, and the Cimbri altogether. Plutarch (in “Marius”) reported the opinion that the Cimmerians, Cimbri, and Scythians, were in effect all members of the one nation whom he calls “Celto- Scythians”. Homer placed the Cimmerians in the British Isles as did a poem allegedly written ca.500 BCE by the Greek Orpheus. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (891 CE) begins by saying that the Britons came from Armenia and the Picts (of Scotland) from the south of Scythia. “Armenia” is the land of Urartu wherein the Cimmerians had sojourned and from which as an historically identifiable entity they emerged. The idea that the Scots came from Scythia is found in most legendary accounts of Ireland and Scotland.
FOR, LO, I WILL COMMAND, AND I WILL SIFT THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AMONG ALL NATIONS, LIKE AS CORN IS SIFTED IN A SIEVE, YET SHALL NOT THE LEAST GRAIN FALL UPON THE EARTH [Amos 9:9].
In east Scythia there had existed settlements of numerous civilized peoples of so-called “Nordic” appearance who disappeared shortly before the Barbarians were first recorded in Western Europe.The “Barbarians” had traditions that they came from Scythia and their artistic styles are actually identical to those known from the Scythian areas.
They had similar “Shamanistic” Scythian religious beliefs and customs; they wore the same armor, and fought with the same tactics, and they had the same tribal names in the same formations relative to each other as they would later have in the west. The Scythian peoples were destined to disappear from Scythia in the period between 300 BCE to ca. 600 CE. Just as the Scythians were leaving Scythia, they began to appear in the west as “Barbarians” largely after passing through Scandinavia, Pannonia (Hungary), and Germany.
The Scythian-Gothic nations had emerged from Scythia. In east Scythia,-at least in the area east of the Caspian Sea whence the Sacae (Anglo-Saxons) were once centered, Aramaic was spoken. Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew. Some of the Israelite Tribes had spoken Aramaic while others used a type of Hebrew influenced by Aramaic, or Aramaic influenced by Hebrew. Aramaic was one of the official languages of the Assyrian Empire. The Old Anglo-Saxon English language is a composite dialect and contains many Hebrew words. Linguistically, the west Barbarians may originally have spoken Hebrew or a related Semitic dialect. There is nothing to obviate such a possibility since new languages were sometimes learnt and old ones forgotten in historical experience. The Normans, for instance, came from Scandinavia and settled en-masse in Normandy, France, but within two generations they had forgotten their parent language and knew only French!
The Germanic languages probably did not exist before 500 BCE. They first appeared in Northern Germany and then spread outwards through conquest and cultural assimilation. It is generally agreed that approximately one-third of all early Germanic vocabulary is of an unknown (non-Indo-European) origin. These languages experienced changes in sounds and grammatical points that are symptomatic of Semitic tongues. Terry Blodgett proved that this additional element was Hebrew. Hebrew speakers must have been part of, or absorbed into, whatever originated the Germanic languages. The people in question had little or no relationship with the present day inhabitants of Germany other than a linguistic connection dating from the time when one group ruled over the other.
FOR I WILL NO MORE HAVE MERCY UPON THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; BUT I WILL UTTERLY TAKE THEM AWAY (Hosea 1:6). Judah was not to be exiled with the Ten Tribes, BUT I WILL HAVE MERCY UPON THE HOUSE OF JUDA [Hosea 1:7]. The third child is called “Lo-Ammi” meaning “Not-My-People”. At first the Ten Tribes will be rejected and exiled but later God will return and accept them. [Hosea 11:12] EPHRAIM COMPASSETH ME ABOUT WITH LIES, AND THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL WITH DECEIT: BUT JUDAH YET RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS.’
The last sentence is key, in that it is not referring to Palestine but rather Judah’s new home northwest of their former lands. The link between the term Saka and Isaac is in fact far older, as Steven Collins explains – emphasis & bold mine:
‘There are very ancient records of correspondence from Canaanite rulers to the Egyptian Pharaohs desperately calling for help against the powerful invasions of a people called the “Haberi,” “Khaberi,” “Aberi” or “Saga.”These ancient letters were preserved on the famous “Amarna Tablets,” and they apparently record the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua! The “Haberi,” “Khaberi,” or “Aberi” are the Hebrews, and the “Saga” are the Saka (the people of Isaac), albeit expressed in Canaanite terms.
Mrs. Sydney Bristowe, in Oldest Letters in the World, wrote in 1923 concerning the Amarna Tablets:
“The great importance of the Amarna Tablets has not been recognized because apparently, the [translators] have been unwilling to admit that the Israelites are mentioned upon them and that they tell of the conquest of Palestine by Joshua! The translations shown with the tablets now in the British Museum, give little idea of the interest of the letters, the name Haberi, Khaberi or Aberi is hardly seen in these translations, yet that name, appears frequently in the tablets and leading philologists certify that it stands for the Hebrews (Israelites). See Encyclopaedia Brittanica Edition 11, Volume 10., page 78. Another name mentioned upon the tablets is Saga which is said to be identical with Haberi (Knudtzon, Die El Amarna Tafeln, p. 51), and is proved to be so by the fact that it occurs upon the Behistan Rock in Persia where, according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, it represents the Israelites (the Sakai or ‘House of Isaac’).
Dr. Hall (of the British Museum) admits the fact that the tablets tell of the Israelite’s conquest of Palestine, for he writes: ‘We may definitely, if we accept the identification of the Khabiru as the Hebrews, say that in the Tel-el-Amarna letters, we have Joshua’s conquest seen from the Egyptian and Canaanite point of view’ (Ancient History of the Near East, p. 409).”
“It seems very probable that the ‘SAGAZ’… and…the Khabiru who devastated Canaan… are no other than the invading Hebrews and other desert tribes allied with them…(and after presenting a philological analysis supporting this conclusion, he adds)…In my own, view, the probabilities are all in favour of the identification.”
Herodotus is cited above as stating that the Persians called all Scythians “Sacae (or Saka),” which is the equivalent of the Hebrew/Israelite “Saga” in the much older Amarna Tablets.It appears that the Canaanites knew the Israelite invaders were the “seed of Isaac,” but rendered this name as “Saga” instead of “Saka,” as did the Persians. (The letters “g” and “k” are closely related guttural phonetic sounds.) The above evidence that Canaanite and Assyrian sources indicate that the Israelites were known by the name of Isaac prior to their departure from Palestine confirms that it is their descendants who bore the name of Isaac in Scythia after their arrival in Asia.’
Steven Collins continues with a few identifying points on the Scythians and their Israelite connection. He also recounts the Scythian’s invasion of Assyria, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, beginning 624 BCE, ultimately contributing to Assyria’s fall as an empire in 612 BCE, with the defeat of their capital, Nineveh at the hands of the Medes, Babylonians… and, Scythians. Noteworthy is the fact that the Scythians attacked Calah, burning it, which was the headquarters of the Assyrian army. Revenge against Assyria was one motive for their advance, the second was the liberation of Palestine and their kin, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
What is attention grabbing is that the Scythian march through Syria and Palestine was relatively bloodless and the sparing of Jerusalem stands out. It only makes sense if the Scythian hordes were there to liberate their previous homeland and in particular their brother tribes. Wild Asiatic nomads who were in Palestine for the first time, would not have blazed their way through Assyria to then spare city after city of Judah.
Herodotus records that ‘for twenty-eight years [624-596 BCE]… the Scythians were masters of Asia…’ This time frame includes the reign of righteous King Josiah [640-609 BCE] of Judah – as well as of Jeremiah the prophet – and his reforms to return to the Mosaic Law and restore the Temple in his eighteenth year [622 BCE]. Scythian is a Greek term, thus in the Bible, the Scythians or Sacae are referred to as [the children of] Israel in 2 Chronicles 35:17-18. Steven Collins states regarding the withdrawal of the Scythians from Palestine and Mesopotamia, that they would have realised that Palestine was not the Land of Milk and Honey it once was and principally occupied by hostile foreign people, which they had no desire to subjugate or rule over, with their ‘unwanted customs and lifestyles.’
Added to this, was their large population numbers and the compactness of Palestine as an unrealistic region for a people who like ‘wide open spaces’ to farm their flocks and herds, or to maintain their isolationism policies. Collins quotes Herodotus – emphasis & bold mine – who describes the Scythians as:
“…dreadfully avoid the use of foreign customs, and especially those of the Greeks… So careful are the Scythians to guard their own customs, and such are the penalties (Herodotus refers to the death penalty* for pagan religious activity) that they impose on those who take to foreign customs over and above their own.”
‘… evidence of the Israelite origins of the Scythians is found in this comment of Herodotus about the Scythians: “They make no offerings of pigs, nor will they keep them at all in their country.” Such a prohibition is very consistent with the longstanding Hebrew custom of forbidding the use of swine for either consumption or sacrifice because it was an “unclean” animal (Deuteronomy 14:78). Another interesting point is that Herodotus records that one of the Scythian kings was named “Saulius.” Given the Hebrew/Israelite background of the Scythians, it would appear that the namesake of this Scythian king was Saul, the first Hebrew king (I Samuel 9).
Herodotus also records that the Scythians were very zealous in forbidding idolatry and the worship of “foreign gods.” In one instance, King Saulius of Scythia executed* his own brother for participating in the rites of a Greek “mother-goddess” festival and wearing “images” associated with the mother-goddess [Asherah: refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega]. The fact that the Scythians executed, without mercy, even their own rulers and royalty who worshipped the mother-goddess or other pagan gods (or who kept “images” of such gods and goddesses) shows there was a very strict law among the Scythians against idolatry. Combining the fact that idolatry was a capital offense with the Scythian custom of avoiding swine flesh, it is clear that the Scythians were faithfully practicing two key features of the laws of God given to the Israelites under Moses. This further confirms that many of the Israelites of the ten tribes had experienced a “revival” in their new homeland near the Black Sea.
Herodotus also records that “The Scythians themselves say that their nation is the youngest of all the nations… [and]…from their first king…to the crossing of Darius into Scythia was, in all, one thousand years-no more, but just so many.” Colonel Gawler analyzes Herodotus-record as follows: “Now Darius’ expedition against the Scythians was about 500 B.C., and 1000 years before that brings us to the time of Moses.” Significantly, the Scythians traced their origin as a nation to the approximate time of Moses. It was after the Exodus [1446 BCE], under Moses that the Hebrews truly became a nation with their own distinct culture and laws.’
The Persian Empire had two major conflicts with the Scythians, one was instigated by Cyrus the Great – who reigned from 559 to 530 BCE, against the eastern Scyths, who were situated east of the Caspian Sea and lead by their dominant tribe the Massagetae, which culminated in Cyrus’s death.
These tribes were those two and a half tribes who had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians prior to the eventual fall of Samaria and are listed in 1 Chronicles 5:26, ESV: ‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and he took them into exile, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of [East] Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river Gozan…’
Steven Collins elucidates:
‘Herodotus records that this Persian-Scythian war resulted from Persian aggression, writing that Cyrus “set his heart on subduing the Massagetae.” The Massagetae were living in peace at the time, and Cyrus launched a war of aggression on them to force them to be his subjects. When Persia’s invasion was imminent, Queen Tomyris sent the following message to Cyrus: “King of the Medes, cease to be so eager to do what you are doing… rule over your own people, and endure to look upon us governing ours.”It is noteworthy that the Scythians were willing to “live and let live,” but Persia persisted in its aggression. After some initial fighting, Queen Tomyris of the Massagetae offered Cyrus a second chance to cease hostilities and go back to his own land, but warned that “If you do not so, I swear by the sun, the lord of the Massagetae, that, for all your insatiability of blood, I will give you your fill of it.”
… Herodotus described the ensuing battle.
“Tomyris, since Cyrus would not listen to her, gathered all her host together and fought him. Of all the battles that were fought among the barbarians, I judge this to have been the severest, and indeed my information is that it is so. Long they remained fighting in close combat, and neither side would flee. But finally the Massagetae got the upper hand. The most of the Persian army died on the spot and, among them, Cyrus himself… Tomyris sought out his corpse among the Persian dead, and…she filled a skin with human blood and fixed his head in the skin, and, insulting over the dead, she said:
‘I am alive and [a] conqueror, but you have…rob [bed] me of my son (Tomyris’ son died in the war)… Now… I will give you your fill of blood, even as I threatened.’”
We do not know the total casualties in this war, but they must have been immense. Persia ruled a vast area and could assemble armies of over a million men. The army which Xerxes assembled against the Greeks was 1,700,000 men, and the army of Darius [522-486 BCE] against the Black Sea Scythians was 700,000 men. Since the expedition against the Massagetae was led by King Cyrus himself, one would expect his army to have numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Yet the Massagetae utterly crushed the Persian army. It is strange that modern history stresses the histories of the Assyrian and Persian Empires, but in the three great wars fought between their empires and the Scythians, the Scythians decisively won all three. History teaches much about the losers of these wars, but rarely mentions the victorious Scythians.’
The Parthians were mentioned briefly in Chapter XXIX Esau. For those who would like to pursue the subject of the Parthians, Steven Collins book, Lost Ten Tribes of Israel… Found! is an excellent starting point; where he devotes two full chapters. Though agreement on his final conclusions regarding specific identities is not reached, his in-depth and pains taking research and presentation is invaluable; being the best work regarding the sons of Jacob, this writer has had the pleasure to read. I learned a great deal; increasing my understanding considerably.
In summary, the Parthian Empire sat opposite to the Roman Empire and in balance held it in check. Parthia was no small region, for it stretched some nineteen hundred miles east to west and one thousand miles from north to south. As we have discovered in chapter XXVIII Ishmael, the Romans are one and the same as the nation of Germany today and their descent is from Abraham’s first son, Ishmael. It is no small coincidence, that the Saxon and Celtic peoples have challenged and checked the German nation’s warlike aspirations twice in the preceding century, so was their relationship similar during the days of Rome.
Though Rome invaded ancient Britain, it was never an easy occupation on its western extremity and similarly, on its far eastern border lay a strong empire that remained outside Rome’s control. The genetic, cultural and linguistic links between the Parthians and Scythians is beyond question and though allies, it was not always a friendly relationship.
What is worth highlighting from Collins, is the fascinating connection of Judah with the Parthians. One of the early capitals of Parthia was Dara. Dara [1 Chrionicles 2:3-6] was a son of Zerah [Zarah], who was in turn one of Judah’s sons. Zarah was supplanted at the time of his birth by his twin brother Phares [Pharez, Perez]; as Esau was by Jacob. Zarah’s brother Phares’s name is found repeatedly through Parthia. Phares was the ancestor of King David.
Lost Ten Tribes of Israel… emphasis & bold mine:
‘A Parthian king who ruled in the area of West India was named Gondophares, and several kings ruling over the Caucasus mountain kingdom of Iberia [Caucasus Mountains] were named Pharasmanes… Strabo records that the Iberians were the kinsmen of the Scythians… many kings of Parthia itself had names indicating that they were also royal members of the Davidic line of Judah.Such names include the key consonants of PHRS in Hellenized forms of their Parthian names (such Parthian royal names as Phraates, Phraortes, and Phraataces are examples).’
Collins shows how the Greeks interchanged the consonants B and P and thus the similarity between certain words is significant; particually as the vowels may change, though the consonants do not. Parthia is PRTH which could easily be BRTH, as in the Hebrew word for covenant, berith or BRTH. Thus words associated with the peoples of Britain are linked and derive from a common source for BRTH. Therefore Britannic Islands is synomous with the greek name Pretannic, PRT [BRT] and Parthia with Brithia and B’rithia.
It was from Parthia that the wise men had travelled to visit the young Jesus. It may be more than coincidence that a people of Judah, were visiting their rightful king, also from the tribe of Judah. Specifically, the wise men were actually Priests from the tribe of Levi. Though Levi, was to be scattered amongst Israel, we will find that they have remained with the associated tribes of the former Kingdom of Judah in larger numbers. Those tribes being the houses of Judah, Benjamin and Simeon. Recall that within the tribe of Judah, there had been splits early on. There were those who had been taken captive by the Chaldean Babylonians and there were those who had returned to Jerusalem as we have studied in the preceding chapter. It was these people of Judah, that the Parthian peoples, also of Judah, came to assist during their decades long struggle against the Seleucids.
Their King Phraates I had captured the Caspian gates for Parthia and his successor, Mithridates I, expanded the Parthian region through clever organisation and diplomacy, not just warfare. He died in 136 BCE and his son Phraates II inherited a new, formidable empire. In 129 BCE the Seleucid Greeks attacked the fledgling empire with 400,000 troops against 120,000. Though soundly defeated repeatedly, the Parthian doggedness – reminiscent of the British bulldog spirit – culminated in the death of the Seleucid monarch, Antiochus and 300,000 of his troops. An historic turning point as the Seleucid empire began to fail, squeezed between the growing powers of Rome and Parthia. This provided the opportunity for the Maccabees to assert their independence and temporary dominion of the Idumeans – the Edomites [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].
Collins mentions that ‘the Parthians treated [the conquered Seleucids] mercifully and their royal household intermarried.’ Not unlike the Trojans and Dardanians as discussed in Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon. The strong family ties between Lot and Judah should be no surprise as the relationship in modern times between France and Britain has been replicated in the Angevin monarchs and the one hundred years war.
A further parallel indicating the Parthians were primarily from the tribe of Judah, is that they enlisted the assistance of their allies and kin, the Scythians. The Scythians arrived late and they became suspicious that the Parthians had acted preemptively on purpose to secure the spoils of war for themselves; for the Parthians were reluctant to share since the Scythians had not taken part. This reneging on promised payment led to their resounding loss at the hands of the more numerous Scythians, with the Parthian king dying. This is interesting for two reasons.
Firstly, as described by Steven Collins:
‘The whole event is strikingly similar to one described in the Bible (Judges 11 & 12). After winning a great victory over the Ammonites, Jephthah and an army of Gileadites (the tribes of Manasseh, Reuben and Gad) were confronted by an army of Ephraimites which was upset that it had not been able to participate in the battle (and missed out on the booty).
The usually allied brother tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh then fought each other in a needless battle over war booty. The dominance of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in the Parthian and Scythian empires has been discussed earlier, making this ParthianScythian battle a rerun of the war in Judges 12.
After the warfare the Scythians (satisfied by their possession of war booty and the death of the Parthian king who “cheated” them) retired into their own land. This confirms the Scythians had no territorial designs against their Parthian kinsmen and were content simply “to teach the Parthians a lesson.” Nevertheless, Parthia had now replaced the Seleucids as the dominant power in southcentral Asia…’
Secondly, the Scythians included the main body of Israelites, the sons of Joseph. This wave of Scythian people migrated to Scandinavia, the Low countries and northern Germany, later to be known as Angles – the predominant and most numerous Saxon tribe. Following them were the Parthians, who migrated from Sweden into northern Denmark. These people were the Jutes and their territory was called Jutland, on the Cimbric [Cymric*] Peninsula.
The two separate migrations of the tribe of Judah – as the Parthians and the remnant of Judah from Judea, forced to flee with the Idumeans of Edom, when Roman Emperor Titus attacked in 70 CE] – subsequently led to two distinct invasions into Britain, by Judah’s descendants. The Jutes first settled in the south of England when they entered Britain. The main areas being Kent – as did the Normans in 1066 CE, in Hastings – and also the Isle of Wight and Hampshire. We will study more closely, the Jutes and also the later migration of peoples known as Normans – for both are of the House of Judah.
When the Parthian Empire fell in 226 CE, the Arsacid dynasty of Parthian kings and their people found refuge in Armenia until 429 CE; as ‘the first Christian nation in the world [not Rome]. Christianity was officially proclaimed in 301 A.D. as the national religion of Armenia.’ [William McBirnie] The former Scythians now known as Saxons – comprising the Angles and Frisian – began invading Britain about 450 CE. This shows the Parthians were a later migration of people, who identify as the Jutes.
Some researchers link the Getae with the Goths, which is correct and they appear to be part of the wider Scythian umbrella – as Gothic-Germanic peoples – though ascribing the label Goth to the Israelites is incorrect [refer Chapter XXIII Aram]. The consonants GTH may be linked to the word Gott or God as proposed and just as possibly, to Aram’s son Gether, GTH. The Goths appeared in western Europe before the Saxons as they lived to the west of them and were forced to migrate as the Saxon-Scythians pressed upon them, who in turn were forced to move by the migration of the disintegrating Parthian nation.
The word German, has its roots in the word Kerman. The Kermans lived in the Parthian province of Carmania. They were also known as Germanii and as they travelled west they were eventually known as Germans and their territory was called Germania, which was then applied to the majority of tribes that had headed westwards into northwestern Europe. Notice the similarity between the words Carmania [C-arm(e)nia] and Armenia. Pliny confirms that the once Scythians, were now called Germans: ‘the name of the Scythians has altogether been transferred to the Sarmatae and the Germans.’
The Welsh, a name given them by the Saxons, meaning foreigner is not the name they called themselves. Their name is Cymru* from cymri or cimri, a name relating to the Cimmerians. The term ‘cymric’ refers to the Brythonic group of Celtic languages, consisting of Welsh, Cornish and Breton in Brittany, France. There is another related Celtic language group Gaelic, in Ireland and Scotland.
The rest of the Celtic world who are not Israelite but are descended from Abraham or his brother Haran are the Germanic lowland peoples of the Netherlands and Belgium, with the Alpine peoples of Switzerland and Austria. The main body of Israelites who had constituted the Parthian Empire as discussed in Chapter XXIX Esau, later migrated across northern Europe and are known to historians as Saxons or Germans; not to be confused with the Deutsch [‘Germans’] of Germany.
Ptolemy [85-165 CE] said there were: ‘a Scythian people sprung from the Sakai named Saxones.’ It is over one hundred years later in 286 CE that we hear of Saxons and Franks [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon], living on the Cimbric Peninsula as pirates, an advance, early wave of the Saxons. The Saxons, led by the Angles, the dominant Saxon tribe dwelt in Denmark, northern Germany and the northern Netherlands. Included with the Angles were the Saxon tribes of the Frisians and Jutes.
These peoples left their names behind them in Frisia, Jutland and three German states with Saxony as part of their name and the French province Al-sace. The English rendition of ‘Saxon’ is with an X, though the German spelling is with a C – such as Sachsisch or Sachse – based on the Sac-root from Sacae.
The Saxons invaded the British mainland beginning 450 CE. They were a Germanic speaking people as opposed to the earlier Celts. The word Saxon in German is Sachsen, Low German, Sassen and in Dutch, Saksen. The Dutch female first name Saskia, originally meant ‘A Saxon woman.’ Sharon Turner in the History of the Anglo-Saxons reckons Saka-Suna or the Sons of Sakai abbreviated into Saksun, is the same sound as Sax-on and seems a reasonable etymology for the word Saxon. When Jacob passes on the birthright blessing to Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim, he says:
Genesis 48:16
New King James Version
The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads; Let my name be named upon them,And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;^ And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
This is a pivot verse, for the sons of Joseph are associated with the names of Israel, Abraham and specifically in this case, Isaac. The link with the name Saxon will be explored further in Chapter XXXIII Manasseh & Ephraim. We will discover just how massive a clue to their geographic location in the world it is, with the phrase ‘in the midst of the earth.’
Steven Collins stresses the slowness of ancient peoples travels: ‘… migrations took place at the speed of an oxcart, and took decades or centuries to accomplish. These migrating people needed to stop periodically to grow crops, hunt game or steal from other nations to feed their families. Undoubtedly, a large percentage of the elderly and the infirm died along the way. Wars (with native populations or each other) would have caused more casualties. Since the number of mouths to feed was at times greater than the food which was available, some starved. During severe shortages, they may have had to eat their horses, livestock, and seed grains. A nation on the move has few options.
If it cannot obtain food peacefully, it has no choice but to take it by warfare or piracy from someone else. If its people have success in warfare, they can prosper for a time. However, if it displaces another nation, that other nation must then look for a weaker nation to displace. Some tribes had to accept mercenary service to other nations in order to feed their own people. A tribe could think it had found security in a new location only to be dislodged by a stronger tribe moving into their area. It was a difficult time, as many nations and tribes were migrating and jostling each other for living space.’
There is Biblical support for the Israelite migration through Europe in a northwestern trajectory, finally arriving at isles off a coast.
Isaiah 24:15
New King James Version
Therefore glorify the Lord in the dawning light, The name of the Lord God of Israel in the coastlands of the sea.
Isaiah 42:4,12
Christian Standard Bible
He will not grow weak or be discouraged until he has established justice on earth. The coasts and islands will wait for his instruction.”… Let them give glory to the Lord and declare his praise in the coasts and islands.
Isaiah 49:1, 12
Amplified Bible
Listen to Me [the Messiah], O islands and coastlands, And pay attention, you peoples from far away… 12 Behold, these shall come from afar, and behold, these from the north and from the west…
Isaiah 51:5
Amplified Bible
“My righteousness (justice) is near, My salvation has gone forth, And My arms will judge the peoples; The islands and coastlands will wait for Me, And they will wait with hope and confident expectation for My arm.
Jeremiah 31:10
New King James Version
“Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, And declare it in the isles [H339 – ‘iy: coast, island, shore] afar off, and say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’
Acts 1:8
King James Version
… ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
The Hebrew world translated isles, islands and coastlands, means ‘a habitable spot (as desirable), dry land, a coast, an island.’ This description does not pertain to the Israelites in Canaan, but rather where they have ended up. It is patently evident that they are on Islands, far away from Palestine – in ‘the north and west.’ In this case, an Atlantic archipelago. A people living remotely, far away and ignorant of Biblical truth and the Son of Man. The Creator calls out to them to return to Him. Britain gradually began a reconciliation unbelievingly, with the British royal family in the early first century, igniting some more during the sixteenth century Reformation, though it is some way from escaping spiritual darkness, as the majority do not believe and of those that do, a minority truly understand or honour the true Christ. It is an ongoing process that will culminate climatically during Jacob’s trouble.
Moses Margouliouth, a Jewish scholar of the nineteenth century, in his History of theJews wrote: ‘It may not be out of place to state that the isles afar off mentioned in chapter 31 of Jeremiah were supposed by the ancients to be Britannia, Scotia, and Hibernia, the isles often visited we know by the merchant mariners of Phoenicia whose fleets included ships and crews drawn from the tribes of Dan, Asher and Zebulun of the coastal areas of the Land of Israel.’
Jeremiah 31:9, 21
English Standard Version
9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn… 21 “Set up road markers for yourself; make yourself guideposts; consider well the highway, the road by which you went…
Ephraim is counted as the Creator’s firstborn and charged with leaving a migratory trail. Aside from the terms, Saxon and Angle, a peculiar coincidence is the building of stone monuments called Dolmens. Dolmens are stone monuments made of two or more big upright stones with a single large stone lying across them. Their purpose is uncertain and like the pyramids most erroneously claim they were tombs. The most widely known dolmens are found in northwestern Europe, particularly in the regions of Brittany, France, southern Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland and the Low Countries. As there are over five thousand dolmens documented in the Golan of northern Israel, this makes dolmens possible signposts of the Israelites. Dolmens are also found in Portugal and Spain of the Iberian Peninsula and it may well be that Iber-ia is linked to the word Hebrew, that in turn derived from a descendant of Arphaxad, Eber.
Researchers have regularly drawn attention, to the word British which resembles two Hebrew words beriyth-iysh or Brith-ish which translates as ‘covenant man.’ The Bible often refers to this [old] covenant, or agreement the Eternal made with ancient Israel [Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 4:13], aside from the ones with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Manasseh and Ephraim.
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel… found! Steven M Collins, 1992:
‘The early British chroniclers record that a King Brutus came from the Eastern Mediterranean with hundreds of ships to colonize the large island on the northwest of the European land mass, and gave it the name “Briton” or “Brittania.” The approximate date for this event is 1103 B.C., a time just prior to the beginning of the first millennium B.C. Although Brutus is attributed a Trojan ancestry in the ancient accounts, he bore the Hebrew word BRT in his name (Brutus), and applied the same Hebrew word (BRT) to their new homeland (Briton). Brutus’ name identified him as a member of the “Covenant People,” and in naming his new land “Briton,” he was claiming it as a territory for the “Covenant People.” That a Trojan leader bore an important Hebrew root word in his name argues that Israelites were present among the inhabitants of ancient Troy.’
Britain in its Perfect Luster (Cambria Triumphans), Percy Enderbie, published in 1661:
‘In the time of King Edward I [1272-1307]. At Lincolne, where (was) held a Parliament, after much diligent search of antiquities… letters were sent to the Pope of Rome, sealed with an hundred seals and witnesses… wherein is declared and justified that in the time of Hely (Eli) [born 1144, died 1046 BCE – Eli became a Judge at age 58 in 1086 BCE for forty years: 1 Samuel 4:14-18] and Samuel the Prophet [born 1102, died 1015 BCE in the tenth year of King Saul’s reign – Samuel became a Judge at age 56 in 1046 BCE for thirty-one years], Brutus a Trojan landed here, and by his own name called the Country Britannia, before named Albion.’
Brutus has a window of fifty-six years from the birth of Samuel to the death of Eli – or sixteen years from Samuel’s birth until Eli becoming a Judge – to have arrived in Britain. Thus circa 1100 BCE is credible. Brutus or Brwt is credited as the first king of Britain, descended from Aeneas of the Trojan Royal House of Zarah, Judah. The same Aeneas from whom the early Roman emperors also claimed descent. The word Brython or Brwth-ayn is ‘Brwt with the Celtic augmentative or plural suffix.’
The Trojan Origins of European Royalty! John D Keyser – capitals & emphasis his, bold mine:
‘The legends claim that the oldest town in the land of Troy (the Troad) was founded by Teucer, who was a son of the Scamander (a stream of Crete, according to John Tzetzes, the 12th century Byzantine poet and grammarian) and the nymph Idaea. During the reign of Teucer, DARDANUS – son of Zeus and the nymph Electra – drifted from the island of Samothrace in the Aegean to the Troad, following a great deluge in the Mediterranean area. After he arrived in the Troad, Dardanus received a grant of land from Teucer and married his daughter Batea, shortly thereafter founding the city of DARDANIA at the foot of MOUNT IDA. On the death of Teucer, Dardanus succeeded him as king, and called the whole land DARDANIA.
He sired Erichthonius, who begat TROS by Astyoche, daughter of Simois. Tros named the country TROY (after himself) and the people TROES (TROJANS). By Callirrhoe, daughter of Scamander, Tros had three sons – Ilus, Assaracus and Ganymede. From two of Tros’ sons – Ilus and Assaracus – sprang TWO SEPARATE LINES; Ilus, Laomedon, Priam, Hector; and Assaracus, Capys, Anchises, Aeneas.
After building the city of Dardanus in the Troad, DARDA established his ROYAL LINE in the land, which continued as follows:
1/. DARDANUS (DARDA)
2/. ERICTANUS
3/. TROS
4/. ILUS
5/. LAOMEDON
6/. PRIAMUS (PRIAM)
Priam’s reign ended in 1181 – the year the Trojans were crushed in the First Trojan war by their brethren the Greeks. AENEAS, of the royal line, escaped the destruction of Troy and made his way to ITALY. The story of his migration is found in the Aeneid, written by the Roman historian Virgil. Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia outlines the story:
“The AENEID is a mythical (according to the “experts”) work in twelve books, describing the wanderings of the hero AENEAS and a small band of TROJANS after the fall of Troy. Aeneas escaped from Troy with the images of his ancestral gods, carrying his aged father on his shoulders, and leading his young son ASCANIUS by the hand, but in the confusion of his hasty flight he lost his wife, Creusa. He collected a FLEET OF TWENTY VESSELS, and sailed with the surviving Trojans to THRACE, where they began building a city. Aeneas subsequently abandoned his plan of a settlement there and went to CRETE, but was driven from that island by a pestilence.
After visiting EPIRUS and SICILY (where his father died), Aeneas was shipwrecked on THE COAST OF AFRICA and welcomed by DIDO, Queen of CARTHAGE. After a time he again set sail; Dido, who had fallen in love with him, was heartbroken by his departure and committed suicide. After visiting SICILY again and stopping at CUMAE, ON THE BAY OF NAPLES, he landed at the MOUTH OF THE TIBER RIVER, SEVEN YEARS after the fall of Troy. Aeneas was welcomed by LATINUS, KING OF LATIUM.
Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, was destined to marry a stranger, but her mother Amata had promised to give her in marriage to TURNUS, King of the Rutulians. A war ensued, which terminated with the defeat and death of Turnus, thus making possible the marriage of Aeneas and Lavinia. Aeneas died three years later, and his son ASCANIUS FOUNDED ALBA LONGA, the mother city of Rome” (Volume I. MCMLXXV, page 196).
The Compendium of World History records that “the refugees of the First Trojan War settled… in Italy. They founded Lavinium two years after the First Trojan War – that is, in 1179 [BCE] – and later the city of Alba (the site of the Pope’s summer palace today) at the time of the Second Trojan War in 1149. The TROJAN ROYAL HOUSE founded in Italy a line of kings that reigned in Alba from 1178 until 753, when the center of government passed to Rome.”
The Annals of the Romans relate that after Aeneas founded Alba, he married a woman who bore him a son named SILVIUS. Silvius, in turn, married; and when his new wife became pregnant, Aeneas sent word to him that he was sending a wizard to examine the wife and try and determine whether the baby was male or female. After examining Silvius’ wife, the wizard returned to his home, but was killed by ASCANIUS because of his prophecy foretelling that the woman had a male in her womb who would be the child of death – for, as the story goes, the male-child would eventually kill his father and mother and be a scourge to all mankind.
During the birth of the child, Silvius’ wife died, and the boy was reared by the father and named BRITTO (BRUTUS). Many years later, fulfilling the wizard’s prophecy, the young man BRITTO killed his father by accident while practicing archery with some friends. Because of this terrible accident, BRUTUS was DRIVEN FROM ITALY and came TO THE ISLANDS OF THE TYRRHENE SEA. According to Herman L. Hoeh:
“A son, BRUTUS, expelled from Italy returned to the Aegean area and organized the ENSLAVED TROJANS, LYDIANS AND MAEONIANS. The Greeks were defeated and TROY WAS RECAPTURED. With the recapture of Troy in 1149 the list of Sea Powers of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean began. According to the terms of the treaty with the Greeks BRUTUS MIGRATED, with all who wished to follow him, VIA THE MEDITERRANEAN INTO BRITAIN” (Compendium of World History. Volume I, page 454).
The tradition of Brutus’ migration to Britain was never questioned until the last century, when German scholars and rationalists decided that the story related in Homer’s Iliad of the siege and destruction of Troy by the Greeks, and the subsequent dispersion of the Trojan princes, was nothing but a “Poet’s dream” and a “mythological myth.” The coming of Brutus to Britain was therefore pronounced to be [a] “fabulous” legend that had no foundation in fact.
The following quotation from Drych y Prifoesedd (“The Mirror of the Principal Ages”), by Theophilus Efans of Llangammarch, Wales, sheds light on the origin of the discredit thrown upon the historical value of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s writings about Brutus. There might be reason for uncertainty if the statements of Geoffrey of Monmouth stood alone, but when we find them constantly corroborated in the old manuscripts as well as by Welsh writers of repute, there is absolutely no reason to dismiss them as “Monkish fables”! Notice –
“The first reason for denying the coming of BRUTUS into this island of Britain was this. When Jeffrey ap Arthur, Lord Bishop of Llandaff (Geoffrey of Monmouth), died, an Englishman of the name of Gwilym Bach (little William or William the Less) arrived… who desired Dafydd ab Owen, Prince of Gwynedd, to make him bishop in Jeffrey’s place about the year 1169 A.D. But when it was not to the mind of Dafydd ab Owen to grant him his request the man went home full of hatred and commenced to exercise his mind how best to despise and malign not only the memory of the bishop, who was lying in his grave, but also the whole of the Welsh nation. THIS GWILYM BACH, OUT OF MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS REFUSED THE BISHOPRIC OF LLANDAFF, WAS THE FIRST TO DENY THE COMING OF BRUTUS HERE.
“Gwilym Bach says without shame, that no one had ever mentioned the coming of Brutus and his men from Caerdroia to this island until Jeffrey ap Arthur fabricated the tale out of his own imagination, but this is a statement or charge TOO NAKED AND FLIMSY WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION AND AGAINST ALL AUTHORITY. Because Jeffrey ap Arthur did nothing but translate the Welsh Chronicles into Latin, so that the educated of the country might read them. And long, long before the time of Jeffrey one of the poems (penhillion) of Taliesin makes clear the CONSENSUS OF OPINION of his fellow-countrymen in regard to the matter, and he wrote about the year 566 A.D.” (Quoted in Prehistoric London, by E. O. Gordon. Artisan Sales, Thousand Oaks, CA 1985, page 9).
After leaving the Aegean area Brutus “MIGRATED TO MALTA, and there was advised to reestablish his people in ‘the Great White Island’ (an early name for BRITAIN due to its chalk cliffs). This advice is recorded in an archaic Greek form on the Temple of Diana in CAER TROIA (New Troy).” (Jacob’s Pillar, page 26).
Where BRUTUS and his people traveled to next is preserved by the British historian Nennius, who states that “Aeneas… arrived in GAUL (modern FRANCE), WHERE HE FOUNDED THE CITY OF TOURS, which is called Turnis…” (Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, translated by John Morris. Phillimore, London and Chichester. 1980. Page 19). Nennius then says that “later he CAME TO THIS ISLAND, which is named BRITANNIA from his name, and filled it with his race, and dwelt there”.
The arrival of the Trojans in Britain is traced by E. Raymond Capt:
“The descendants of DARDA (DARDANNES or DANAANS) ruled ancient TROY for several hundred years, until the city was destroyed in the famous ‘Siege of Troy.’ AENEAS, the last of the ROYAL BLOOD, (Zarah-Judah) collected the remnants of his nation and traveled with them to ITALY. There he married the daughter of LATINUS, king of the Latins, and subsequently FOUNDED THE GREAT ROMAN EMPIRE. Aeneas’ GRANDSON, BRUTUS with a large part of the TROJANS migrated to ‘the GREAT WHITE ISLAND’ (an early name for BRITAIN due to its chalk cliffs). Tradition says that on the way to the ‘White Island’ Brutus came across FOUR OTHER TROJAN COLONIES UPON THE COAST OF SPAIN and persuaded them to join him.
At TOTNES on the RIVER DART [in England], twelve miles inland from TORBAY (the oldest seaport in South Devon) is an historical STONE that commemorates the coming of BRUTUS to Britain. (Circa 1103 B.C.) The stone is known as the ‘BRUTUS STONE,’ the tradition being that the TROJAN PRINCE set foot upon it when he first landed. The WELSH RECORDS state that THREE TRIBES OF HIS COUNTRYMEN received Brutus and his company as BRETHREN and proclaimed Brutus KING at a national convention of the whole island. His THREE SONS, born after his arrival in Britain were named after the three tribes – LOCRINUS [England], CAMBER [Wales], and ALBAN [Scotland]. Brutus’ name HEADS THE ROLE in all the genealogies of the British kings, preserved as faithfully as were those of the kings of Israel and Judah” (Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, page 65-66).
E. Raymond Capt continues by saying:
“Brutus founded the city of ‘CAER TROIA,’ or ‘NEW TROY.’ The Romans later called it ‘LONDINUM,’ now known as LONDON. The actual date of the founding of the city is suggested in the Welsh bardic literature: ‘And when BRUTUS had finished the building of the city, and had strengthened it with walls and castles, he consecrated them and made inflexible laws for the governance of such as should dwell there peacefully, and he put protection on the city and granted privilege to it. At this time, BELI THE PRIEST RULED IN JUDEA [1086-1046 BCE], and the Ark of the Covenant was in captivity to the Philistines [1046 BCE]’” (The Welsh Bruts).
The reference, in the quotation above, to BELI THE PRIEST, is obviously of ELI of the First Book of Samuel. Such remote prehistoric antiquity of the site of London is CONFIRMED by the numerous archaeological remains found there, not only of the Stone Age and Early Bronze Ages, but even of the Old Stone Age. This indicates that it was already a settlement at the time when BRUTUS selected it for the site of his new capital of “NEW TROY.”
Within the last century or so an entirely new light has been cast upon the prehistoric history of London and its mounds, by Schliemann’s discoveries at Hissarlik – the ancient TROY in the north-west of Asia Minor. States author E. O. Gordon: “No longer need the story be regarded as fabulous, that Brutus the Trojan, the grandson of Aeneas (the hero of Virgil’s great epic), gave the name of CAER TROIA, TROYNOVANT or NEW TROY, to London. In site and surroundings…there seems to have been considerable resemblance between the historic Troy on the Scamander and New Troy on the Thames. On the plains of Troy to-day may be seen numerous conical mounds rising from out of the lagoons and swamps that environed the citadel hill of Hissarlik, akin to those that dominated the marshes, round about the Caer and Porth of London, in prehistoric times” (Prehistoric London, page 83).
The Bible Research Handbook verifies the authenticity of the legends of Brutus:
“Various details of circumstantial evidence appear to lend their support to the legend of the TROJAN SETTLEMENT OF BRITAIN. Ancient Irish accounts relate that a PARTHOLANUS, whose life was in important respects SIMILAR to that of BRUTUS, reached over our islands at a very early date. Caesar’s ‘Commentaries,’ which tell of a people called TRINOBANTES, who lived in the vicinity of what is now MIDDLESEX AND HERTFORDSHIRE, seem clearly to bear out the story of the TROJANS having founded TROJA NOVA, later called TRINOVANTUM, and eventually LONDON”.
The Link, a magazine of the Christian Israel Foundation, mentions other confirming historians:
“According to FIRM ancient legends, transmitted both by British and by Continental writers, a TROJAN COLONY, led by one BRUTUS, settled in the BRITISH ISLES not long after the fall of TROY in 1184 B.C., and established the line of early BRITISH KINGS from which the famous CARACTACUS and BOADICEA were in due course descended.”
BRUTUS (or BRUT) OF TROY, grandson of AENEAS, left Troy, after the defeat of his countrymen by the Greeks, and with a band of followers journeyed to Britain by way of ITALY, where he FOUNDED LONDON, calling it NEW TROY. These traditions are chronicled by GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH, WACE, LAYAMON and OTHER EARLY HISTORIANS. There is support also from the writings of MATTHEW OF PARIS.
Although Geoffrey of Monmouth’s evidence in particular is discounted in certain quarters, THE BRUTUS STORY WAS CURRENT LONG BEFORE GEOFFREY’S TIME, so that whatever may have been added by him in the way of imaginative detail, at least he did NOT invent the basic tradition.
The evidence was certainly sufficient to convince the famous Lord Chief Justice Coke of the 17th century, for he wrote: ‘The original laws of this land were composed of such elements as BRUTUS (THE TROJAN) FIRST SELECTED FROM THE ANCIENT TROJAN AND GREEK INSTITUTIONS.’ In support of him, Lord Chancellor Fortescue, in his work on the Laws of England, states: ‘THE KINGDOM OF BRITAIN HAD ITS ORIGINAL INSTITUTIONS FROM BRUTUS OF THE TROJANS’
David Williamson, in his book Kings and Queens of Britain, comments on the authenticity of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s writings and equates their veracity to the books of the Old Testament:
“Geoffrey of Monmouth, writing in the first half of the twelfth century, sought to tell the story of Britain from its… FOUNDATION BY BRUTUS THE TROJAN until the coming of the Saxons… Geoffrey claimed that his History of the Kings of Britain was translated from ‘a certain very ancient book written in the British language’ which had been given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford. It was dedicated to two of the LEADING NOBLEMEN of the day, Robert, Earl of Gloucester (died 1147) [a]…son of King Henry I, and Waleran, Count of Mellent (died 1166). In it he tells of the wanderings of BRUTUS, the great-grandson of AENEAS [timescale wise this is more accurate than a son or grandson which we have read in other sources in this article], forced to leave Italy after accidentally killing his father and eventually, after many adventures, COMING TO ALBION, which he renamed BRITAIN from his own name, after driving out the aboriginal giants. The story continues with the… deeds of BRUTUS’ DESCENDANTS and successors FROM ABOUT 1100 B.C. until the coming of the Romans… Lewis Thorp’s introduction to his translation of Geoffrey’s History points out that it might ‘be said to bear the SAME RELATIONSHIP to the story of the early British inhabitants of our own island as do the seventeen historical books in the OLD TESTAMENT, from Genesis to Esther, to the early history of the ISRAELITES in Palestine'” (Dorset Press, N.Y. 1992, page 8).
In the manuscript section of the British Library lies an old document – MS43968 – that used to be kept in Windsor Castle. This particular chart gives the descent of the British Royal Family from ADAM THROUGH BRUTUS. Also, charts published by the Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., by W. M. H. Milner entitled The Royal House of Britain and by M. H. Gayer entitled The Heritage of the Anglo-Saxon Race both trace the ancestry of the Royal House THROUGH SEVERAL LINES OF DESCENT FROM THE PATRIARCH JUDAH – INCLUDING BRUTUS who is shown as a descendant of Judah’s son Zarah.
Every British schoolboy knew by heart the letter British king Caractacus sent to Claudius Caesar. But not many know about the letter, written about a century earlier, from King Cassibellaunus to Julius Caesar. This letter is quoted in full by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who possessed an ancient manuscript from BRITTANY that evidently contained the letter. Geoffrey quotes widely from this manuscript in his historical work. The letter reads as follows:
“Cassibelaun, king of the Britains, to Caius Julius Caesar. We cannot but wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since their insatiable thirst after money cannot let us alone whom the dangers of the ocean have placed in a manner out of the world; but they must have the presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoy’d in quiet. Neither is this indeed sufficient: we must also prefer subjection and slavery to them, before the enjoyment of our native liberty. Your demand therefore, Caesar, is scandalous, since the SAME VEIN OF NOBILITY, FLOWS FROM AENEAS, IN BRITONS [Israelites descended from Jacob and Isaac] AND ROMANS [Ishmaelites descended from Isaac’s half brother, Ishmael], and ONE AND THE SAME CHAIN OF CONSANGUINITY SHINES IN BOTH [both descended from Abraham]: which ought to be a band of firm union and friendship. That was what you should have demanded of us, and not slavery: we have learned to admit of the one, but never to bear the other. And so much have we been accustomed to liberty, that we are perfectly ignorant what it is to submit to slavery. And if even the gods themselves should attempt to deprive us of our liberty, we would to the utmost of our power resist them in defense of it. Know then, Caesar, that we are ready to fight for that and our kingdom if, as you threaten, you shall attempt to invade Britain.”
The reference in this letter to AENEAS provides support for the fact that the ancient British royal line STEMMED FROM TROY, as did, traditionally, the descent of certain of the EARLY RULERS OF ROME. And, as we have already seen, the tradition that the TROJAN LEADERS WERE JUDAHITES is upheld by testimony from many quarters.
Cassibellaunus was not the only king of Britain who knew of his Trojan blood-line. Edward I, who removed the Stone of Destiny from Scone in Scotland to London, used to BOAST about his descent from the Trojans: “The Irish and Scottish kings, Fergus and EDWARD HIMSELF were all DESCENDANTS OF JUDAH: in fact it is said that EDWARD used to boast of his DESCENT FROM THE TROJANS!” (Co-Incidences? Pointers to Our Heritage, by Brigadier G. Wilson). William F. Skene, author of a book on the Stone of Destiny, states that “the KING OF ENGLAND, by whom the kingdom of Scotland was derived from ALBANACTUS, THE YOUNGEST SON OF BRUTUS, THE EPONYMUS OF THE BRITONS, while that of ENGLAND WAS DERIVED FROM LOCRINUS, THE ELDEST SON.” (The Coronation Stone, page 21). Even James I [of England – James VI Scotland] knew of his background, and let it be known on several occasions that he was descended from Brutus!’
The promised Abrahamic Covenant Blessing, included a large number of descendants, a plurality of nations, a great nation, a royal dynasty, incredible prosperity and the possession of the ‘gates of their enemies’ – in other words, military superiority [Genesis 13:16, 17:2-7, 22:15-17]. These promises were passed on to Isaac [Genesis 17:21], to Jacob [Genesis 27:19-33], now named Israel and then primarily to his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh and also his son, Judah [Genesis 48:14-20].
There can be no other body of peoples that fit these criteria, than the British and Irish – Saxon, Celtic and Viking – peoples of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the British descended peoples of South Africa – and by extension, Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia.
It may seem peculiar or coincidental that the nations of the United Kingdom and the United States of America should grow into the powers they became as if out of nowhere. In the Book of Leviticus, the Creator clearly defines that blessings would be given for obedience and removal of said blessings for disobedience. The Creator promised a vast period of struggle should they fall, which they did and then a re-birth so-to-speak, in the latter days. Not because of their inherent goodness, but because of the Eternal’s unconditional promise to faithful Abraham. Herman Hoeh and Herbert Armstrong explain the punishment promise.
‘Israel was promised great national blessings, including national greatness if they would obey God. But God also promised that if they obstinately refused to obey Him, if they refused to follow His laws and let Him rule their lives, then He would punish them for a period called seven times (Leviticus 26).
The Bible itself defines this period of seven times… Revelation the twelfth chapter, and compare verses 6 and 14 you will see that the word time in prophecy simply means a year, hence seven times would be seven years or 2520 days. Now let’s notice another key. In Numbers 14:34, God said Israel would bear their iniquities in the wilderness after the number of days they searched the land of Canaan, forty days, each day for a year.
Then seven times or 2520 prophetic days would equal 2520 literal years! This period of seven times or 2520 years punishment did come upon Israel because they went their own ways and would not submit to the rule of God. Israel went into captivity about 721 B.C. and did not become a great people again until their times of punishment ceased about 1800 A.D. At that time the descendants of the ancient House of Israel – America and Britain and the democratic peoples of the world – began to rise to such wealth and power as the world has never enjoyed before all because of the promises made to Abraham’ [Herman Hoeh, 1955].
‘Now continue in Leviticus 26: “And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins” (verse 18). This expression “seven times” is translated into the English from a Hebrew word which conveys a dual meaning. The original Hebrew word Moses wrote is shibah. It is defined as “seven times,” and also as “sevenfold.” The “seven times” implies duration or continuation of punishment. But the word also conveys the meaning of “sevenfold,” or seven times greater intensity of punishment – as a punishment that is sevenfold more intense. In this sense, the meaning would be the same as in Daniel 3:19, where King Nebuchadnezzar, in a rage, commanded that the furnace into which Daniel’s three friends were to be thrown should be made seven times hotter.
Now understand the “seven times” – or seven prophetic “times.” For this is a prophecy. In prophecy, a “time” is a prophetic 360-day year. And, during Israel’s punishment, each day represented a year being fulfilled… But when that 2520-year withholding of the birthright had expired, God was faithful to His unconditional promise to Abraham! Not because of any British or American goodness, superiority, or worthiness, but because of God’s faithfulness to His promise, beginning in 1800 these two birthright peoples suddenly burst forth as the greatest world powers in all history!’ [Herbert Armstrong, 1980]
In 1800 the Acts of Union occurred whereby Great Britain and Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus began a century of expansion unlike anything ever witnessed before. It was also the same century, that the United States threw off the royal sovereignty of the United Kingdom and began its own meteoritic rise to greatness. There were many acquisitions; the major ones listed below…
1800 – Malta: sea gate – Protectorate acquired by conquest 1806 – Cape of Good Hope: sea gate taken from the Dutch
1815 – Ceylon: Sri Lanka, acquired
1825 – Tasmania: (formerly Van Diemen’s Land) formed into a colony 1832 – Western Australia: formed into a colony 1836 – South Australia: formed into a province
1841 – Hong Kong: sea gate taken from the Chinese 1841 – New Zealand: made a separate colony 1849 – The Punjab: formally annexed 1851 – Victoria: formed into a colony 1858 – India: transferred to the Crown 1859 – Queensland: formed into a colony
1874 – Fiji: formed into colony 1876 – Queen publicly proclaimed Empress of India 1878 – Cyprus: sea gate taken possession of from Ottoman Empire
The territorial expansion of the British Empire, led to the expression: “the sun never set” on it. In fact ‘in 1913, 412 million people lived under the control of the British Empire, twenty-three percent of the world’s population at that time. It remains the largest empire in human history and at the peak of its power in 1920, it covered an astonishing 13.71 million square miles – that’s close to a quarter of the world’s land area.’ [N McCarthy, The Biggest Empires In Human History, 2019].
The issue with thinking Judah is a small or persecuted nation and that it would be fragmented until the latter days, only then gaining a homeland or national status based on scripture are all incorrect interpretation of verses. Plus, the perpetuation of this error has hidden the singular most important key to unlocking the Bible and future events, the true identity of the tribe of Judah, which has gone tragically unnoticed [Revelation 3:7]. These identifying signs are the markers of Edom, not Judah [Malachi 1;2-4, Obadiah 1-21]. Judah is the royal tribe, with ruling orb and sceptre. A throne that has dominated nearly all royal lines throughout Europe.
Blessed with national wealth and prosperity, giving birth to daughter nations and as the Parthians had a propensity to govern, organise, rule as an expanding empire, so too have the people that were known as Jutes; but took on the name of their half brother tribe the Angli and so in time, the land taking on the Angle name becoming Angl-and and the Angl-ish – for the Tribe of Judah is England. As the words Gaul and Gael are linked, it is also associated with An-gael. The evolution of an An-gael-ish man to an English man is not hard to fathom, particularly as ‘ish’ means man in Hebrew. The east of England still bears this name in East Anglia.
Alternative options provided by those researchers who have deduced there is a problem with ascribing Judah to the Jews, are then non-plussed at who to then turn. Those who accurately identify the Jews with Edom, are then hindered in their argument in not giving a viable solution. I have seen in other works, Scotland, Ireland and Germany offered as possible descendants of Judah. Germany is Ishmael [refer Chapter XXVIII Ishmael] and Scotland and Ireland are both too small to fulfil the biblical verses in either the historic or prophetic contexts ascribed to the prominent House of Judah.
Of course getting through to the Houses of Judah and Israel is a thankless task as the prophet Ezekiel was warned, but now is the time for the truth of their identity to be made known…
Ezekiel 2:3-7
English Standard Version
3 And he said to me, “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations [plural] of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. 4 The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ 5 And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6 And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. 7 And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear…
Ezekiel 3:4-6
English Standard Version
4 And he said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with my words to them. 5 For you are not sent to a people of foreign speech and a hard language, but to the house of Israel – [who all speak English]6 not to many peoples of foreign speech and a hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, if I sent you to such, they would listen to you.
The English, more than any other peoples have migrated all over the world. By this, not those of ‘English’ descent in the United States or Australia for example, but rather those people who are British citizens, living in nations such as Spain or China and known as Ex-pats.
Isaiah 11:12
English Standard Version
He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
As we progress, the logic and truth of England’s true identity will become apparent and relentlessly convincing. Those who may struggle the most are those entrenched in the paradigm that the Jews [refer Chapter XXIX Esau] are Judah and England is Ephraim and the apparent ease that verses applicable too Judah and Ephraim appear to fit the modern nation states of Israel and England. Once we investigate a little deeper and more thoroughly, it will be clear that the relationship the Jews and England share and their historical alignment is actually indicative of Edom and Judah, the most spoken about relationship in scripture. The relationship between say Turkey as Edom and the Jews as Judah, falls inadequately short in aligning literally every single verse in the Bible. This jig-saw pattern does not work; simply, the former does.
It is worth noting a few key points in identifying true Israel and by extension Judah, that the Jews are not able to fulfil. 1. Jeremiah 31:33 shows that Israel was to come under the liberation of the New Covenant. The Jewish people remain under the shackles and imperfection of the old Law. 2. Hosea 1:10 states that Israelites were to become the sons of God, in accepting the Messiah. The Jewish people continue to reject Him as the Saviour. 3. Israel was to have a monarchy that would last forever – Jeremiah 33: 17. The Jewish people have no sovereign monarch on the earth. 4. Isaiah 54:17 and Leviticus 26:6-8, say that Israel was to be immune from defeat in wars – not battles – yet the Jews have suffered an endless tide of either persecution or death.
We are first introduced to Judah in Genesis 29:35 ESV: ‘And [Leah] conceived again and bore a son, and said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” Therefore she called his name Judah. Then she ceased bearing.’ Leah had Judah, her fourth son and then had a gap of a number of years, before giving birth to her remaining three children.
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Judah meaning: ‘Praised, Let [God] Be Praised’ from the verb yada, to praise
The original Judah is Jacob’s fourth son with Leah (Genesis 29:35). Judah becomes prominent when his three brothers Reuben, Simeon and Levi forfeit their places in the hierarchy (Reuben sleeps with Bilhah – Genesis 35:22, and Simeon and Levi avenge their sister Dinah’s rape by killing the entire male population of the village of Shechem, and looting the place – Genesis 34:25).
It should be noted that the feminine form of this name, Judith, occurs a generation earlier than Judah and may very well be the original (meaning that the name Judah is derived from Judith and not vice versa). Judith is the [‘Hittite’] aunt of Judah, married to Judah’s uncle Esau.
Other Judahs are: A postexilic Levite (Ezra 3:9); A Levite who divorces his foreign wife in the purge of Ezra (Ezra 10:23); A postexilic overseer (Nehemiah 11:9); A Levite who returns with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 12:8); A postexilic leader (Nehemiah 12:34); A priestly musician (Nehemiah 12:36).
The name Judah transliterated into Greek is Iouda, and occurs as such 7 times in the New Testament… The name Judas is the Hellenized version of the Hebrew name Judah.
When Leah gave birth to Judah she names him such by saying, “This time I will praise the Lord”. Perhaps she meant that she realized that her first three sons weren’t going to bring her closer to Jacob, and she should redirect her focus to God. Formally, the name Judah does not contain the appellative (Yah) = (Yahu) = (Yu), which in turn are abbreviated forms of the Tetragrammaton; the name of the Lord: YHWH, but no member of a Hebrew audience would fail to notice that the first two letters of the name Judah form (Yah).
And if the letter (daleth) would be omitted from the name Judah, the very name (YHWH) would appear. For the meaning of the name Judah, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Let Him (God) Be Praised.’
Popular English names include Judith, Judy and Jude. When Joseph has a dream of his preeminence over his family and probably naively or possibly arrogantly, declares it to everyone, his brothers conspire against him. They decide to kill him, though Reuben suggests leaving him in a pit, so that he can secretly return to save him and take him back to his father. Was Reuben trying to atone for his sleeping with Bilhah and thus return to his father Jacob’s good books or was it a truly altruistic gesture. Either way, Judah takes the starring role…
Genesis 37:23-35
English Standard Version
23 So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. 24 And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. 25 Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt.
26 Then Judah said to his brothers,“What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. 28 Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt.
29 When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was not in the pit, he tore his clothes 30 and returned to his brothers and said, “The boy is gone, and I, where shall I go?” 31 Then they took Joseph’s robe and slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32 And they sent the robe of many colors and brought it to their father and said, “This we have found; please identify whether it is your son’s robe or not.” 33 And he identified it and said, “It is my son’s robe. A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces.” 34 Then Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days. 35 All his sons and all his daughters [H1323 – bath: daughter, girl] rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, “No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father wept for him.
We learn that Jacob may have had daughters in the plural. Thus, Dinah being mentioned with Zebulon gives further credence to her being his twin. It also means that her escapade with Shechem and the recounting of it, shows she may have stood out from her sisters. Alternatively, the Hebrew word bath can infer daughters-in-law. Joseph was seventeen when this event occurred, thus the year was 1709 BCE. Reuben was born in 1752 BCE and Judah in 1746 BCE; they were forty-three and thirty-seven years of age respectively.
The act against Joseph is all the more cruel as we are not speaking of teenage boys or young men in their twenties with hot heads. These were older men, coldly plotting a young lads fate.
Judah meanwhile, reasons that culpability is substantially reduced if they cast Joseph to the whims of others rather than physically killing him themselves. Was this a gesture of kindness in sparing Joseph’s life, or was it to only ensure escape for blame for his possible death. Judah displays a wily solution to the problem in a similar fashion to how his father would; while standing to make an investment from the transaction. Apart from Joseph, no other son of Jacob has a chapter devoted to them in the Book of Genesis. The next chapter in Genesis describes Judah’s hit and miss love life.
Genesis 38:1-30
English Standard Version
It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2 There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her and went in to her, 3 and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4 She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5 Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judah was in Chezib when she bore him.
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also. 11Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up” – for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father’s house.
Judah separated himself from his brothers; we learn he is his own man. Judah may not have desired the women related to his family from Nahor or Haran, or he was seeking adventure and to be a rebel. He did not make a sound choice, reflective of his Uncle Esau. Notice Judah named his first son and Shua’s daughter named the next two. It is not clear whether Shua’s daughter was a Black Canaanite woman or if she was from one of the Nephilim descended clans. It is odd that her name is not given. The Book of Jubilees 34:20 gives her name as Betasu’el; though later in the book of Chronicles, her name is given as Bath-shua. Judah takes an invested interest in Er again, when he chooses his wife for him. We do not know who Tamar is and her lineage not stated, is also odd, though the Book of Jasher adds information.
Book of Jasher 45:4,23
4… Judah went at that time to Adulam, and he came to a man of Adulam, and his name was Hirah, and Judah saw there the daughter of a man from Canaan, and her name was Aliyath, the daughter of Shua, and he took her, and came to her, and Aliyath bare unto Judah, Er, Onan and Shiloh; three sons.
23 And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam [Turkish – refer Chapter XVIII Elam], the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born Er.
It would be impossible from an unconventional chronology for Tamar to be the literal daughter of Elam, so a descendant would be applicable. As Er and Onan are both put to death, first without a reason given and then a reason that doesn’t fit the crime. Nephilim descent could possibly answer why her sons were evil. Against this, is that Shelah is also from Shua’s daughter. My leaning would be that Shelah was half Israelite and half Black Canaanite. For the events to unfold and add up mathematically, so that Pharez’s sons Hezron and Hamul are counted as part of the seventy souls who travelled with Jacob into Egypt, Judah would have to have married Shua’s daughter circa 1727 BCE and not in 1709 BCE as intimated in verse one. A year before Joseph was born in fact in 1726 BCE. This means Er and Onan were contemporaries of Joseph being born circa 1727 and 1726 BCE. Er perhaps marrying Tamar in 1709 BCE and then Onan in 1708 BCE.
12 In the course of time the wife of Judah, Shua’s daughter, died [between 1708 – 1706 BCE]. When Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And when Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she took off her widow’s garments and covered herself with a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 He turned to her at the roadside and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” 17 He answered, “I will send you a young goat from the flock.” And she said, “If you give me a pledge, until you send it – ” 18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him. 19 Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.
Shelah must have been born circa 1725 BCE and by 1707 BCE was old enough to marry Tamar. For whatever reason, Judah had not given Tamar to Shelah. Tamar took matters in her own hands, due to her attraction for Judah, circa 1706 BCE.
20 When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite to take back the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her. 21 And he asked the men of the place, “Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim at the roadside?” And they said, “No cult prostitute has been here.” 22 So he returned to Judah and said, “I have not found her. Also, the men of the place said, ‘No cult prostitute has been here.’” 23 And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, or we shall be laughed at. You see, I sent this young goat, and you did not find her.”
24 About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” 25 As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” 26 Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.
27 When the time of her labor came, there were twins in her womb. 28 And when she was in labor, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.”29 But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out. And she said, “What a breach you have made for yourself!” Therefore his name was called Perez. 30 Afterward his brother came out with the scarlet thread on his hand, and his name was called Zerah.
Recall Judah’s wife, Bath-shua was dead and so Judah was a widow when he visited a prostitute. Judah was possibly not attracted to Tamar enough to marry Tamar, nor would it have been conventional to marry his son’s former wife. Their new sons, Pharez and Zarah were born out of wedlock circa 1705 BCE. Pharez was the ancestor of both King David and the Messiah.
The name Tamar means ‘palm’ or ‘palm tree.’ Er is interesting as it can mean ‘aroused, wild ass, watching’ and ‘watcher.’ A clue to a Nephilim origin? The verb ‘arar means ‘to strip and accumulate.’ Onan is also enlightening as it can mean ‘trouble, vigor, vigorous, strong’ and ‘iniquity.’ Shelah means ‘to send.’ Pharez means ‘a breach, to break through.’ Zarah means ‘rising, rising of light, dawn, break out.’ Pharez and Zarah both meaning to break through or break out.
Due to severe famine, Jacob sends his sons to Egypt excepting Benjamin. Of course, Joseph has never met Benjamin. He makes a pretext to withhold Simeon and requests the brothers return with the youngest brother Benjamin – who was born some twenty-seven years after Joseph circa 1699 BCE and who is about twelve.
Genesis 43
English Standard Version
Now the famine was severe in the land. 2 And when they had eaten the grain that they had brought from Egypt, their father said to them, “Go again, buy us a little food.” 3 But Judah said to him, “The man solemnly warned us, saying, ‘You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you.’ 4 If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food. 5 But if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you.’” 6 Israel said, “Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man that you had another brother?” 7 They replied, “The man questioned us carefully about ourselves and our kindred, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Do you have another brother?’ What we told him was in answer to these questions.
Could we in any way know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?” 8 And Judah said to Israel his father, “Send the boy with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, both we and you and also our little ones. 9 I will be a pledge of his safety. From my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever.10 If we had not delayed, we would now have returned twice.”
11 Then their father Israel said to them, “If it must be so, then do this: take some of the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry a present down to the man, a little balm and a little honey, gum, myrrh, pistachio nuts, and almonds. 12 Take double the money with you. Carry back with you the money that was returned in the mouth of your sacks. Perhaps it was an oversight. 13 Take also your brother, and arise, go again to the man. 14 May God Almighty grant you mercy before the man, and may he send back your other brother and Benjamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.”
Poor Jacob with two sons at risk now, Simeon and Benjamin. It is highly prophetic that Judah should wish to take Joseph’s only full-blood brother and protect him. We will learn that Judah and Benjamin’s peoples have developed a very close relationship over the centuries, albeit turbulent at times, it has been a strong bond that was the heart, soul and core of the future Kingdom of Judah. The brothers return to Egypt and feast with Joseph. Joseph tests them on the return journey by hiding a ‘stolen’ crop in Benjamin’s bags; so they should return to Egypt.
Genesis 44:14-34
English Standard Version
14 When Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house, he was still there. They fell before him to the ground. 15 Joseph said to them, “What deed is this that you have done? Do you not know that a man like me can indeed practice divination?” 16 And Judah said, “What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak? Or how can we clear ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants; behold, we are my lord’s servants, both we and he also in whose hand the cup has been found.”
17 But he said, “Far be it from me that I should do so! Only the man in whose hand the cup was found shall be my servant. But as for you, go up in peace to your father.”
Joseph is definitely getting good measure of playful revenge on his brothers, saying he can divine and cornering them to leave behind Benjamin. Notice in all the exchanges with Joseph, it is not the elder brothers, Reuben, Simeon or Levi taking the lead, it is Judah that is speaking on all of their behalf.
18 Then Judah went up to him and said, “Oh, my lord, please let your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears, and let not your anger burn against your servant, for you are like Pharaoh himself. 19 My lord asked his servants, saying, ‘Have you a father, or a brother?’ 20 And we said to my lord, ‘We have a father, an old man, and a young brother, the child of his old age. His brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother’s children, and his father loves him.’ 21 Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him.’ 22 We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father, for if he should leave his father, his father would die.’ 23 Then you said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, you shall not see my face again.’
24 “When we went back to your servant my father, we told him the words of my lord. 25 And when our father said, ‘Go again, buy us a little food,’ 26 we said, ‘We cannot go down. If our youngest brother goes with us, then we will go down. For we cannot see the man’s face unless our youngest brother is with us.’ 27 Then your servant my father said to us, ‘You know that my wife bore me two sons. 28 One left me, and I said, “Surely he has been torn to pieces,” and I have never seen him since. 29 If you take this one also from me, and harm happens to him, you will bring down my gray hairs in evil to Sheol.’
30 “Now therefore, as soon as I come to your servant my father, and the boy is not with us, then, as his life is bound up in the boy’s life, 31 as soon as he sees that the boy is not with us, he will die, and your servants will bring down the gray hairs of your servant our father with sorrow to Sheol. 32 For your servant became a pledge of safety for the boy to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame before my father all my life.’ 33 Now therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the boy as a servant to my lord, and let the boy go back with his brothers. 34 For how can I go back to my father if the boy is not with me? I fear to see the evil that would find my father.”
Judah has deliberately laid it on thick here and making the point as dramatically as possible, in that he cannot under any circumstances leave Benjamin behind. It is at this point, that Joseph cannot keep up the charade and emotionally reveals his identity. Plans are agreed for Jacob’s family to move to Lower Egypt, the Nile delta situated in the north of Egypt.
Genesis 46:28-29
English Standard Version
[Jacob] had sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph to show the way before him in Goshen, and they came into the land of Goshen. 29 Then Joseph prepared his chariot and went up to meet Israel his father in Goshen…
We shall return to this dramatic reunion in Chapter XXXIII Manasseh & Ephraim. In Genesis chapter forty-nine, Jacob gathers his sons prior to his death and gives a specific prophecy – which in turn are identifying signs – for each son and their descendants. In Deuteronomy chapter thirty-three, Moses gives additional prophecies on the respective tribes.
Genesis 49:8-12
English Standard Version
8 “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies;your father’s sons shall bow down before you.
England has certainly had the upper hand over their enemies. It has not lost a war since the American War of Independence in 1812. Before that, it lost a handful of battles with Scotland, though winning the pivotal majority. The United States on the other hand has had greater highs – influencing the outcome of both World Wars – and also greater lows, stalemates or losses in the Korean and Vietnam wars. England’s daughter nations have all looked to the Mother country in recognition of their origin and support. Similarly, the English speaking Saxon-Celtic peoples have given their allegiance to England in having their King [or Queen] as their own. It cannot be said that any country has ever bowed down to the Jewish nation.
Three countries have shaken this obligation of service to the Monarch off, and formed Republics – the United States, South Africa and Ireland. Israelite tribes that do not wish to be joined with Judah through ‘their monarchy’ though in the case of America, a ‘special relationship’ continues. Nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are self-governing democracy’s that readily claim the Queen, as their Monarch – albeit Australia more reluctantly and possibly heading towards a republican future the soonest of the three. The remaining three nations are tied exclusively with Judah and the throne, in a Union and they comprise the nations of Scotland, Wales [since 2011 – formerly a principality] and Northern Ireland.
With the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, driven by the English, it remains to be seen if Scotland also takes a path towards a Republic. This issue is significant and will become apparent when we discuss their identity.
Deuteronomy 33:7
English Standard Version
And this he said of Judah: “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in to his people.With your hands contend for him,and be a help against his adversaries.”
New English Translation
… May his power be great, and may you help him against his foes.”
King James Version
… let his hands be sufficient for him…
Good News Translation
… listen to their cry for help; Unite them again with the other tribes [of Israel]. Fight for them, Lord, And help them against their enemies.”
The peoples of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States – with the exception of Ireland – all came to England’s call in their darkest hours during the Great War and the Second World War. The loss of life, freely given to assist Judah’s cause was of great sacrifice, particularly from the smaller of Judah’s brother nations. Conversely, the Israelite people of the colonies around the world that became nations in their own right have all originated from the prominent nation on the largest of the British Isles, England. England is surrounded by water, as Judah is described in the Book of Isaiah. The original territory of Judah was landlocked.
Isaiah 48:1
King James Version
Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.
In the Hebrew, the word for sufficient, meaning ‘power, contend’ is rab, H7227. The word, strangely enough is not translated as sufficient very often; some sixty-two times spread across eleven translations. In the KJV it is translated as: many [190], great [118], much [36], captain [24], more [12], multitude [7], mighty [5], greatly [3]. It also means ‘abounding in, more numerous than, strong, greater than, exceedingly’ and ‘chief.’ Abundant as in ‘quantity, size, age, number, rank’ and multitude as in ‘plenteous, populous’ and a ‘prince.’ These definitions could reveal that many would assist Judah.
Though the context is that may his [Judah’s] power be great, as in plenteous and strong. England has an estimated population of 56,550,000 people, is a great nation, economically and militarily; and was once a major power, a prototype superpower even while it possessed an empire, though now it is but a regional power and leads a Commonwealth of nations, which reflects the residue of its former overseas empire.
The United Kingdom has the sixth largest economy in the world. It had a GDP of $2.83 trillion in 2019, up 1.4% from the previous year. The U.K. economy is driven by a large service sector, particularly in finance, insurance and business services [recall Judah making money from selling Joseph]. In the 1990s the UK was fourth in the world, subsequently passed by China and India.
In the absence of figures for England, ‘the following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in UK global shipments during 2021.
Machinery including computers: US$67.6 billion
Gems, precious metals: $65.7 billion
Vehicles: $40.1 billion
Mineral fuels including oil: $33.7 billion
Electrical machinery, equipment: $26.4 billion
Pharmaceuticals: $23.3 billion
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $20.4 billion
Aircraft, spacecraft: $13.9 billion
Plastics, plastic articles: $12.3 billion
Organic chemicals: $11 billion
Gems and precious metals represents the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up by 53.2% year over year since 2020 propelled by higher international sales of gold and platinum. In second place for improving export sales was mineral fuels including oil which was up by 27.8%. The leading decliner among United Kingdom’s top 10 export categories was organic chemicals thanks to a -16% reduction.’
The post-exilic writer of 1 Chronicles, likely Ezra, wrote:
1 Chronicles 5:2
Amplified Bible
Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came (David) the leader (and eventually the Messiah), yet the birthright was Joseph’s…
How did Judah prevail? During the leadership of Moses, the tribe of Judah became the strongest tribe. The census in Numbers One shows that Judah was the leading tribe in population and in men who could go to war for Israel – Numbers 1:2-3, 27.
After the death of Joshua, the Creator chose the tribe of Judah to take the lead in conquering the Canaanite-Nephilim nations who were living in the land that had been promised to the sons of Jacob [Judges 1:2]. The first chapter of Judges recounts that the tribe of Judah was the most passionate in driving out the Canaanites in the southern half of the land of Canaan. Tellingly, they were the only tribe to actually drive out the Canaanites in their territory, fulfilling the Creator’s command.
Israel was numbered by David in a census and it reveals an army of considerable size. A standing army of a million and half men is formidable even by todays measure. Notice the proportion of thirty percent, that was contributed by Judah; much above an average of eight percent if all twelve tribes contributed some 130,830 men.
1 Chronicles 21:5
English Standard Version
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword, and in Judah 470,000 who drew the sword.
During the time of King David, the tabernacle of the Eternal had long been in Shiloh in the territory of Joseph, but David set the stage for the temple to be built on Mount Zion in Jerusalem.
Psalm 78:67-70
New King James Version
67 Moreover He rejected the tent of Joseph, And did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, 68 But chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loved. 69 And He built His sanctuary like the heights, Like the earth which He has established forever. 70 He also chose David His servant, And took him from the sheepfolds…
The Creator chose Jerusalem – principally Mount Zion on the Mount of Olives – in Judah [or Benajmin], for His place to dwell… and chose David and his family, to hold the sceptre of kingship within the tribe of Judah.
Judah was a warrior^^ nation. The English reputation of bulldog doggedness, feet firmly planted, stubborn, determined, with resolve and true grit is well founded and characteristics shared by ancient Judah and modern England alike. Though England’s power has waned some since its economic peak in 1913, it would be a brave nation indeed to poke the Lion of Judah, as the following verse in Genesis forty-nine reveals.
Why did the Creator choose Judah? Judah, the tribe he holds dear. Judah did not seem to have the charisma or genuineness of Joseph, though the Eternal sees the heart and He must have perceived a strong warrior in Judah and recognised someone with strength of character and determination; likening him to a young lion who would stand and fight. These qualities have been evident in his descendant David and the English people as a whole and the Eternal’s desire must have been influenced to choose Judah to be His lawgiver and the tribe from which His Son would later be born [Hebrews 7:14].
David was undoubtedly inspired by this passage in Genesis forty-nine to twice say in the Psalms that ‘Judah is My lawgiver’ [Psalms 60:7; 108:8]. The tribe of Judah has not only been a lawgiver, but a preserver of the Creator’s law and message. The apostle Paul said, “What advantage then has the Jew [Judah]? … Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles – that which was spoken or commanded – of God” [Romans 3:1-2].
It is the English that disseminated the Bible to a wider public more than any other nation. Not the Jews, who have faithfully preserved the Torah but disdain the New Testament and the Saviour that is central to it. Nor has the preservation of the Jewish calendar, erroneously called the Hebrew or sacred calendar by some, fulfilled Pauls’ words. In a separate study [appendix] we will learn the incredible and shocking truth about the Jewish calendar as well as the Gregorian-Julian calendar foisted on our modern world.
9 Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up [high]. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse* him?
The Message: … Look at him, crouched like a lion, king of beasts; who dares mess with him?
When Jacob gave his dying blessing to his twelve sons, he associated each of them with an animal, object or a personal characteristic which became either an emblem of the tribe descended from him, or an identifying sign. The Lion, the emblem of Jacob’s fourth son Judah, is of special importance. This lion, in a couchant [lying down] position, became the emblem of the tribe of Judah; then, in a passant position [walking position with foreleg raised], it was an emblem of the Camp of Judah. Later, with the addition of a crown, it was the emblem of the Royal House and the throne of Judah. Finally, in a rampant [standing on the hind legs with both forelegs elevated] posture, with a crown, it became the symbol of the two Houses that comprise the Kingdom of Judah. Scotland today as Benjamin, also have a rampant Lion Royal standard.
The Lion and the Unicorn, United Church of God – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Moses said of Joseph: “His glory is like a firstborn bull, and his horns (weapons) are like the horns of a wild ox” (Deuteronomy 33:17). Where the New King James Version has “a wild ox,” the earlier King James had “unicorns.” Certainly a bovine animal was intended – tying back to the “bull” in the earlier part of the verse. Indeed, the medieval unicorn idea is believed by some to have been inspired by the Arabian oryx. Viewed from the side, particularly from a distance, these animals appear to have a single long horn. And sometimes they actually have only one. Consider also that unicorns, though portrayed with horse faces, have antelope hooves and long, lion-like tails – as oryx also have. The bull or unicorn thus became the symbol of Joseph – particularly of Ephraim.
Kingdom of Scotland Coat of Arms [‘God me Defend’], incorporating the Royal Banner of the Royal Arms – the Lion Rampant of Scotland
‘As is widely understood, the lion became the tribal emblem of Judah…directly connected to kingship. This was fitting, of course, since the lion is known as the “king of beasts” – and from Judah was to come the king of Israel, David, and ultimately the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Jesus is even referred to as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Revelation 5:5).
… the lion, as the emblem of Judah, was the symbol of the house of David. Notice how David’s son Solomon utilized this imagery to represent the greatest dynasty on earth: “The king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with pure gold. The throne had six steps, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne (and the top of the throne was round at the back); there were armrests on either side of the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the armrests.
Twelve lions stood there, one on each side of the six steps; nothing like this had been made for any other kingdom” (2 Chronicles 9:17-19; 1 Kings 10:18-20).
One source explains: “King James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I when she died childless in 1603, effectively uniting Scotland and England beneath one rule. The Scottish Royal Arms had up to that point used two unicorns as shield supporters. The English Arms had used a variety of supporters, but most frequently had included a lion. In a tactful gesture then, he placed a lion upon the left of the new Arms, and a unicorn upon the right.
This was a potent bit of symbolism, for both the lion and the unicorn had long been thought to be deadly enemies: both regarded as king of the beasts, the unicorn rules through harmony while the lion rules through might, It came to symbolise a reconciliation between the Scottish unicorn and the English lion that the two should share the rule.”’
This significant moment in history saw the rejoining of the Houses of Benjamin and of Judah into the formation of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. Thus the unification of the two separate Kingdoms of Scotland and England transformed them into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
‘… between the lion and unicorn is a garter around the central shield said to represent the Order of the Garter, an ancient order of knighthood of which the British monarch is sovereign. On the garter appear the Old French words, ” Honi soit qui mal y pense ,” which means, “Evil to him who thinks evil” – toward Britain that is. Is this not nearly the same as “cursed is he that curseth thee” in Numbers 24, a promise given in the same context as the lion and unicorn in Scripture? Surely this is no mere coincidence.
Beneath the shield and animals appears the motto of the sovereign, ” Dieu et mon droit ,” meaning, “God and my right,” that is, the right of kingly succession (as David’s line has by God’s promise) or right of birth… This was the military password chosen by King Richard I in 1198, but its origins may go even further back. In any event, it would seem to be more than happenstance that such is the royal motto of Britain.
And there is more. Upon the shield of the arms appear the golden passant lions of England – passant meaning walking with farther forepaw raised. Actually, these lions are considered to be running across the shield in a crouched position – stalking prey and attacking. Says one source: “Lions have appeared in our Royal Arms since the introduction of Heraldry. It is said that Henry II’s arms originally consisted of two lions, and that he added a third on marriage [in 1152]” (Patrick Montague-Smith, The Royal Line of Succession, Pitkin, 1968, page 2).’
‘The two lions had been the emblem of William the Conqueror prior to 1066 (Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan, Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe , 1981, page 16). William was apparently of the… line of Zerah, and may even have been of Davidic lineage. The two golden lions could perhaps be reminiscent of the gilded lions upon the sides of Solomon’s throne [representing Pharez and Zarah].
When… Edward I took the Stone of Destiny from Scotland in 1296, he “ordered his goldsmith to make a fair bronze chair to contain it… The coronation chair, which still stands in Westminster Abbey today, has been used in almost all English coronations since that of Edward II in 1307. We are told that it was made by Walter of Durham in 1299… (who) was paid… for the carving and painting of two wooden leopards (‘leopard’ being the medieval term for a running as opposed to rampant lion) – kings of England during that period liked being shown with their feet resting on leopards (that is, lions), perhaps to model their throne on descriptions of King Solomon’s which had two lions standing by the stays'” (Pat Gerber, Stone of Destiny , 1997, p. 105).’
The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom – ‘No one provokes me with impunity’ (No one punishes me and gets away with it).
Judah is described as a lion cub, a lioness and a lion. We will see links between the lion cub and the tribe of Dan and a association between Judah’s lion and the tribe of Gad. Both the Dragon, via the Tudors of Wales and the Unicorn from the Stuarts of Scotland have been symbols of England; though its prime and true symbol is the Lion as evidenced in heraldry and the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.
Numbers 23:22-24; 24:8-9
King James Version
22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. 23 Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought! 24 Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion:he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood^^ of the slain.
8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows [superior military strength].9 He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir* him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.
The state of Israel and the Jews could not be sincerely described in this fashion. They do not have the military might that Great Britain has possessed in the past or currently has at its disposal. The royal motto in Old French, is Dieu et mon Droit, meaning: God and my Right. The right to rule as the royal tribe of Judah. Balaam was hired to curse Israel and ended up blessing them and cursing anyone who cursed them.
10 The scepter [of royalty] shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute [Shiloh, the Messiah – the Prince of peace] comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience [gathering, expectation] of the peoples.
Ancient Jewish authorities interpret ‘Shiloh’ as a compound of shel and loh meaning, ‘to whom it belongs.’ Judah would always be identified with a monarchy, a throne and a royal line of kings, queens and dynasties. This again, is not something that can be attributed to the Jewish nation. To argue that the Jews are Judah, but some ‘Jews of Judah’ are the royal family in England, presiding over the tribe of Ephraim is not scriptural and exemplifies the classic forcing of a piece of the jig-saw puzzle that well and truly does not fit. In the Bible and historically, Ephraim distanced himself from Judah and its monarchy and has only gone and done the same in our modern age as we shall discover. Ephraim doesn’t sit right underneath Judah’s monarch, forever ruled by them.
The Son of Man was prophesied to descend from Judah and He did – one proof of his credentials as the Messiah. David was promised that he would always have a descendant that could sit on the throne of Judah, not that that they always would.
Psalm 89:3-4
English Standard Version
3 You have said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant: 4 ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.’”
Jeremiah 33:17, ESV: “For thus says the Lord: David shall never [H3808 – lo: not, no] lack [H3772 – karath: want, fail] a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel…’ It could be written that ‘… David would never be without or fail to have, a descendant to sit on the throne…’ Verse eighteen says the exact same thing regarding levitical priests always being available to offer burnt offerings, meat offerings and sacrifices.
The Hebrew word used for fail is karath, is translated in the KJV as cut off [145], make [85], cut down [23], cut [9], fail [6], destroy [4], want [3], covenanted [2] and hew [2]. The word also means ‘to cut asunder… by implication, to destroy or consume; specifically, to covenant (i.e make an alliance, or bargain…) make a league’, ‘to permit to perish.’
1 Kings 9:5
New King James Version
… then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man onthe throne [H3678 – keceh: seat (of honour), stool] of Israel.’
The crossed out words show what has been added to give the verse a certain slant. Thus this verse appears to contradict Jeremiah and say that a descendant of David would always sit on the throne. The interlinear does not include the word ‘upon’ or ‘on the’ in the Hebrew. The word for could just as easily be used and in my view would be more accurate, so as to read: ‘… I promised David your father, saying, You shall not fail to have a man for the throne…’
‘Obedience of peoples’ is a direct reference to other peoples – nations, Gentiles – obeying Judah. This has also been fulfilled in the vast Empire Britain built and accumulated; the vestiges of which still remain in the British Commonwealth of nations today.
11 Binding his foal to the [strong] vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes.
Though Judah did not protest as loudly as Ishmael, the modern Germans, during the protestant reformation and the breaking away from the Universal Church of Chaldea, the modern Italians, and though Judah has not proclaimed their faith, their belief or Christianity as loudly as their brother, the United States, they did – before anyone else – translate editions of the word of God, that irrevocably opened the bible to the masses so that they could determine for themselves whether organised religion was teaching them the truth or not.
The first was John Wycliffe, who is credited as providing the first translation of the entire Bible – Old and New Testaments – into English in 1384. His translation began a revolution, enabling the ordinary people to finally access the Bible in a language they could understand. So profound was the revolution Wycliffe ignited, he is called, ‘The Morning Star of the Reformation.’ Then in 1611, King James I of England [James VI of Scotland] provided an updated English version that remains the standard till this day.
12 His eyes are darker [and sparks more] than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.
An apt description online of Judah’s inheritance in the promised land:
‘The tribe of Judah received as its inheritance the largest and most [impressive] portion in the inmost and highest region of the land of Canaan – a mountainous district, yet rich and fertile in ancient times, [where] mountain sides would have been carefully terraced and covered with flourishing vineyards and olive groves. It was thus able to support a teeming population and a greater number of important cities and towns… [compared to] any other part of Palestine. [There] was Hebron, the most ancient capital of the country, and Jerusalem with Zion and the Temple, representing the heart and lungs of the nation… Here, then, throned the “lion of Judah” on his mountains, surrounded by Dan in the west and Reuben in the east; by Simeon to the south and Benjamin to the north.’
In the Book of Lamentations we find that the Nazarites [consecrated persons typically from Judah] were exceedingly fair: ‘Her Nazirites were brighter than snow And whiter than milk; They were more ruddy in body than rubies, Like sapphire in their appearance [Lamentations 4:7, NKJV].
The colours of England coincidently or not, are in fact, red and white. The Red Rose of England, the national sports teams colours of predominantly white and sometimes a splash of red. The war of the Roses between the white rose of Yorkshire and the red rose of Lancashire. The national flag of white background, overlaid with the red St Georges cross. Red wine in the Bible symbolises blood and the Passover wine, white symbolises purity, sanctification and forgiveness achieved through the shedding and application of blood. The English as Judah, have been a Christian nation, accepting the sacrifice of Christ earlier than all other nations as we shall find evidence.
William Blake wrote an exceptionally insightful poem entitled Jerusalem (“And did those feet in ancient time”):
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.
A poignant and truly accurate portrayal, for as we progress we will substantiate that ‘those feet in ancient time’ truly did walk on England’s soil and that as Judah, the modern counterpart of Jerusalem is fulfilled in the capital of England: London. As an important aside, anywhere in the scriptures Jerusalem is stated in a prophetic context, though not historical, it means London, not the city of Jerusalem in the state of Israel today. In the Book of Revelation, Jerusalem of the state of Israel is called ‘that City’ or in other passages of the Bible it is in fact, Bozrah the capital of Edom.
City of London Coat of Arms – ‘O Lord, guide us’ (Master, direct us).
Prophetically, Jerusalem is always London. An accurate understanding of Judah’s capital and Edom’s capital and thus the true intent of prophetic scriptures is only obtained if Jerusalem is decoded as London and Bozrah as Jerusalem. According to modern identity adherents who teach Judah is the state of Israel and Edom is Turkey for example; they would then have to attribute Bozrah of Edom to either Turkey’s capital, Ankara or possibly its major city, Istanbul. When scriptures are read using either of these cities and the Jerusalem of Israel, the relationship does not fit smoothly, make sense or elucidate in any meaningful manner.
Prior to Isaac’s death in 1697 BCE at the age of one hundred and eighty, Jacob visits his father with his sons Levi and Judah. Jacob would have been one hundred and twenty, Levi, fifty-one and Judah, forty-nine.
Book of Jubilees 31:4-11, 18-23
31:4 And Isaac said: ‘Let my son Jacob come, and let me see him before I die.’ 5 And Jacob went to his father Isaac and to his mother Rebecca, to the house of his father Abraham, and he took two of his sons with him, Levi and Judah… 6 And Rebecca came forth from the tower to the front of it to kiss Jacob and embrace him; for her spirit had revived when she heard: ‘Behold Jacob your son has come’; and she kissed him. 7 And she saw his two sons, and she recognised them, and said to him: ‘Are these your sons, my son?’ and she embraced them and kissed them, and blessed them, saying: ‘In you shall the seed of Abraham become illustrious, and you shall prove a blessing on the earth.’ 8 And Jacob went in to Isaac his father, to the chamber where he lay, and his two sons were with him, and he took the hand of his father, and stooping down he kissed him, and Isaac clung to the neck of Jacob his son, and wept upon his neck.9 And the darkness left the eyes of Isaac, and he saw the two sons of Jacob, Levi, and Judah, and he said: ‘Are these your sons, my son? for they are like you.’10 And he said to him that they were truly his sons: ‘And you have truly seen that they are truly my sons’. 11 And they came near to him, and he turned and kissed them and embraced them both together.
18 And to Judah he said: ‘May Yahweh give you strength and power To tread down all that hate you;A prince shall you be, you and one of your sons [Pharez], over the sons of Jacob [the Monarchy]; May your name and the name of your sons [including Zarah] go forth and traverse every land and region. 19 Then shall the Gentiles fear before your face, and all the nations shall quake [And all the peoples shall quake]. In you shall be the help of Jacob, And in you be found the Yeshua of Israel [the Messiah]. 20 And when you sit on the throne of honor of your righteousness, There shall be great [peace] for all the seed of the sons of the beloved; Blessed be he that blesses you, And all that hate you and afflict you and curse you Shall be rooted out and destroyed from the earth and be accursed.’ 21 And turning he kissed him again and embraced him, and rejoiced greatly; for he had seen the sons of Jacob his son in very truth.
22 And Jacob went forth from between his feet and fell down and bowed down to him, and he blessed them and rested there with Isaac his father that night, and they [ate] and drank with joy.23 And he made the two sons of Jacob sleep, the one on his right hand and the other on his left, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Jacob obviously knew that Levi and Judah were selected for roles separate from the birthright promise going to his son Joseph. Of course, it was still ten years away before Jacob learns that Joseph is in fact alive in Egypt. One wonders who the alternative birthright recipient would have been should Joseph have been truly dead. Eventually, it is Jacob who in turn blesses Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim, slightly reminisce of the blessing by Isaac on his grandsons, Levi and Judah. We will return to Levi’s blessing in a later chapter. Notice Judah’s blessing from Isaac includes the power to overcome his enemies and the promise of a royal line that would rule over his brothers. No other nation has fulfilled these promises like England. Nor have any other people ‘traversed every land and region’ in the world in such manner as to take their culture, religion, language and colonialism to the furthest parts of the globe as the English have done.
In the Book of Chronicles we learn of additional descendants of Judah.
1 Chronicles 4:1-23
English Standard Version
The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. 2 Reaiah the son of Shobal fathered Jahath, and Jahath fathered Ahumai and Lahad.
… These were the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem. 5 Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah; 6 Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. 7 The sons of Helah: Zereth, Izhar, and Ethnan… 9 Jabez was more honorable than his brothers; and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, “Because I bore him in pain.” 10 Jabez called upon the God of Israel, saying, “Oh that you would bless me and enlarge my border, and that your hand might be with me, and that you would keep me from harm so that it might not bring me pain!” And God granted what he asked.
… The sons of Kenaz [a shared family name with Esau and his grandson Kenaz from Eliphaz]: Othniel and Seraiah; and the sons of Othniel: Hathath and Meonothai. 14 Meonothai fathered Ophrah; and Seraiah fathered Joab, the father of Ge-harashim, so-called because they were craftsmen. 15 The sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh: Iru, Elah, and Naam; and the son of Elah: Kenaz.
… 17 The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher [family name with Midian], and Jalon. These are the sons of Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married; and she conceived and bore Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa. 18 And his Judahite wife bore Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco… 19 The sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, were the fathers of Keilah the Garmite and Eshtemoa the Maacathite…
21 The sons of Shelah the son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the clans of the house of linen workers at Beth-ashbea; 22 and Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who ruled in Moab and returned to Lehem (now the records are ancient). 23 These were the potters who were inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah. They lived there in the king’s service.
Hezron was Pharez’s first son, but listed separately. Notice an Ashhur [Asshur] is a family name and Jabez is a classic case, ‘if you don’t ask, you don’t receive’ in reverse. Recall the sons of Kenaz** in the section on Midian in Chapter XXVII Abraham. The mention of Caleb, is not clear if it is Joshua’s friend or another Caleb. When did Mered marry Pharoah’s daughter? During the time of Joseph, before a new Pharaoh that began the Israelite slavery, or later still. Shelah was the only surviving son of Judah and his wife Bath-shua. He named his first son after his eldest brother, Er who died. If Seraph ruled in nearby Moab, he may have married a Moabite woman of high birth. In the second and third chapters of Chronicles, further genealogy of Judah is recorded including Judah’s highest profile personality aside from Christ, King David.
1 Chronicles 2:1-55
English Standard Version
These are the sons of Israel… Judah… The sons of Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah; these three Bath-shua the Canaanite bore to him. Now Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death. 4 His daughter-in-law Tamar also bore him Perez and Zerah. Judah had five* sons in all.
5 The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul.
6 The sons of Zerah: Zimri, Ethan [‘everflowing, perennial’], Heman [faithful], Calcol [‘Sustenance’, ‘to make perfect’ or ‘whole’], and Dara [‘the arm’], five in all.
7 The son of Carmi [son of Zimri]: Achan, the troubler of Israel, who broke faith in the matter of the devoted thing [Joshua 6 & 7]; 8 and Ethan’s son was Azariah.
Zarah’s five sons were born circa 1685 to 1675 BCE: Calcol 1677 BCE and Dara 1675 BCE. Calcol is credited with founding Athens and Darda with founding Troy. They were very intelligent, capable men according to the Book of Kings.
1 Kings 4:29-31
English Standard Version
29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure,and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore, 30 so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. 31 For he was wiser than all other men,wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, and his fame was in all the surrounding nations.
9 The sons of Hezron that were born to him: Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai [Caleb]. 10 Ram fathered Amminadab, and Amminadab fathered Nahshon,prince of the sons of Judah. 11 Nahshon fathered Salmon, Salmon fathered Boaz, 12 Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse. 13 Jesse fathered Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.16 And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. The sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.
David later married an Abigail, of the same as his sister. Abigail married an Ishmaelite , the equivalent of a German today [refer Chapter XXVIII Ishmael]. A close scrutiny of the Germans and English, results in a conclusion that they are different sides of the same coin. David’s lineage is through Judah’s eldest twin son with Tamar, Pharez and then his eldest son, Hezron and Hezron’s second son, Ram. Ultimately, David was the eleventh generation from Judah [fourteenth from Abraham] and Boaz was his great grandfather, with Ruth the Moabite, his great grandmother [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon].
18 Caleb the son of Hezron fathered children by his wife Azubah, and by Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon. 19 When Azubah died, Caleb married Ephrath, who bore him Hur…
21 Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir [son of Manasseh] the father of Gilead [half tribe of East Manasseh], whom he married when he was sixty years old, and she bore him Segub. 22And Segub fathered Jair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead. 23 But Geshur^ and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, Kenath, and its villages, sixty towns. All these were descendants of Machir, the father of Gilead. 24 After the death of Hezron, Caleb went in to Ephrathah, the wife of Hezron his father, and she bore him Ashhur, the father of Tekoa.
Gilead was the brother of Machir’s daughter who married Hezron from Judah. The tribe of Manasseh split in two during the division of Canaan by the sons of Jacob in 1400 BCE. Half of Manasseh stayed on the west side of the river Jordan with the tribe of Ephraim and from now on were known as the half tribe of West Manasseh, or collectively with Ephraim as Joseph. The other half journeyed to the east of the river Jordan and lived in Gilead to the north of two other tribes that journeyed east, Reuben and Gad. This second half from now on were known as the half tribe of East Manasseh, Manasseh, or simply as Gilead. This early injection of a royal Judah line into the half tribe of East Manasseh, altered their genome and personality traits dynamic. We will find that this half of Manasseh are staunchly pro-royal and Judah-like, diametrically opposite to their kith and kin that live with Ephraim. This split within Manasseh is paramount in understanding where Manasseh’s inheritance is in the world today and has been vitally missed in identity research circles.
25 The sons of Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron: Ram, his firstborn, Bunah, Oren, Ozem, and Ahijah. 26 Jerahmeel also had another wife, whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam. 27 The sons of Ram, the firstborn of Jerahmeel: Maaz, Jamin, and Eker. 28 The sons of Onam: Shammai and Jada. The sons of Shammai: Nadab and Abishur. 29 The name of Abishur’s wife was Abihail, and she bore him Ahban and Molid. 30 The sons of Nadab: Seled and Appaim; and Seled died childless. 31 The son of Appaim: Ishi. The son of Ishi: Sheshan… 34 Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, butSheshan had an Egyptian slave whose name was Jarha. 35 So Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to Jarha his slave, and she bore him Attai… The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim, 51 Salma, the father of Bethlehem…
55 The clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites** who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.
1 Chronicles 3:1-19
English Standard Version
These are the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron:
the firstborn, Amnon [1], by Ahinoam the Jezreelite;
the second, Daniel [2], by Abigail the Carmelite,
2 the third, Absalom [3], whose mother was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur;^
the fourth, Adonijah [4], whose mother was Haggith;
3 the fifth, Shephatiah [5], by Abital;
the sixth, Ithream [6], by his wife Eglah;
4 six were born to him in Hebron, where he reigned for seven years and six months. And he [then] reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem.
5 These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea [7], Shobab [8], Nathan [9] and Solomon [10], four by Bath-shua [Bathsheba], the daughter of Ammiel;
6 then Ibhar [11], Elishama [12], Eliphelet [13], 7 Nogah [14], Nepheg [15], Japhia [16], 8 Elishama [17], Eliada [18], and Eliphelet [19], nine. 9 All these were David’s sons, besides the sons of the concubines, and Tamar was their sister.
Nineteen sons and one daughter at the least, born to King David and not a good one among them it would seem. None are recorded as righteous. We have addressed King Solomon and his tragic downfall. We will look at Absalom, who was about as wicked as one could be.
10 The son of Solomon was Rehoboam [1st king of Judah], Abijah [2] his son, Asa [3] his son, Jehoshaphat [4] his son, 11 Joram [5] his son, Ahaziah [6] his son, Joash [7] his son, 12 Amaziah [8] his son, Azariah [9] his son, Jotham [10] his son, 13 Ahaz [11] his son, Hezekiah [12] his son, Manasseh [13] his son, 14 Amon [14] his son, Josiah [15] his son.
15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn [Jehoahaz 2 Kings 23:31 16], the second Jehoiakim [formerly Eliakim, name changed by Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:34, 36) 17], the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
16 The descendants of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son [Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:6, 8-9) 18], Zedekiah [formerly Mattaniah had his name changed by Nebuchadnezzar and was Jehoiachin’s uncle. Jehoiachin surrendered himself to save Jerusalem; succeeded by Zedekiah 2 Kings 24:17 19]his son; 17 and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son, 18 Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah; 19 and the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel [son of Shealtiel and not Pedaiah – Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2. Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1, 12, 14] and Shimei; and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister…
The descendants of Solomon, the kings of the Kingdom of Judah until King Zedekiah who was taken into Babylonian captivity in 587 BCE. Zerubbabel returned to rebuild portions of Jerusalem beginning in 539 BCE under the Persian King Cyrus II decree.
In contrast to the Tribes of Israel having never really been lost, being in plain sight for many centuries; it has paradoxically, been the Tribe of Judah which has been hidden, yet still in plain sight.
Judah, the really Lost Tribe, Don Robson, 2011 – emphasis & bold mine
‘Recently, I have been reviewing books that I have read in the past and I find that the treatment by many scholars of the exile of Judah correctly defined the details while leaving the readers confused. I feel that this is an important issue because many look to the Jews of Palestine to fulfill the prophecies concerning Judah. The most important point of confusion is the expected union with Israel when Christ returns and His angels gather His people from the ends of the earth into His kingdom to rule with Him for a thousand years. It seems to me rather unlikely that a people who have denied Christ, the King of the Kingdom, for two thousand years will be given such a reprieve when Jesus said that many that call Him Lord will be told, “Depart from me, you that do iniquity; I never knew you.”
A further complication concerning Judah, is that the tribe’s entire history does not occur in Scripture. You will recall from the Bible story that the midwife tied a scarlet thread to Zarah’s hand before it was withdrawn and Pharez was born. His name means “a breach”. So, undoubtedly there was conflict over who should be the oldest of the twins, since “the scepter would not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes whose right it is.” At that time, Pharez was deemed to be the older which led to Jesse, David, Solomon and Christ.
The breach had a secondary reaction. The Tribe of Zarah left Egypt before the exodus under Moses, branching into two groups under Zarah’s two sons, Calcol and Darda. Calcol led his group to Ireland where he established the line of Irish kings. Darda took his group into Asia Minor naming the Dardanelles and founding Troy.
The Greeks, actually the Tribe of Dan[?], defeated the Trojans and the remnant was led into Britain under their King Brute (or Brutus). The name Brute became Brit and the people became known as Britons. So we have one half of the Tribe of Judah settled in Ireland and Britain.But that is not all!
After the Kingdom of Solomon was divided into two parts under his son Rehoboam, Sennacherib of Assyria launched his campaign of conquest. First he conquered Gad, Reuben and the half tribe of [East] Manasseh, deporting them to the land of the Medes. Then, he attacked Samaria and likewise deported them. Phase three was to attack all the fenced cities of Judah, which included the Tribe of Benjamin, where he was again successful, deporting 200,150 men. Women and children would augment this number by at least five times.
Phase four was to defeat Jerusalem but it never happened. God had other plans! The angel of the Lord in the night destroyed Sennacherib’s army and he returned to Assyria where his sons murdered him. God had to protect a remnant of His people to receive the Lord Jesus Christ at the First Advent. The attacks continued until Nebuchadnezzar defeated and destroyed Jerusalem. They were then deported to Babylon for seventy years, until Darius decreed that they could return home and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. About 50,000 Jews [Judah] returned and their families are listed in Scripture.
So, the 200,150 men of Judah and Benjamin were united with the ten tribes and migrated westward with their brothers. Those of the tribe of Judah were known as Jutes and made their way through Jutland to Britain where the Zarah tribe had migrated… a major part of the Tribe of Judah, 200,150 men migrated westward with the ten tribes, and Benjamin… although… writers insist on speaking of the migration of the ten tribes, it was in fact all twelve tribes except those who opted to stay in Babylon and the 50,000 who returned to rebuild Jerusalem.
We all know the prophecy of the two sticks, one marked for Israel and one marked for Judah. The Lord used that means, through the prophet, to tell of the reunion that would/did occur in due course in the British Isles. The union is history! It’s the union of Jacob. Its reality is shown in the flag, the Union Jack! That is the reason that James’ epistle begins with the greeting, ”James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes[not ten, actually thirteen] which are scattered abroad, greeting.”’
Robson’s article is the only one found that recognises not just the truth of Israel and Judah’s regathering this side of the millennium, but also its occurrence before the return of Christ; being a pivotal piece of eschatological understanding. It is extremely difficult to deny this regathering of Israel and Judah, once we have discussed all thirteen tribes and their locations, one by one, in this and following chapters.
Ezekiel 37:15-22
English Standard Version
15 The word of the Lord came to me: 16 “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, ‘For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ 17 And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. 18 And when your people say to you, ‘Will you not tell us what you mean by these?’ 19 say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (that is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him. And I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. 20 When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes, 21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land [Britain and Ireland; ultimately Palestine]. 22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king [Judah-England] shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms.
The Israelite tribes closely associated with Judah in the past were Benjamin and Levi and in the most part Simeon also. Today, they include: Benjamin, Levi, Simeon and Reuben. The principal tribes associated closely with Joseph or Ephraim and West Manasseh today, are the half tribe of East Manasseh, Asher and Naphtali. The tribes of Issachar, Zebulon and Gad are not close to either, though would fall into the Ephraim stick as opposed to Judah’s.
Don Robson writes an insightful article, highlighting two pivotal points in decoding scripture, in that firstly, the Jews of Israel are not the tribe of Judah. Zarah and Pharez lines have competed for royal privilege supremacy and may well have intertwined. The tribe of Zarah and particularly his three youngest sons, Heman, Calcol and Dara struck out early from Egypt prior to the years of servitude, heading to Greece, Ireland and Britain. The second pivotal point is that the tribe of Judah was split, so that the actual main body of them forged the Parthian Empire, to then migrate following behind the Sacae-Scythians which contained the Angles and Frisians – later known as the Saxons – as the Jutes of Judah.
The Tea-Tephi tradition is a great story, though it has holes in it, that relegate it to legend or myth. This does not mean the whole story should be dismissed; as with all tales, the kernel of truth is within to extract. The tribes of Israel and Judah did re-combine in their invasions into Britain from 450 – 600 CE. There was a formal level of union three times, when the union of the crowns between England and Scotland occurred in 1603, when the same two countries unified their parliaments in 1707 and finally when England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland united in 1800.
An important part of the puzzle to add to Robson’s points and what completes the Judaic panorama of migration, is that the remnant of Judah that returned from captivity to Jerusalem, and who then fled Judea-Idumea after 70 CE and the sacking of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus, were considerably behind their brother tribes. They travelled the same migratory paths as their brethren, north and then west. This last vestige of Judah eventually settled in Scandinavia like the tribes before them and in time travelled southwards. They were northmen, norsemen and settled in France, where these people of the north subsequently became known as Normans.
In 1066, some five hundred years after the Jutes, the Normans under William the Bastard – later, the Conqueror – containing a retinue of Israelite stragglers from other tribes and also consisting of a warrior-aristocracy, invaded southern Briton at Hastings in Kent in 1066. The Norman aristocracy – including Robert the Bruce’s family of Scotland – travelled throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and became the dominant, ruling families of the British Isles.
The understanding of who Judah is, where Judah is and their possession of the royal orb and sceptre of a Messianic throne, is the integral key that unlocks the entire Holy Bible. In the Book of Revelation and the seven separate letters written to seven consecutive church eras of the true body of Christ – a little flock, the elect of God and all the saints – there is a pointed clue to when the revealing of Israel’s true identity would begin. It is now an era passed and we urgently find ourselves in the seventh and last era of the true church of God’s history.
The letter to the final era is rather condemning; for the people of this age are self-righteous in that they know they are blessed with spiritual knowledge, yet have failed to fully ‘contend for the faith once delivered’ as addressed by Jude; for they arrogantly think they have the sum of all the knowledge they need. Revelation 3:17-18, ESV: ‘For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.’
1 Peter 1:5-7
English Standard Version
5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith – more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire – may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
They have forgotten that one is continually to grow in grace or favour and knowledge[2 Peter 3:18].
Revelation 3:7
New Century Version
To the Church in Philadelphia [sixth era of seven] “Write this to the angel of the church in Philadelphia:
“This is what the One [the Son of Man] who is holy and true, who holds the key of David,says. When he opens a door, no one can close it. And when he closes it, no one can open it.
The person who holds this key is the Son of Man. He also holds the ‘keys of Hades and Death’ [Revelation 1:18]. The earnest interest in the identity of Israel as we have discussed, began about five hundred years ago. The central core of its doctrine is valid, the trunk of the tree so-to-speak and a few branches here and there. The endeavour now, is too correct, or prune the other branches, allowing for all the twigs, leaves and flowers to be added and to grow into a fulness of completion.
The open doors, signify a powerful and effective preaching by the true church, of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and thereby the knowledge and process of how to enter the kingdom – as was bestowed upon the apostle Peter. The key of David is thus linked with this open door for the true gospel message and in turn the response of those who heed. The key of David is associated with the knowledge of where the throne of David is and who the modern nations of the houses of Israel and Judah are today.
A key unlocks a door. A door to a room or a house that contains valuable items. A key is important and it is not entrusted to just anyone. There are a few passages regarding keys in the Bible. We will look at those which are pertinent.
1 Chronicles 9:21-27
English Standard Version
21 Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was gatekeeper at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 22 All these, who were chosen as gatekeepers at the thresholds, were 212 [men]. They were enrolled by genealogies in their villages. David and Samuel the seer established them in their office of trust. 23 So they and their sons were in charge of the gates of the house of the Lord, that is, the house of the tent, as guards. 24 The gatekeepers were on the four sides, east, west, north, and south. 25 And their kinsmen who were in their villages were obligated to come in every seven days, in turn, to be with these, 26 for the four chief gatekeepers, who were Levites, were entrusted to be over the chambers and the treasures of the house of God. 27 And they lodged around the house of God, for on them lay the duty of watching, and they had charge of opening it every morning.
These keys entrusted to the Levites, protected the ‘treasures of the house or temple of God.’
Matthew 16:18-19
English Standard Version
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock. I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peter is given the proverbial keys to the Kingdom. It is he who is entrusted with the authority in leading the way to salvation in the inter-testament era leading to the New Covenant. The Key of David is mentioned one other time in the Book of Isaiah.
Isaiah 22:1-25
English Standard Version
The oracle concerning the valley of vision.
What do you mean that you have gone up, all of you, to the housetops… Your slain are not slain with the sword or dead in battle. 3 All your leaders have fled together; without the bow they were captured. All of you who were found were captured, though they had fled far away. 5 For the Lord God of hosts has a day of tumult and trampling and confusion in the valley of vision… He has taken away the covering of Judah.
In that day you looked to the weapons of the House of the Forest, 9 and you saw that the breaches of the city of David were many… But you did not look to him who did it, or see him who planned it long ago.
In 1 Kings 7:1-12, it says King Solomon took thirteen years to build his own Palace – circa 970 to 957 BCE. Compared to six years, to construct the Temple from 966 to 960 BCE. There were various rooms in the palace, such as the Hall of Pillars and the Hall of the Throne. All of these were built with ‘cedars from Lebanon’ and costly stones and jewels cut to measure.
2 He built the House of the Forest of Lebanon. Its length was a hundred cubits [about 150 feet] and its breadth fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits, and it was built on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars. 3 And it was covered with cedar above the chambers that were on the forty-five pillars, fifteen in each row. 4 There were window frames in three rows, and window opposite window in three tiers. 5 All the doorways and windows had square frames, and window was opposite window in three tiers.
In 1 Kings 10:17, Solomon put three hundred shields made of gold in to the House of Forest of Lebanon. The room was designed for weapons, though treasure seems to be included as we learn from the thirteenth king of Judah, Hezekiah.
Isaiah 39:1-3
English Standard Version
At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. 2 And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them. 3 Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.”
Judah trusted in its own weapons and not the Creator with the eminent attack of the Chaldean Babylonians. Similarly, King Hezekiah many years prior, naively shows his riches and weapons to envoys from Babylon.
12 In that day the Lord God of hosts called for weeping and mourning, for baldness and wearing sackcloth; 13 and behold, joy and gladness, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 14The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: “Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for you until you die,” says the Lord God of hosts.
15 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you 18 and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.
Shebna was a historical figure [Isaiah 36:3, 2 Kings 18:37], though as ’in that day’ is used, this is a future prophecy during the Day of the Lord. The description of Shebna is about a scribe, a steward, an advisor to the throne – or even possibly an evil king himself. It could be someone more sinister – an angelic being or Nephilim at the time of the end, who may be a religious figure like the son of perdition – in the spiritual house of God; the Church. It is very likely that this future Shebna is none other than Samael.
20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim [meaning: God will establish, whom God sets up] the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for ‘key’ is maphteach and defined by Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, as, ‘key opener, opening.’ In the New Testament, the Greek word for ‘key’ as used in Revelation 3:7, is kleis – a female word, defined by Young’s as simply, ‘a key.’
Eliakim is either a righteous steward or king after the deposed Shebna, or more likely the Son of Man taking His rightful seat. Eliakim was a historical figure as well, who became the ‘steward or prefect over the palace, as had been foretold by Isaiah (compare 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 36:3, 22; 37:2).’ The context of the passage speaks about the rulership of the house of David over Israel. ‘Originally, Shebna had been in a trustworthy position in the king’s rule. The Nelson Study Bible explains that “the steward had the key that gave him an audience with the king.”’ Since Eliakim is given the same key as the Son of Man in Revelation, one would assume Eliakim is the returned Messiah, that the King is the Ancient of Days and that Shebna is Satan.
23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
The covenant the Creator made with David, was because he kept God’s Law. Isaiah 55:3, describes the the new or ‘everlasting’ covenant as ‘the sure [secure] mercies of David.’
24 And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on theWhole Bible, states:
“‘key’ – emblem of his office over the house; to ‘open’ or ‘shut’; access rested with him… keys are sometimes carried in the East, hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of… Christ, the Son of ‘David’… he that hath the key of David – the antitype of Eliakim, to whom the ‘key,’ the emblem of authority ‘over the house of David’ was transferred from Shebna, who was removed from the office of chamberlain or treasurer, as unworthy of it. Christ, the Heir of the throne of David, shall supplant all the less worthy stewards who have abused their trust in God’s spiritual house, and ‘shall reign over the house of Jacob,’ literal and spiritual (Luke 1:32, 33), ‘for ever,’ ‘as a Son over His own house’ (Hebrews 3:2-6).
It rests with Christ to open or shut the heavenly palace (the heavenly Jerusalem, verse 12, which will come down to this earth; Revelation 21:9-10), deciding who is, and who is not, to be admitted: as He also opens, or shuts… ‘having the keys of hell (the grave) and death (ch. 1:18).”
The Broadman Bible Commentary states: ‘To say that Christ is the one who has the key of David is to affirm his messianic authority to admit or exclude from the messianic kingdom.’
2 Samuel 7:10
English Standard Version
And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly…
There can be no doubt that the sifted and transplanted sons of Jacob ended up in either the larger Isle of Alba or the smaller Isle of Erin. Planted so far away from their original home in a new wilderness to explore and civilise, any thought of their old homeland and their past life or identity were well and truly forgotten. Fulfilling their appointed destiny of becoming a great nation from a multitude of nations, with a resurrection of a mighty royal kingdom, were still a millennia distant in the future.
The sons of Jacob had rejected a Divine Theocracy with their Creator and Protector as King and insisted on a human king just like all the nations surrounding them. Saul was chosen and though not from a royal line, but from the tribe of Benjamin, ‘he was permitted to reign, for the [Eternal] determined to give the people the desire of their hearts.’
In easing into the next section on Benjamin, it is worth noting at this point the identity of the tribe most closely associated with the tribe of Judah and also forming with them, the Kingdom of Judah. The youngest tribe of Benjamin with their warlike abilities, warrior ethos and almost symbiotic attachment with Judah are the peoples of Scotland. We will study Scotland and Benjamin in depth to verify their proposed identity.
Saul was born in 1070 BCE, some eight years after the death of the Danite Judge, Samson. His son Jonathan was born circa 1050 BCE and he was ten years older than David who was born in 1040 BCE.
There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth [H1368 Gibbowr – mighty, valiant, strong, powerful, warrior, giant].
2 And he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young [H970 – bachuwr: youthful not in age {for he was forty-four}, rather as in vigour – a warrior] man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.
15 Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed to Samuel: 16 “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. 21 Saul answered, “Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel?And is not my clan the humblest of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin?Why then have you spoken to me in this way?”
1 Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, “Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince over his people Israel? [1026 BCE] And you shall reign over the people of the Lord [1025 to 1010 BCE] and you will save them from the hand of their surrounding enemies. And this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you to be prince over his heritage.
And there, as soon as you come to the city, you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. 6 Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. 7 Now when these signs meet you, do what your hand finds to do, for God is with you… 9 When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day. 10 When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11 And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” 12 And a man of the place answered, “And who is their father?”[Samuel adopts Saul].
17 Now Samuel called the people together to the Lord at Mizpah. 20 Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. 23 Then they ran and took him from there. And when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward. 24 And Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people.” And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!”
14 Then Samuel said to the people, “Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingdom.” 15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal [1025 BCE]. There they sacrificed peace offerings before the Lord, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.
Saul’s sons born to him were Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchi-shua. His daughters were Merab, who in turn had five sons and Michal. Saul’s wife was Ahinoam [1 Samuel 14-49-50]. In 1 Chronicles 8:33, Ishvi is not mentioned [perhaps died?] and two other sons are now included, Abinadab and Eshbaal [Ish-baal]. 2 Samuel 21:8 reveals that Saul had a concubine, Rizpah and she bore two sons also: Armani and Mephibosheth or Ish-bosheth.
In circa 1026 BCE, Israel gathers at Mizpah to witness an historic event; the first anointed Prince of Israel. It was at Mizpah, that the decision against the tribe of Benjamin was made that nearly had them exterminated [Judges 20:1-48]. In 1025 BCE Jabesh Gilead is besieged by the Ammonites. Saul breaks the deadlock with a 330,000 man army and later at Gilgal, Saul is crowned King.
There is academic debate as to the length of Saul’s reign. Both David and Solomon ruled for forty years and one assumption is that Saul ruled for the same length of time. The confusion begins in I Samuel, coupled with the Book of Acts.
1 Samuel 13:1-4
English Standard Version
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel, 2 Saul chose three thousand men of Israel. Two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin. The rest of the people he sent home, every man to his tent. 3 Jonathan defeated the garrison of the Philistines that was at Geba, and the Philistines heard of it…
The New English Translation tackles the problem with: ‘Saul was (thirty) [45] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for (forty) [15] years. Curved brackets their figures, straight brackets my proposed figures. The verse appears to say Saul only reigned two years. Many think a numeral has been missed off the two, so that the figure should be, if not 2 or 10… 12, 20, 22, 30, 32, 40 or 42. To this writer, the verse seems to say that a year had passed between Sauls anointing at Mizpah and his crowning at Gilgal. Then two years into his reign in 1023 BCE he staged his Philistine campaign with Jonathan.
Acts 13:21
English Standard Version
Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.
Acts 13:21, records a speech by Paul, saying God gave Israel Saul, who ‘ruled’ for forty years. It is possible that Paul’s intention was to say that David – who he goes on to mention immediately afterwards – reigned for forty years, and that the clause has become misplaced from one sentence to the other.
If one considers the ages of Saul, Jonathan and David, coupled with their births and life spans, there are incongruities for a very short reign of ten years or less and also for one of twenty years or more. So the balance of probability favours a reign specifically of twelve to fifteen years. This means that the basic points of information and reasonable suppositions about the lives of the individuals concerned can be met, whilst also agreeing with the tradition Josephus knew.
1 Samuel 7:1-2
English Standard Version
And the men of Kiriath-jearim came and took up the ark of the Lord and brought it to the house of Abinadab on the hill. And they consecrated his son Eleazar to have charge of the ark of the Lord. From the day that the ark was lodged at Kiriath-jearim, a long time passed, some twenty years, and all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord.
From the book of first Samuel, we learn the Ark of the Covenant was at Kiriath-jearim for approximately twenty years. It was removed from Abinadab’s house following David’s conquest of Jerusalem. Prior to his moving his capital to Jerusalem, David had reigned in Hebron for seven and a half years from 1010 to 1003 BCE after the death of Saul [II Samuel 5:5]. Crucially, the ark was moved to Kirjath Jearim before Saul began to reign in 1025 BCE. Thus the ark was in Kirjath Jearim for about twenty-two years – giving a reign for Saul of fifteen years.
Later in 1023 BCE, Jonathan has more success, single-handedly defeating twenty Philistines after scaling cliffs at Michmash [1 Samuel 14:1-52]; while his father continues a war against Moab, Ammon, Edom and the kings of Zobah. In 1022 BCE, a landmark and eventful year Saul completes or rather doesn’t complete his ill-fated campaign against the Amalekites [refer Chapter XXIX Esau]. Saul defeats the Amalekites with a 210,000 man army, yet contravenes clear instructions from the Eternal in allowing King Agag to live and in the process loses his own kingship [I Samuel 15:1-35]. It is in the same year by a quirk of fate, that young David enters the service of Saul in the palace and unknown to Saul, is his anointed successor by Samuel and the future king [1 Samuel 16:1-23].
A new Pharaoh of Egypt began his reign 1022 BCE; Ahmose I, the 1st king of the XVIII dynasty. He ruled till 998 BCE, during the reigns of Saul and David and is the brother of Kamose, who ruled three, possibly five years, as the last king of the XVII Dynasty. Kamose had embarked on a campaign of driving the Hyksos – or the Amalekites – from Egypt; which was completed by Ahmose during the same period King Saul defeated King Agag. Gerard Gertoux writes regarding Kamose:
‘Kamose thus acted as representative of the young Ahmose. In the past, until the 5th dynasty, pharaohs were enthroned only with a Horus name. In time, the complete titulature had five names, but only two were actually used, enthronement name and birth name.
Birth name aside, which did not change (except for some additional laudatory), other names could be changed to indicate a new political or religious program. For Kamose his first Horus name was “He who appears on his throne”, the second “He who subdues the two Lands” and the third “He who nourishes the two Lands”. These 3 names match his 3 years of reign.’
The Genesis 6 Conspiracy, Gary Wayne, 2014, pages 257-271, 281 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… Saul was chosen because of his military record. Saul captured the tablets of the Law back from the famous Goliath, an insult that Goliath would not forget. Saul was the bravest Israelite, a … hero… He was as strong as a lion… with his tall and handsome appearance. Saul’s original name was Labaya, meaning “great lion of Yaw (weh),” but he was renamed Saul, meaning “asked for,” as the people of Israel asked God for a king so they could be like other nations. Scripture records Saul as… a man without equal, a head taller than any of the others. He was the son of a high-ranking [though small clan, Matri] chieftain Kish, son of Abiel… son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, son of Benjamin… but Saul was not Samuel’s choice.’
In 1887, three hundred and eighty clay tablets were discovered at el-Amarna in central Egypt. They were letters written by the foreign rulers of city-states in the cuneiform script of the Akkadian language. The prime name of interest to Biblical scholars in the Amarna Tablets was Labayu, the ‘Lion Man’ who held sway over central Palestine, actively fighting against the Philistines. Transposing the Amarna Tablets from the thirteenth century BCE of the conventional chronology to the tenth century BCE of the revised chronology of David Rohl, the life of Labayu is a close match for the Biblical record of the first king of the Israelites, Saul.
EA 252, a letter of warning from Labayu to the pharaoh, was studied extensively in the early 1940’s by William F Albright, an American archaeologist. He determined that the writer of the tablet knew little of the Akkadian language, the common correspondence between countries in that time period. The language used was Hebrew, it was then translated idiomatically into Akkadian. The letter revealed it was from an ‘untutored or uneducated man from humble beginnings’ who became a powerful ruler, exactly fitting the profile of King Saul of Israel.
‘Saul was chosen by God, sent to Samuel to anoint, and drafted to rescue the Israelites from the oppression of the Philistines… Samuel saw in Saul his capacity to lead; ruthlessness; willingness to murder, lie, extort in the name of policy; and the ability to play off courtiers against each other…Saul was the antithesis of Samuel and everything he stood for… Samuel warned… the king would war regularly, taking their sons; taking the best of the daughters; taking their land and trade to feed, arm, and look after his armies and taxing a tenth of everything to pay for these armies. Additionally, Saul did not have the backing of the nobility, simply because Saul did not possess his own great wealth.
At Saul’s anointing, Samuel recommissioned Israel to obliterate the Amalekites. No one… was to be spared… [neither] livestock… even the possessions of the Amalekites were not to be looted. Everything… to be utterly destroyed. The instructions should not have been a source of confusion for any reason… but God’s judgement was not carried forth to the letter of the edict. Lack of complete obedience resulted in devastating consequences for Saul and his… descendants… Saul only fought the Amalekites because he was forced to… Saul was easily persuaded to keep the spoils of war… [violating] his covenant with God. Saul was never totally committed to slaughter all the Amalekites from the face of the earth. Saul chose to spare some of the Amalekites… in addition to the prized and valued animals. Saul further spared Agag because Saul admired the tall and handsome king… if Saul found Agag to [be] tall, one wonders just how big Agag actually was. Consequently, Samuel denounced Saul [and slew Agag, himself]…
God removed the right of succession for Saul’s sons to the throne… and therefore the lineage of the Messiah… The Messianic bloodline and the everlasting throne were to be transplanted to the tribe of Judah, just as it had been originally prophesied in Genesis… it was Saul’s vassal army of Amalekites… which was protecting the back of Saul’s army during a later battle against the philistines… [who then] betrayed Saul, permitting the Philistines to encircle and assault the Israelites, wounding Saul… Saul then fell on his own sword, killing himself. Saul’s and his son’s bodies were hung unceremoniously by the Philistines at Beth Shan… stripped… from his armour, cutting off Saul’s head; they then hung Saul’s head and his armour in the temple of Dagon, the father of Baal… David eventually confiscated the bones of Saul and Jonathan, burying them in a tomb of Saul’s father, Kish, at Zela in Benjamin.
… Saul did not totally annihilate the Amalekites, for the book of Samuel records David fought the Amalekites (1 Samuel 8:12), destroying them at Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1-31)… while the KJV records this victory as a complete “slaughter of the Amalekites” (2 Samuel 1:1).’
Psalm 9:5-6
English Standard Version
5 You have rebuked the nations; you have made the wicked perish; you have blotted out their name forever and ever. 6 The enemy came to an end in everlasting ruins; their cities you rooted out; the very memory of them has perished.
‘This passage can only be interpreted and attributed to the Amalekites. During the reign of Hezekiah of Judah, the Simeonite sons of Ishi invaded the hill country of Seir, killing the remaining Amalekites who had escaped. One would expect that this final blow finished off whatever remnant of Amalekite culture and society that had somehow survived from David’s genocidal purge… neither history or the Bible ever again records Amalekites as a nation. Secular history has forgotten the Amalekites, as though they never existed; only the bible has maintained their existence as a witness to the world.’
It is worth noting at this point the identity of a tribe closely associated with the tribe of Judah and also forming with them, the Kingdom of Judah. The Simeonite sons of Ishi who took matters in their own hands – bit of a character trait – are the modern Welsh. We will study Wales and Simeon in depth to verify their proposed identity.
‘Listed among names of antediluvian Nephilim was the name Amalek. He was noted as the twin brother to Samael [a Giant, not the leader of the fallen Angels]… for Amalek was the forefather of Seir… Amalek was the prominent antediluvian Sumerian king Akalum-Dug, understanding that Akalum was Sumerian for the infamous, evil “Lamech,” which found its true anagram in producing the name Amalek… another variant name of a king to Amalek: Anam’ Melech… Anam’ Melech was worshipped by the [Babylonians]… Melech… is Hebrew for “king,” as in Molech/Malech, the god of the Canaanites, son of Baal, who required the sacrifice of children in his worship… Anam’ Malech also required the sacrifice of children. One of Samael’s [the Giant] wives, [was] Naamah. Naamah was… [the] daughter of Lamech (Amalek)…
The Armana Letters recorded a tenth-century BCE strong man and Apiru leader who emerged from Hebron to capture Jerusalem. This then is the probable Gentile record of David’s rise to power…an Aramaic inscription,* dating back to the ninth century BCE, discovered in 1993 CE, in the ruins of the ancient city of Dan, clearly recorded the words “House of David.” David was the first of the true dynastic bloodline leading to Christ nearly 1,000 years later, on whom God built his earthly but royal government that Jesus would later inherit. David is also from the dynastic bloodline that all spurious royal bloodlines now desperately strive to align themselves with, in order to further enhance their own perceived pedigree and credibility [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].’
The House of David was well known in the ninth century BCE. The name of King David appears among toponyms of the south of Palestine on the list of Pharaoh Shoshenq I as, ‘[the heights?] of David.’ We can have confidence that King David was a flesh and blood historical figure. Archaeologists who deny his existence or the extent of the influence of the kingdom of David, are exhibiting bad faith, literally and figuratively in the face of clear evidence.
‘Lines 8-10* of the Tel Dan Stele. Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
8. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]yahu son of [Jehoram kin-]
9. -g [of the] House-of-David. And I set [……………………………..]
10. their land …[……………………………………………………………………….]
Ahazyahu (887-885) and Jehoram (897-886) were kings of Israel “House-of-David” (2 Kings 8:28-9:29)
Lines 30-31 of the Mesha Stele. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
30. [the temple of Made]ba and the temple of Diblaten and the temple of Baal-meon; and I established there 31. [……………] the sheep of the land. And the House [of D]avid dwelt in Horonen
32. [……………] and Chemosh said to me: “Go down! Fight against Horonen.” And I went down, and [… Mesha (900-870) was King of Moab (2 Kings 3:4-27) and succeeded his father Chemoshyat (930-900).’
Kings David and Solomon Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gerard Gertoux, 2015 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The David and Solomon’s kingdoms are no longer considered as historical by minimalist archaeologists. According to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, for example, authors of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, at the time of the kingdoms of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was populated by only a few hundred residents or less, which is insufficient for an empire stretching from the Euphrates to Eilath. They suggest that due to religious prejudice, the authors of the Bible suppressed the achievements of the Omrides. Some Biblical minimalists like Thomas L. Thompson go further, arguing that Jerusalem became a city and capable of being a state capital only in the mid-seventh century. Likewise, Finkelstein and others consider the claimed size of Solomon’s temple implausible. A review of methods and arguments used by these minimalists shows that they are impostors for writing history. The historical testimonies dated by a chronology anchored on absolute dates (backbone of history) are replaced by archaeological remains dated by carbon-14 (backbone of modern myths).The goal of these unfounded claims is clearly the charring of biblical accounts.
One of the most fiercely debated issues in Biblical Archaeology today involves the historicity of the Bible and biblical chronology in the period of the United Monarchy in Jerusalem. Most of the evidence for this period of David and Solomon is found in the Bible, and there is a decided lack of archaeological evidence to correlate the biblical narrative. Most archaeologists take the view that the Bible is a narrative of mythology interwoven with some historical elements; whereas some historians believe that the Bible, along with archaeological evidence, can be a valid historical source.This dichotomy of viewpoints is further divided into questions of chronology rebuilt from historical synchronisms dated by astronomy for historians, versus archaeological remains dated by Carbon-14 for archaeologists, and above all the reliability of ancient narratives.
When the current conditions for excavation in Jerusalem and the complexity of occupational deposition are considered, it is not so unusual that there is little evidence of Davidic and Solomonic Jerusalem. The area of the citadel of the City of David is currently beneath private homes; therefore very little excavation has been done. Similarly, the Temple Mount covers the site of the Solomonic Temple, where it is impossible for religious and political reasons to conduct even an archaeological survey. Two factors in occupational deposition are important to consider: first of all, in hilly regions like Jerusalem, it is most practical to remove the earlier construction phases and debris down to bedrock when building new structures. Second, uninterrupted settlement, from the 10th to the early 6th centuries BCE, leaves less of an archaeological footprint than would a period of destruction or invasion, so it is understandable that there would be less data from this period.
The Biblical Minimalist point of view hinges on the belief that the Book of Kings was written in the Persian period. Therefore it is a product of many scribal errors and different authors, which means that any historical value is hidden in layers of confusion. Niels Peter Lemche, one of the main proponents of this school, also makes the case that the concept of “history” is an essentially modern term. Thus trying to read the Bible as a historical text in the modern sense of the term is a vexed enterprise from the start, because the Bible was written in a tradition of story-telling and religious worship, not with the intention of relating facts in a “history.”
They assert that the United Monarchy and the figures of David and Solomon are legendary, but not historical. The Biblical Maximalist perspective is that enough of the textual and archaeological evidence converges to make the Bible plausible as a historical source. They don’t necessarily say that every element of the Bible can be proven; William Dever goes so far as to say that David and Solomon may not have been historical figures. But there is enough socio-archaeological data to make conclusions about the rise of statehood in the 10th century BCE, which is a centralized power like the United Monarchy. The main problem with the Biblical Minimalist point of view is that there are too many correlations of the biblical narrative to other Near Eastern sources. For example, the Pharaoh Shishak’s destruction of Megiddo is recorded in the Bible, and his actual victory stele are found at Megiddo and in the temple of Karnak; we also have the later Babylonian lists of Israelite Kings, which correlates with biblical narrative. These correlations fall after the United Monarchy, but both suggest a continuity with institutions of Kingship and the office of the court scribe. The description of the Solomonic Temple in the Bible is so much like the MB Age Temple and the 8th century Syrian Temple at Tell Tainat (which was also constructed by Phoenician craftsmen), that it is highly unlikely that it could be fictitious.
The only monumental architecture from this time period is the Stepped-Stone structure from the eastern slope of the City of David. It could have functioned as a large supporting structure, for a fortification wall or platform that might be part of the citadel of David. It was built on top of Late Bronze Age II terrace systems, with Israelite houses built into it, and Hellenistic-Roman period wall built on the highest part of the slope.
The original excavations by Kathleen Kenyon concluded that the underlying terraces and Stepped-Stone Structures were contemporaneous and should be dated to LB II. But the ceramic data from a sealed context points to an Iron Age date for the Stepped-Stone Structure, and the stratigraphic data clearly shows it to have been constructed around and deeper than some portions of the terrace system. This would negate the idea that the terrace system was to function as the foundation of the Stepped- Stone structure. To look beyond Jerusalem itself for archaeological and textual evidence of the Davidic and Solomonic reigns, refer to the Tel Dan inscription and the six-chambered gate. The Tel Dan inscription mentions “Beth David” (BYTDWD) or House of David as a place name; it is a Semitic tradition to name a city after the founder. There has been some questioning of the authenticity of this inscription, namely by epigraphers who take the lack of a word divider as evidence of a forgery. But the Aramaic of the inscription as well as the palaeography and orthography are correct.’
The New Egyptian Chronology – A revised Egyptian chronology results in startling new archeological discoveries which authenticate Old Testament histories, David Reagan – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… [David] Rohl points out that a review of ancient documents, using the New Chronology, may have produced letters referring to David as well as letters written to the Egyptian court by King Saul of Israel! The documents, known as “The Amarna Letters”… mainly consist of letters sent to the pharaoh by foreign kings. Now, no one has ever searched these tablets for letters from the United Monarchy of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon)… So, Rohl went to these documents with the expectation of finding correspondence from the new Hebrew kingdom an expectation no one else had ever had. The first thing he ran across were letters from city-state rulers of Palestine that contained copious references to a group of marauders called the “Habiru.” These references are obviously speaking of Hebrews, and they have always puzzled scholars because the conventional chronology placed these letters a century before the Exodus. But the New Chronology places them during the reign of King Saul when David and his mighty men kept alive by pillaging the countryside. Rohl concludes that these letters relate to David and his soldiers of fortune who hired themselves out as mercenaries.
Rohl’s second discovery was a series of letters written by a King Labayu of the hill country north of Jerusalem. His name means “Great Lion of Yaweh.” Rohl believes this was the true name of King Saul and that Saul was his hypocoristic name (nickname).’
A clue to Saul’s other name is found in Psalm 57:4 NIV, penned by David while he was hiding from Saul’s men in the cave of En-Gedi [1 Samuel 24:2-3]: “I am in the midst of lions [H3833: lebaim]; I am forced to dwell among ravenous beasts – men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords.”
‘Rohl reviews the letters in detail to show that they describe events that parallel incidents during the reign of Saul.’
In EA 252, the rebellious King Saul warns Pharaoh off by saying: “If an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man who struck it?”
‘These remarkable letters some by Saul and some by his son, Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2:8) contain references to Ayab (Joab, commander of David’s forces)’
[EA 256: “Say to Yanhamu (the official representative of Pharaoh in Palestine), my lord: Message of Mutbaal (Canaanite from of Ishbaal, son of Saul), your servant. I Fall at the feet of my lord. How can it be said in your presence, Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab? How can the king of Pella (Israelite stronghold across the Jordan River) flee… I swear Ayab is not in Pella. In fact, he has been in the field (on campaign) for 2 months…]
‘and also to Benenima, Dadua, and Yishuya. Rohl concludes from what is said in the letters the Benenima is Baanah, one of Israel’s tribal chieftains who later assassinates Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4). He concludes that Dadua is David and that Yishuya is David’s father, Jesse (Yishay in Hebrew). The evidence he presents in behalf of these conclusions is fascinating and convincing.’
There may be truth to Saul being a secondary name as in the Hebrew, from the verb sha’al, it means ‘to ask’ or ‘ask for.’ The Habiru were originally considered by academics to be stateless wanderers and later by Biblical scholars as the Hebrews themselves. Now, the link is specifically with David’s mercenary army of Hebrews who carried out assaults upon the Philistines. Recall in 1 Samuel 13:1-5, Jonathan defeated the Philistines at Geba. This event was also mentioned by Labayu in letter EA 252. In 1 Samuel 20:30-34, Saul reprimands his son Jonathan for consorting with David; in EA 254, his third letter to Pharaoh, Labayu does the same.
1 Samuel 20:30-34
English Standard Version
30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” 32 Then Jonathan answered Saul his father, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to strike him. So Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death. 34 And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him.
Regarding the legendary encounter between King David and Goliath, I would highly recommend reading Chapter thirty-seven, David and Goliath by Gary Wayne, in its entirety. Within the Genesis 6 Conspiracy, it is ten pages of just a great, riveting portrait of David at the least and at best, it is a very rewarding and insightful exegesis. I will quote a few key passages as reproducing the complete chapter is regrettably, not practical. David fights Goliath in 1022 BCE at the battle with the Philistines at Sochoh. The word used for youth is the Hebrew word H5288 na’ar. A similar word is used of Joseph at age seventeen [1 Samuel 17:33, Genesis 37:2].
‘David was a complex individual, who was strapped with all the weight and pressure for the future of humankind. God selected David for this role because of what was in David’s heart, not for his perfection… the heart that was true and zealous in pursuit of God. The role David was selected to play in Israel’s destiny was not that of a peacemaker. David was a warrior king, selected to subdue the enemies of Israel. It was David who established Jerusalem as the heart and soul of Israel. It was David who battled his entire life, enabling Solomon to become the peaceful king of wisdom. And it was Solomon who was permitted to build the holy temple, not David, because of the blood that was on the warrior hands of David… [for he] became famous for being the great warrior king, not the peace-giving priest king Solomon was. David slew 200 Philistines, delivering their foreskins to Saul as the price to marry Michal, Saul’s daughter… David was the Lion trait, and Solomon was the Lamb aspect, foreshadowing the dual nature of the true Messiah, Jesus.
Surprisingly, Goliath, according to Jewish legends, was related to David, for Goliath was the grandson of one of David’s relatives Orpah, related to Ruth, from whom David received his royal, Messianic bloodline. Ruth married Boaz, who begat Obed, who begat Jesse, the father of David… both Ruth and Orpah… were no ordinary Moabites, for both… were the daughters of the king of Moab, Eglon. Apparently, King Eglon had prudent respect for Israel and permitted the marriages of his princess daughters to Kilion/Chilion and Mahlon [the sons of Naomi and Elimelech]. Orpah then returned [circa 1284 BCE] to the royal household after Naomi went back to Bethlehem with Ruth. This then makes Goliath a third generation cousin to David, as Goliath was the grandson of Orpah…Goliath was born… along with four other giants… from one mother alone… Goliath [the Gittitie] was from Gath and… there were five potentates of Philistia that reigned in Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gaza, and Gath. Philstines recounted these five potentates as Avvites.
The book of 2 Samuel listed four other prominent giants… Ishi-Benob, Saph, Lahmi brother of Goliath, and a six-fingered and six-toed giant named Sippai. Goliath would have simply been the fifth Nephilim/Gibborim reigning in Gath… [a] land where the descendants of Rapha [the Rephaim] lived. The original term utilized was the five [rulers] seranim of the Philistine Pentaplos. Seranim is thought to have been adopted from the Philistines into the Hebrew language… [and is linked] etymologically with the Greek word tyrannos, or “tyrant.” The first ruler who was called Tyrannos in Greek literature was Gyges, the king of Lydia. Greek Titans were known variantly as Gyges… the root word for giant and gigantic.’
1 Samuel 17:40
English Standard Version
Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine.
Wayne makes an enlightening observation on David methodically selecting five stones for his sling, prior too engaging Goliath. Did David show a lack of confidence in picking five stones, with four as back up, if he missed with the first? Rather, David selected one stone each for the five potentates from the five principle Philistine cities, who must have all been in attendance with the Philistine army that day, led by Goliath. In case they decided to step forward, David was prepared. Wayne also highlights the fact that the sling shot was not an inferior soldiers weapon of choice but rather, it was an integral item in armies of the day, including the Egyptians and Assyrians. The sling could kill a man up to six hundred feet away. It had a greater range than an arrow, was more accurate than a bow and arrow and more deadly when it struck the intended target.
1 Chronicles 12:2
English Standard Version
They were bowmen and could shoot arrows and sling stones with either the right or the left hand; they were Benjaminites, Saul’s kinsmen.
Judges 20:13-18
English Standard Version
13 Now therefore give up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and purge evil from Israel.” But the Benjaminites would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the people of Israel. 14 Then the people of Benjamin came together out of the cities to Gibeah to go out to battle against the people of Israel. 15 And the people of Benjamin mustered out of their cities on that day 26,000 men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who mustered 700 chosen men [elite soldiers].
16 Among all these were 700 chosen men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. 17 And the men of Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered 400,000 men who drew the sword; all these were men of war. 18 The people of Israel arose and went up to Bethel and inquired of God, “Who shall go up first for us to fight against the people of Benjamin?” And the Lord said, “Judah shall go up first.”
‘… David is translated from Hebrew as both “beloved” and/or… even “chieftain”… in the Mari Letters or Tablets, references are made to plundering Benjamites and its leader by the title Dawidum, meaning “leader.”… David was never his real name.. in fact, was a title, “the Davidum,” like an emperor or a Caesar, and this title stuck in history as his name. All later kings of Judah were then known… as Davidums. Rohl suggests that David’s original given name was “Elhanan,” (who killed Goliath)[meaning: ‘God has been gracious’] the youngest son of Yishuya, Jesse.’
After David’s victory over Goliath, a deep and lasting friendship [1 Samuel 18:1-7] ensues with Saul’s son Jonathan, who is ten years older than David. Circa 1020 BCE, David at age twenty marries Saul’s youngest daughter Michal and pays a dowry of two hundred Philistine penises. A year later, David defeats the Philistines which initiates the beginning of Saul’s jealousy and hatred towards David. David is driven away from the palace in 1016 BCE after six years of service and now embarks on seven years as a fugitive, bandit, mercenary and wanderer from the age of twenty-three till thirty when he becomes king of Judah. David and Jonathan’s final parting is heartfelt, as Jonathan makes ‘a covenant of friendship with the house of David, whom he recognised as Saul’s successor.’
Samuel 20:41-42
New English Translation
41 When the servant had left, David got up from beside the mound, knelt with his face to the ground, and bowed three times.Then they kissed each other and they both wept, especially David. 42 Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for the two of us have sworn together in the name of the Lord saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you and between my descendants [from Benjamin] and your descendants [from Pharez, Judah] forever.’”
2 Samuel 1:26
English Standard Version
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.
David’s words about his deep and rewarding friendship with Jonathan have been viewed by some to intimate a bisexuality on David’s part. There is nothing in the Hebrew wording or phrasing to reach that conclusion. On the other hand, there is nothing to counter it either. The wording is very overflowing towards Jonathan and remarkably flowery. More likely it was the bromance of the millennia. It is said that when Saul had talked with David, ‘the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.’ Great was Jonathan’s devotion to David, that the two entered ‘a solemn covenant of friendship.’
David had refused to wear king Saul’s armour. He tried it on, but took it off again, for he could not use the heavy gear in accommodating his battle style; though he did not refuse Jonathan’s armour. ‘David assumed the garments and weapons of Jonathan, and was thus prepared to be acknowledged, even by Jonathan himself, as the real heir [and the future] king of the land. The two became inseparable friends while David was kept at the court of Saul. It is easy to see why the young prince should become so fond of David, whom he could well regard as an equal in courage, one worthy of love. Indeed, David, whose name means “Beloved,” seems to have inspired both love and hero-worship. Jonathan, in the isolation which his royal station brought with it, was in need of a friend. His father was a moody man with a dangerous temper whose consciousness of weakness made him suspicious and touchy about his dignity, and was not the kind of father to invite confidences. The relations of Jonathan and his father had been strained ever since Saul had nearly put his son to death for inadvertently disobeying one of his thoughtless orders. (I Samuel 14).’
David was a very handsome man who was beloved by all, especially women, for it was they who chanted that ‘Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands!’ David did have a voracious sexual appetite, for he was an insatiable collector of women, particularly other men’s wives. David’s treachery against Uriah for his wife Bathsheba the most notable. It was also a turning point in David’s life and the nation of Israel, as both were plagued by violence afterwards. For these actions, the Creator promised the sword would not depart from his very own house and evil would arise, as it surely did with Amnon, Tamar and Absalom.
2 Samuel 12:7-15
English Standard Version
7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised [H959 – bazah: disdain, hold in contempt, to be despicable] me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” 13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.
With all this, David was quick to admit his sin and repent. Sparing his own life in consequence, for the Creator said David had despised Him. David had broken three commandments, in 1. coveting another man’s wife; 2. committing adultery with her; and then 3. killing her husband.
David was a complicated man showing his spirituality in being a ‘man after God’s own heart’, yet compelled by his physicality to violence and immorality, to the point that the Creator said: ‘…You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood.’ [1 Chronicles 28:3, ESV] David left his mark on Israel as his name is mentioned more than a thousand times in the Bible. One Bible scholar remarked that ‘the religion of ancient Israel ought to be called “Davidism” because of the king’s essential role in the history and theology of [the nation].’ This is likely a truism and with Moses; David surely left an indelible mark on all who met him, knew him or were governed by him.
Circa 1012 BCE David cut a piece off of Saul’s robe while he took a rest in a cave which David happened to be hiding. In 1011 BCE the Philistines invade the land and Saul quits his pursuit of David. David also marries Abigail. Samuel died in 1010 BCE at the age of eighty-seven. In the same year, Saul and Jonathan died in the battle with the Philistines at Mount Gilboa. Saul was sixty years old, Jonathan forty years of age and David was thirty years old [2 Samuel 5:4].
From 1010 to 1008 BCE Saul’s son Ish-bosheth ruled Israel [2 Samuel 2:10-11]. Meanwhile, David ruled Judah from Hebron in 1010 BCE to 1003 BCE. David ruled both Israel and Judah from 1003 BCE to 970 BCE, making Jerusalem his capital [2 Samuel 5:5]. David was a contemporary of Pharaoh Amenhotep I, or Djeserkare the 2nd king of the XVIII dynasty, who reigned from 998 to 978 BCE. David’s son by Bathsheba, Solomon, was born in 999 BCE.
After Saul’s downfall and removal, David, a son from the royal line of Pharez, was enthroned and to him were reiterated the promises concerning the royal line, which had been passed to Judah.
Ruth 4:18-22
English Standard Version
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, 19 Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, 20 Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, 21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fatheredDavid.
Exodus 6:23
English Standard Version
Aaron took as his wife Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab [Great grandson of Pharez, son of Judah] and the sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
David’s ancestry from Pharez, son of Judah. Notice Nashon’s sister, Elisheba married Moses brother, Aaron.
‘When the Sceptre covenant was confirmed to David, the Lord gave the message through Nathan the prophet in these words: “When thy days be fufilIed, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He [Solomon] shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men.But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee:Thy throne shall be established forever,” (2 Sam. 7:12-16).
David was so impressed with the magnitude of this prophecy and with the period of time which it covered that he went in and sat before the Lord, pondering over it, until in wonderment he exclaimed: “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house that thou hast brought me hitherto? And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God: but thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come…” (2 Samuel 7:18,19). “And now, O Lord God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it forever, and do as thou hast said.”
When the temple was finished, Solomon, standing before the altar of the Lord, in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and with uplifted hands spread toward heaven, in that wonderful prayer at the dedication of the temple, said:
“The Lord hath performed his word that he spake; and I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the Lord promised, and have built an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel… There is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servant… who hast kept with thy servant David my father that which thou promisest him; thou speakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. Therefore now, Lord God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying: There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel,” (I Kings 8:20-25).
By this prayer we see that Solomon understood that the throne, the kingdom, and the lineal house of David should stand forever.’
Jeremiah 33:22-26
Common English Bible
22 And just as the stars in the sky can’t be numbered and the sand on the shore can’t be counted, so I will increase the descendants of my servant David and the Levites who minister before me. 23 Then the Lord’s word came to Jeremiah: 24 Aren’t you aware of what people are saying: “The Lord has rejected the two families that he had chosen”? [Aaron’s and David’s] They are insulting my people as if they no longer belong to me. 25 The Lord proclaims: I would no sooner break my covenant with day and night or the laws of heaven and earth 26 than I would reject the descendants of Jacob and my servant David and his descendants as rulers for the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I will restore the captives and have compassion on them.
David’s descendants were to be numerous. He had at least nineteen sons for a start. The population of England is large and so a small but sizeable percentage must descend from King David. Judah had three sons that lived, therefore all the English people in England must come from one of these three lines. Shelah had five sons as did Zarah, while Pharez had two, with his firstborn Hezron being David’s ancestor. Hezron had two sons and David’s line is from Hezron’s eldest son Jerahmeel and his firstborn son Ram. It is worth noting that David’s royal line or throne, was to rule not just Jacob’s sons but all the sons of Abraham. This supports the British monarchy having related family and ruling monarchs throughout the whole of northwestern Europe and beyond over the last few centuries.
From 1025 BCE to 930 BCE the united Kingdom of Israel was the pre-eminent power of the Mesopotamian, North African, Caucasus and the south, central and western Asian world. With a huge standing Army and the naval superiority of the Phoenicians as integral allies, they were unchallenged [refer Chapter XXIII Aram & Chapter XXVII Abraham]. It requires vast economic wealth to maintain an army of a million and a half men, three thousand years ago. Where was Assyria during this period? Secular history has recorded that Assyria’s Empire went into eclipse or ‘confusion’ as some encyclopaedias describe it, between circa 1100-900 BCE. Halley’s Bible Handbook states, that ancient Israel was considerably stronger than Assyria, Babylon or Egypt.
The very same same period as Israel’s golden age under David and Solomon. It is conveniently glossed over in historical texts, if it is even covered at all. Just as the Parthian Empire is ignored or down played.
What happened to Assyria? [refer Chapter XX Asshur] It may have been defeated in a war against Israel’s army. Ancient history has remained quiet on it because Assyria was a bit player in the war. First Chronicles chapters nineteen and twenty describe an Ammonite revolt and their amassing wide support from practically all of Israel’s adversaries [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon]. The participants are given in Psalm eighty-three. The chapter is dual, in that – though the verses are not ostensibly prophetic – the same group of peoples will unite to attack and defeat the principal Israelite nations, including Judah-England just prior to the Great Tribulation. The nations involved are predominsnty from western Europe and will be part of a German led Europe that allies with Asshur; which is Assyria and Russia, the Biblical King of the North.
In the past confrontation, Ammon created a pretext for war. There were thirty-two thousands chariots arrayed against Israel alone. How many foot soldiers to add to this number? There were an unknown number of men from Mesopotamia and Syria [refer Chapter XXIII Aram] which included a number of unidentified people fighting with Ammon against Israel. In verse nine of chapter nineteen, we learn it was a confederacy of sorts with a number of different nations intent on destroying Israel, for it states their kings had come to either watch the battle or take part. The battle was on two fronts, with the Ammonites leading one attack and the Aramean Syrians, the other assault.
One imagines this war was either early in David’s reign, hoping to take out the new king quickly and knock Israel off its feet after Saul’s defeat and death by the Philistines; or alternatively after Israel began flourishing under King David and Israel became a growing concern to her neighbours. This was not a mercenary guerrilla war but a full scale war of declared national commitment against Israel. David’s army led by Joab won the first battle and then the next.
Many Psalms in the Book of Psalms are credited to David [75], particularly the early ones. Seventy-three are noted in Psalms; Psalm 2 is attributed to David in Acts 4:25 and Psalm 95 is attributed to David in Hebrews 4:7, plus: 3—9; 11—32; 34—41; 51—65; 68—70; 86; 101; 103; 108—110; 122; 124; 131; 133; 138—145.
Psalm 83 is credited too Asaph, as are eleven other Psalms to Asaph or his family – 50, 73-83. The Psalms are written typically by Levites or Judah’s descendants. The sons of Korah [Levi] wrote [11] – 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87-88 – Heman, son of Zarah [1] – 88 – Solomon [2] – 72, 127 – Moses [1] – 90 – Ethan the Ezrahite son of Zarah [1] – 89 – and anonymous [48].
Psalm 83:1-12
Common English Bible
God, don’t be silent! Don’t be quiet or sit still, God,
2 because – look! – your enemies are growling; those who hate you are acting arrogantly. 3 They concoct crafty plans against your own people; they plot against the people you favor.4 “Come on,” they say, “let’s wipe them out as a nation! Let the name Israel be remembered no more!”5 They plot with a single-minded heart; they make a covenant against you.
6 They are the clans of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,7 Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, Philistia along with the citizens of Tyre.8 Assyria too has joined them – they are the strong arm for Lot’s children. Selah
9 Do to them what you did to Midian, to Sisera, and to Jabin at the Kishon River. 10 They were destroyed at Endor; they became fertilizer for the ground.11 Make their officials like Oreb and Zeeb, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna – 12 those who said, “Let’s take God’s pastures for ourselves.”
Victory for King David and his army, probably meant the conspiring nations paid tribute and were vassal states, including Assyria. This means the territory controlled by Israel would have stretched from Egypt in the west, too deep in the Arabian Peninsula in the south, too beyond Assyria in the north. Steven Collins has documented the extent of the Israelite empire at this time. As Israel was closely aligned with the Phoenicians, the name Israel is hidden within their name by historians. The mention of Tyre in the list of nations, would lean to the war being early in David’s kingship, before the closeness formed between Hiram of Tyre in King Solomon’s reign.
The Phoenician Empire [refer Chapter XXIII Aram] was not just dominant in the Mediterranean Sea, but they were present in substantial numbers in the British Isles, the West Coast of Europe, Africa and North America; particularly during the period of about 1100-800 BCE. The fact that much of this mercantile, commerce rich expansion was coupled with the Kingdom of Israel has been conveniently pushed to the shadows. It would explain why Assyria was quiet on the world stage during the same period.
First Chronicles chapter twenty-two relates that David accumulated ‘so much bronze and iron’ for the Temple of God, ‘it [couldn’t] be weighed.’ Warrner Keller in his book The Bible is History, states: ‘Israel was using the Bessemer system of smelting, which was not re-discovered until recently in the modern era… Essian Gebar was the Pittsburgh of ancient Palestine.’ No where else in Mesopotamia has a comparable smelting facility been found; showing ancient Israel was more than just a backward agricultural nation, but rather an industrial leader.
Dr. Barry Fells in Bronze Age America,gives evidence that millions of tons of copper ore was taken from mines near Lake Superior in North America between circa 2000 to 1000 BCE. The ore apparently ran out, for there is no evidence it was mined after then; whether it ran out or could not be mined economically.
There is no evidence the copper was used in the America’s, yet curiously, there is also no record as to where exactly all this copper came from that was smelted in Palestine.
The list of nations in Psalm eighty-three have invariably been explained as a very compact geographic area today, consisting of a number of inconsequential nations on the world stage militarily; that frankly, just does not make sense. When one understands, that the verses are not speaking about the diminutive state of Israel, or the many equally small nations that surround it, then a clearer more accurate, more concerning scenario presents itself. The passage also does not specify the Kingdoms of Judah or Israel, thus revealing it is joint scenario for both in the future and directed at the united Kingdom of Israel in the past. Derek Walker gives a breakdown of possible identities from either an historical or prophetic interpretation. Not to cast the spotlight on Walker detrimentally, only it is a good example as it closely matches other Bible students and commentators.
‘The ancient list of nations in Psalm 83:4-8 enumerates almost all the modern Islamic nations that oppose [the state of ] Israel’s existence.’
Edom – from Esau, the brother of Jacob (Jordan and the ‘Palestinians’)
Ishmaelites – descended from Ishmael, son of Hagar (the Arabs)
Moab – son of Lot (Jordan east of the Dead Sea)
Hagarenes – descendants of Hagar (Egypt)
Gebal – ancient Byblus (north of Beirut, Lebanon) Ammon – son of Lot (capital of Jordan)
Amalek – descended from Esau (Arabs south of Israel)
Philistines – from Ham (Palestinians on the Gaza strip, Hamas)
Tyre – a Phoenician city (Lebanon. Hezbolah)
Assur – founded Assyria (Syria and Northern Iraq)
Children of Lot – Moab and Ammon (Jordan)
One can observe the doubling up of Lebanon and the Palestinians. Lebanon cannot be Gebal and Tyre. The Palestinians cannot be Edom and the Philistines. Asshur cannot be Syria and Iraq. Chapter XX Asshur, showed the might and strength of Assyria; peoples descended from Shem not Ham and who dwell in the north. Coincidentally, though Jordan is incorrect, Moab and Ammon do both dwell together and Ammon is the principal people surrounding their capital [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon]. The interpretation of Ishmael as the Arabs is the exception to just small nations, as is the Hagarenes as Egypt. Chapter XIV Mizra and Chapter XXVIII Ishmael, provide information dispelling the teaching on the Arabs – a Hamitic people – descending from Ishmael, a descendent of Shem.
The same list with identities, as shown and evidenced in preceding chapters:
Edom: Israel Ishmael: Germany Moab: Central, Southern France Hagarenes [Hagrites]: Southern Germany, Austria Gebal [Byblos]: ? Ammon: Paris, Northwest France Amalek: Scattered Jews, particularly in the United States Philistines: Hispanic-Latino America – principally Mexico, Colombia, Argentina Tyre: Brazil Asshur: Russia Lot: France
This interpretation for Psalm eighty-three may appear as unreasonable, as the first does to this writer. What we first hear or learn becomes ingrained and we perceive it as truth. Though it is our truth, influenced by our own perspective, knowledge, thoughts, feelings and motives. The reality is that the state of Israel is not being punished here; it will in fact be orchestrating events, with the help of its allies. It is the nations of Israel, descended from Jacob that the Bible reveals will be chastised. This grouping of nations that Lot and Edom take the lead in organising, is a formidable array – of Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and France – that if pooling their future economic and military power against the weakened nations of Israel in the future, including England or what is left of the United Kingdom, then this alliance has the ability to remove their influence from the world stage.
In chapter XIII Cush & Phut, we addressed the disintegration of King Solomon from a wise and righteous ruler to a foolish evil one, when he allowed his wives to turn him towards worshipping other gods and particularly to practicing child sacrifice. In chapter XXVII Abraham, we also looked at Isaac and the dramatic unfolding of a near disastrous event in his and his father’s lives with the instruction to be sacrificed. The hope of a resurrection, was the only way that story could begin to have a positive ending [1 Corinthians 15:12-23]. Possibly not well known, is King David’s association with human sacrifice.
2 Samuel 21:1-9
English Standard Version
Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. And David sought the face of the Lord. And the Lord said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites. Although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to strike them down in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah. 3 And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the Lord?”
4 The Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel”… 5 They said to the king, “The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, 6 let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord.” And the king said, “I will give them.”
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the Lord that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. 8 The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9 and he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the Lord, and the seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest.
Recall, the Gibeonites had tricked the Israelites in letting them live and to remain untouched. They are linked to the Amorites and the Elioud giant descended peoples of Canaan [refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega]. Saul had broken the promise in his zeal to impress. The famine was not going to lift until retribution was delivered. David shrewdly selected two of Saul’s sons and five grandsons, omitting Jonathan’s son.
The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were guilty of child sacrifice under certain wicked kings [2 Kings 17:16-18]. The most infamous royalty were King Ahab of Israel, from 874 to 853 BCE and his Phoenician wife Jezebel, a Princess and daughter of the King of Tyre.
1 Kings 16:33-34
English Standard Version
33 And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him. 34 In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho. He laid its foundation at the cost of Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun.
Ahab practiced ‘foundation sacrifice.’ To protect a structure from evil powers, a person was murdered and buried in the foundation of a city or building – sometimes the victim was walled in alive. King Ahaz of Judah ‘burned his son as an offering’ [2 Kings 16:2-3]. As did his wicked grandson, King Manasseh, 2 Kings 21:6, ESV: ‘And he burned his son as an offering and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.’ The Prophet Jeremiah, instrumental in keeping the monarchy of Judah and David, wrote concerning Judah, just prior to their fall, punishment and captivity.
Jeremiah 19:4-5
English Standard Version
4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree… 6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. 7 And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth… 9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
A grim picture that turned into reality, of which both Jeremiah and Ezekiel remark, as well as the Prophet Micah who from 745 to 725 BCE, predicted what their enemies would do to them.
Jeremiah 19:9
Revised Standard Version
And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
Ezekiel 5:9-10
English Standard Version
9 And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10 Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds.
Micah 3:2-3
Revised Standard Version
2 you [Israel’s enemies] who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron.
The Prophet Ezekiel who lived during and after the Babylonian exile of Judah was also condemning of child sacrifice.
Ezekiel 16:20-21; 20:30-31
English Standard Version
20 And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter 21 that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?
Ezekiel 20:25-26
Revised Standard Version
25 Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; 26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
30 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and go whoring after their detestable things? 31 When you present your gifts and offer up your children in fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day…
The Eternal admits that the intricate and numerous laws in the sacrificial system, were never able to give them eternal life; in fact they infuriated them, so they then were given licence to offer human sacrifices of their first-born, in the hope they would be appalled and actually turn to Him spiritually, not though physical rites. Yet sacrificing their children to other gods was wholly unacceptable, for it broke the first commandment: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
Psalm 106:35-39
Common English Bible
35 Instead, they got mixed up with the nations, learning what they did 36 and serving those false gods, which became a trap for them. 37 They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons! 38 They shed innocent blood, the blood of their own sons and daughters – the ones they sacrificed to Canaan’s false gods – so the land was defiled by the bloodshed. 39 They made themselves unclean by what they did; they prostituted themselves by their actions.
In the preceding section [refer Chapter XXIX Esau] and in Noah [refer Chapter I Noah] we addressed the gene for red hair, its link to Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b and its appearance in the descendants of Esau and Jacob. Revisiting this subject, let’s add the aspect of the sons of Jacob stemming from Shem and thus being a western, European, white people. There is a popular identity movement subscribing to the Black peoples of Africa being the true Israelites or Hebrews. Anyone who has had the fortitude in reading preceding chapters will appreciate how off the mark this teaching or theory is. This question is not about racial superiority; it is simply understanding and identifying the peoples of Noah’s family and who they are today. It doesn’t matter what colour someones skin is, Biblically. It does matter who they actually are though, if one wishes to appreciate and understand both the past history and future predictions of specific nations and peoples.
1 Samuel 16:12
English Standard Version
And he sent and brought him in. Now [David] was ruddy [H132 – ‘admoniy: red, in complexion and hair like Esau] and beautiful [H3303 – yapheh: fair, light, bright] eyes [H5869 – ‘ayin: countenance, presence] and was handsome [H2896 – towb: good, pleasant, agreeable, beautiful]… [interlinear adds: ‘to look to’ H7210 – ro’iy: appearance, to look at, sight]…
The Message version: ‘…He was brought in, the very picture of health – bright-eyed, good-looking..’ the Tanakh version says: ‘… [David] was ruddy-cheeked, bright-eyed, and handsome…’ and the Good News Translation describes David as ‘… a handsome, healthy young man, and his eyes sparkled…’
David was not just fair complexioned, with piercing eyes; he was easy on the eye as well. The Hebrew word ‘admoniy means to have fair skin and light hair; in that the hair and complexion is red, reddish or ruddy. When Goliath first spies David, he looks in disdain at what he perceives as a pretty boy, not up to the task. 1 Samuel 17:42, ESV: ‘And when the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was but a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance.’ David’s daughter was also fair, or beautiful – like her ancestors, Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel that we have discussed.
2 Samuel 13:1
King James Version
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair [H3303 – yapheh: beautiful, bright] sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.
Amnon was David’s eldest son and Absalom his third son by a different wife. Amnon was Tamar’s half-brother. David’s son Solomon is also described as white and ruddy, that is as very fair skinned; yet his hair is not red but rather jet black.
Song of Solomon 5:10-15
King James Version
My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold [light coloured], his locks are bushy,and black as a raven. His eyes are as the eyes of doves [white or off white] by the rivers of waters, washed with milk [white], and fitly set… his belly is as bright ivory [off white] overlaid with sapphires [blue]… his countenance is as Lebanon [white], excellent as the cedars.
Rachel’s father Laban is a clue. His name means white. Laban is pronounced as lavan. The same word root is in Lebanon, l’vanon, the snowcapped white Lebanese Mountains, including the infamous Mount Hermon. The name Laban hints at a white colour of skin, that is whiter or fairer than usual.
A brown skinned coloured people may not call a lighter individual white, but a white coloured people could, if someone was very white or fair and possibly red haired. Only two per cent of the world’s population have red hair and the highest percentage of the world’s redheads live in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
As the Israelites descend in part from Laban’s sister Rebekah, it follows that they are a white people, not black as some maintain. We have discussed Esau and his being ruddy or red like David. Esau though, had very fair skin at birth and his body was covered in a caul-like mass of red hair. Red haired Esau, with white skinned Uncle Laban, indicates that the Israelites are one of a number of white peoples who descend from Abraham.
When Job was struck with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head, he said that his skin grew black and fell from him [Job 2:7-8; 30:30]. As we learned in the preceding chapter, Job was related to Laban as he was descended from Nahor as well and thus his affliction was turning his white skin, black.
The continuation of 1 Samuel chapter thirteen is about Amnon – who was twenty years of age – in 990 BCE conspiring to get Tamar about age eighteen, in his private quarters to bake for him while pretending to be ill. He then raped her and his life-long obsession for his half-sister turns to hatred and so after defiling her, a virgin, he banishes her. Absalom – eighteen years old – learns of the matter and takes her in to his home. David finally learns of the crime and is very angry. Even so, he does not take any action.
Is this because there is no proof of witnesses, or perhaps David had sinned with Bathsheba and felt a hypocrite – a son acting in like measure. His hesitancy led to Absalom meting out justice instead, which then led ultimately, to a decline in Absalom’s respect towards his father. Two years later the opportunity presented itself for Absalom to have his servants kill Amnon. Absalom then fled the royal court and stayed in Geshur as a guest of King Ammihud, his grandfather [1 Chronicles 3:2]. In the meantime, David misses Absalom.
In chapter fourteen, Joab on David’s behalf, facilitates the return of Absalom to Jerusalem, though at David’s request, he is to live in separate quarters. After two years, Absalom requests a meeting with his father, which David agrees.
2 Samuel 14:24-33
English Standard Version
24 And the king said, “Let him dwell apart in his own house; he is not to come into my presence…” 25 Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.
26 And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king’s weight. 27 There were born to Absalom three sons, and one daughter whose name was Tamar [named after her Aunt]. She was a beautiful woman.
28 So Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem, without coming into the king’s presence. 29 Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king… Now therefore let me go into the presence of the king, and if there is guilt in me, let him put me to death.’” 33 Then Joab went to the king and told him, and he summoned Absalom. So he came to the king and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom.
In Chapter fifteen of 2 Samuel, after a further four years, Absalom gains in popularity with the people and instigates a coup, banishing the king, his father David in 979 BCE.
2 Samuel 15:1-6
English Standard Version
After this Absalom got himself a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him. 2 And Absalom used to rise early and stand beside the way of the gate. And when any man had a dispute to come before the king for judgment, Absalom would call to him and say, “From what city are you?” And when he said, “Your servant is of such and such a tribe in Israel,” 3 Absalom would say to him, “See, your claims are good and right, but there is no man designated by the king to hear you.” 4 Then Absalom would say, “Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would give him justice.” 5 And whenever a man came near to pay homage to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of him and kiss him. 6 Thus Absalom did to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.
This was no normal banishment as respected Biblical scholar Ernest Martin highlights.
Secrets of Golgotha, Ernest L Martin, 1996, pages 130-132 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘It was… at Bethphage where death sentences were validated for rebellious leaders of the nation as in Deuteronomy 17:8-13, and where excommunications of the extremely wicked took place (because excommunications required a person to be legally barred from entering the Camp of Israel in the future… Since Jesus was recognised as an Elder in Israel, he was consistently called “Rabbi” by the people (John 1:49; 6:25), the final judgement to condemn him to death had to be made at Bethphage to satisfy the legal demands that were enforced in the time of Jesus… Talmudic scholars… state that Jesus was accused and convicted by the Sanhedrin of practising magic and leading Israel astray… Jesus was “put out of the Camp of Israel”… from the point of view of the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem, Jesus died on the tree of crucifixion as a Gentile, not as an Israelite!
We are told that David himself was exiled from his throne, exiled from his capital city Jerusalem, and… even excommunicated from being an Israelite. This happened to David when his own son Absolam betrayed him and took over the kingdom and the hearts of the people of Israel… [and] the Ark of God… was sent to be with Absolam… David was [also] cursed and called a “Son of Belial” (which signified an exceptionally evil person)… Absolam… [then] ordered that his father David be slain.Psalm 22 must have been written at this time… “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.”’
Psalm 22:22-23
Common English Bible
22 I [King David] will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; I will praise you in the very center of the congregation! 23 All of you who revere the Lord – praise him! All of you who are Jacob’s descendants – honor him! All of you who are all Israel’s offspring – stand in awe of him!
2 Samuel 17:1-4
English Standard Version
Moreover, Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Let me choose twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue David tonight. 2 I will come upon him while he is weary and discouraged and throw him into a panic, and all the people who are with him will flee. I will strike down only the king, 3 and I will bring all the people back to you as a bride comes home to her husband. You seek the life of only one man, and all the people will be at peace.” 4 And the advice seemed right in the eyes of Absalom and all the elders of Israel.
In Chapter eighteen, things come to a head and Absalom’s forces meet David’s army.
2 Samuel 18:5-17,33
English Standard Version
5 And the king ordered Joab and Abishai and Ittai, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” And all the people heard when the king gave orders to all the commanders about Absalom. 6 So the army went out into the field against Israel, and the battle was fought in the forest of Ephraim. 7 And the men of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David, and the loss there was great on that day, twenty thousand men. 8 The battle spread over the face of all the country, and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.
9 And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head [long hair] caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on… 14 Joab… took three javelins in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the oak. 15 And ten young men, Joab’s armor-bearers, surrounded Absalom and struck him and killed him.
16 Then Joab blew the trumpet, and the troops came back from pursuing Israel, for Joab restrained them. 17 And they took Absalom and threw him into a great pit in the forest and raised over him a very great heap of stones. And all Israel fled every one to his own home. 33 And the king was deeply moved and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept. And as he went, he said, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”
Absalom’s demise at age twenty-nine, is not taken well by David, even after all he had done to his father. One can’t help but wonder if David had acted against Amnon, would events have taken a different course. Possibly, the episode with Amnon exacerbated or accelerated thoughts that were already in Absalom’s mind towards King David. The encounter shows how human we all and how brittle relationships can be when put under pressure. Plus, though David was a man after God’s own heart, he did not always act wisely, or have an easy ride.
Acts 13:22
English Standard Version
And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, ‘I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.’
David’s name may be a later appellation as claimed, as in the Hebrew it derives from the noun dod, meaning ‘beloved.’ As David’s reign drew to a close, it didn’t become any easier for him with his other sons also conspiring for the right to succeed David as King of Israel. The nation’s leadership and Army were divided on the succession. Solomon was crowned king while his half brother Adonijah was plotting to be king with the cooperation of Joab, the Army’s commander-in-chief and Abiathar the High Priest. Meanwhile, Nathan the prophet, Zadok the priest, and Benaiah, the head of David’s personal retinue of bodyguards remained loyal to Solomon [I Kings 1:5-8].
Bathsheba was instrumental in having Solomon anointed and coronated. Though David had created history’s first recorded ‘hit list’ which he gave to Solomon as one of his final acts as King of Israel. One Bible scholar calling it “a last will and testament worthy of a dying Mafia capo.” Solomon wasted no time in having Adonijah and Joab executed, while banishing Abiathar the priest from his office [I Kings 2:26-35]. In both cases, the executioner was Benaiah, the captain of David’s bodyguard. King David died soon after Solomon’s coronation [970 BCE], after saying: “I have appointed [Solomon] to be ruler over Israel and Judah” [1 Kings 1:35].
David lives on today in the famous song by Leonard Cohen, ‘Hallelujah’ which celebrates David’s checkered life and sexual exploits with Bathsheba. More than three hundred versions of the song have been recorded, about a man who wrote at least seventy-five songs and poems himself, in the Book of Psalms.
It was a far happier period for the monarchy during Solomon’s reign [970 – 930 BCE] capped with the completion of the magnificent Temple in 960 BCE.
1 Kings 4:20-26
English Standard Version
20 Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. 21 Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. 22 Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty cors of fine flour and sixty cors of meal, 23 ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, a hundred sheep, besides deer, gazelles, roebucks, and fattened fowl. 24 For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates. And he had peace on all sides around him. 25 And Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan [far north] even to Beersheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, all the days of Solomon. 26 Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.
Solomon’s name is appropriate as in the Hebrew, it derives from the verb shalem, meaning ‘to be’ and ‘make whole, complete’ or ‘peace.’ It was during the forty years of King Solomon’s reign that the Israelite Kingdom peaked in prosperity and economic power. As it was so short-lived, there is understandably less evidence of its place amongst the great empires that book-end it in history – the Egyptians to the south and the Assyrians to the north. Steven M Collins book, The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel… Found! is recommended as a good starting point for those interested in delving deeper.
It was during Solomon’s reign that the events of the Book of Solomon occur. We have studied the Queen of Sheba in Chapter XIII Cush & Phut. After the Pharaoh concurrent with David’s reign Amenhotep I, there followed Thutmose I from 978 to 972 BCE and Thutmose II from 972 to 960 BCE. Queen Hatshepsut or Maatkare, the Queen of Sheba, that is of Indian Cushite bloodline, reigned from 960 to 945 BCE – the fifth Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. The beginning of her reign coincided with the completion of the Temple and ten years into Solomon’s reign. Solomon’s reputation for wisdom, building projects, handsomeness and an all round ladies man would have reached the Queen’s attention.
Her visit to Solomon would have likely been sometime shortly after 960 BCE. King Solomon would have been about forty years of age. Hatshepsut was the second known female ruler of Egypt. She may have ruled jointly with her nephew Thutmose III during the early part of his reign. The Queen is famous for her expedition to Punt – the land of Israel – documented on her famous Mortuary Temple at Deir el-Bahari. She, like Solomon was a prolific builder and built many temples and monuments, as well as re-establishing trade networks. Hatshepsut ruled during the height of Egypt’s power and was the daughter of Thutmose I and had been the wife of her brother Thutmose II.
After Hatshepsut, the famous Pharaoh Thutmose III ruled from 945 to 912 BCE, being another contemporary of Solomon. He was considered a military genius, creating the largest empire Egypt had ever seen. It is believed Thutmose III conquered three hundred and fifty cities; though before the end of his reign, he mysteriously and inexplicably expunged Hatshepsut’s name and image from temples and monuments.
A crucial part of the unconventional chronology is the accurate dating of the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon’s reign. Not unique to this writer, are findings by independent academics, scholars and researchers that the Exodus was in fact in 1446 BCE and Solomon’s reign was from 970 to 930 BCE. We will look at the evidence for an Exodus in 1446 BCE. The Bible states that there were four hundred and eighty years between the Exodus and the beginning of the Temple in Solomon’s fourth year: 1446 – 480 = 966.
1 Kings 6:1
English Standard Version
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month [April/May], he began to build the house of the Lord.
After the death of Solomon, the nation of Israel became divided. Solomon’s son Rehoboam was born in 971 BCE and he ruled for seventeen years until 913 BCE. Rehoboam refused to ease the burden of taxes, imposed by his father.
As Rehoboam took the other tack and threatened to make life worse for the people… Ten tribes separated in 926 BCE, becoming the northern kingdom of Israel with its capital city in Samaria [1 Kings 12:12-14]. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin and much of Levi stayed with Rehoboam and became the southern kingdom of Judah, with Jerusalem as its capital.
1 Kings 11:31
Common English Bible
He said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces, because Israel’s God, the Lord, has said, ‘Look, I am about to tear the kingdom from Solomon’s hand. I will give you ten tribes.
The northern kingdom of Israel, under the leadership of Jeroboam from the tribe of Ephraim immediately went into idolatry, turning away from worshipping the Creator. Jeroboam died in 910 BCE after ruling for sixteen years. After two hundred years of a succession of some twenty evil kings and none that were righteous, the Israelite tribes went into dispersal or national captivity in stages, at the hands of the Assyrian Empire [refer Chapter XX Asshur].
The southern kingdom of Judah didn’t fare much better, though they did have six to eight righteous kings out of about twenty, ‘who served the Lord’ and who would institute reforms, lasting over a hundred years after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. The Eternal sent prophets to warn of their slide into idolatry, but much like today, the people would not listen. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin were taken into captivity by the Chaldean Babylonians, also in several waves of deportations.
Ezekiel 23:22-25
English Standard Version
22 Therefore, O Oholibah, thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will stir up against you your lovers from whom you turned in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side: 23the Babylonians [southern Italy – refer Chapter XXIII Aram] and all the Chaldeans [northern & central Italy – refer Chapter XXV Nahor], Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians [Russia – refer Chapter XX Asshur] with them, desirable young men, governors and commanders all of them, officers and men of renown, all of them riding on horses. 24 And they shall come against you from the north with chariots and wagons and a host of peoples. They shall set themselves against you on every side with buckler, shield, and helmet; and I will commit the judgment to them, and they shall judge you according to their judgments. 25 And I will direct my jealousy against you, that they may deal with you in fury. They shall cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors shall fall by the sword. They shall seize your sons and your daughters, and your survivors shall be devoured by fire.
The kings of Judah, or the Dynasty of King David ruled for some three hundred and forty-four years – 930-586 BCE.
Kings of Judah
Good or Bad
Years of Reign
Books of Kings
Book of Chronicles
Rehoboam
Evil
17 years
I Kings 12:1
II Chronicles 10:1
Abijah
Evil
3 years
I Kings 15:1
II Chronicles 13:1
Asa
Righteous
41 years
I Kings 15:9
II Chronicles 14:1
Jehoshaphat
Righteous
25 years
I Kings 22:41
II Chronicles 17:1
Jehoram
Evil
8 years
I Kings 22:50
II Chronicles 21:1
Ahaziah
Evil
1 year
II Kings 8:24
II Chronicles 22:1
Athaliah
Queen
II Kings 11:1
II Chronicles 22:10
Joash
Righteous/Evil
40 years
II Kings 11:4
II Chronicles 23:1
Amaziah
Righteous/Evil
29 years
II Kings 14:1
II Chronicles 25:1
Uzziah
Righteous
52 years
II Kings 15:1
II Chronicles 26:1
Jotham
Righteous
16 years
II Kings 15:32
II Chronicles 27:1
Ahaz
Evil
16 years
II Kings 15:38
II Chronicles 28:1
Hezekiah
Righteous
29 years
II Kings 18:1
II Chronicles 29:1
Manasseh
Evil
55 years
II Kings 21:1
II Chronicles 33:1
Amon
Evil
2 years
II Kings 21:19
II Chronicles 33:21
Josiah
Righteous
31 years
II Kings 22:1
II Chronicles 34:1
Jehoahaz
Evil
3 months
II Kings 23:31
II Chronicles 36:1
Jehoiakim
Evil
11 years
II Kings 23:36
II Chronicles 36:4
Jehoiakin
Evil
3 months
II Kings 24:6
II Chronicles 36:9
Zedekiah
Evil
11 years
II Kings 24:17
II Chronicles 36:11
Joash began as righteous and as with Solomon turned in his old age to evil, as did his son Amaziah. Manasseh was especially evil, building altars to foreign gods like Solomon. Manasseh even murdered his own son, in the sacrificial fire [2 Kings 21:11-16]. He also had the longest reign at fifty-five years. King Jehoiakim was also known as Eliakim. Recall Elikaim son of Hilkiah replaces the evil steward Shebna. The final king, Zedekiah was also known as Mattaniah.
Judah’s Sceptre & Joseph’s Birthright, The Sceptre and the Davidic Covenant, J H Allen, 1902 – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘Jeremiah records the downfall of Zedekiah and his sons, the royal princes, as follows:
“In the ninth year of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the tenth month, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and all his army against Jerusalem, and they besieged it. And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month [June/July], and the ninth day of the month [day after the Sabbath], the city was broken up.
And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergal-sharezar, Samgar-Nebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.”
“And it came to pass, that when Zedekiah, the king of Judah, saw them, and all the men of war, then they fled, and went forth out of the city by night, by the way of the king’s garden, by the gate betwixt the two walls; and he went out the way of the plain. But the Chaldeans’ army pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and when they had taken him, they brought him up to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Riblah, in the land of Hamath, where he gave judgment upon him. Then the king of BabyIon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before his eyes; also the king of Babylon slew all the nobles of Judah. Moreover he put out Zedekiah’s eyes, and bound him in chains, to carry him to Babylon. And the Chaldeans burned the king’s house, and the houses of the people, with fire, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem,” (Jeremiah 39:1-8).
‘In the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah there is a statement of these events, to which, after recording the fact concerning the king’s being carried to Babylon in chains, there is added the following: “And the king of Babylon… put him in prison till the day of his death,” (Jeremiah 52:11).
When those events occurred which resulted in the overthrow of the Zedekiah branch of the royal house, a climax was reached, not only in the history of all those things which were involved in the Davidic covenant, but also in that predestined work, for the accomplishment of which God sanctified and sent Jeremiah into this world.’
“Then Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were in Mizpah, even the King’s Daughters, and all the people that remained in Mizpah, whom Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, has committed to Gedeliah, the son of Ahikam; and Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, carried them away captive and departed to go over to the Ammonites. But Johanan, the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces took all the remnant of Judah that were returned from all the nations whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; even men, women and children, and the KING’S DAUGHTERS, and every person that Nebuzaradan, the captain, had left with Gedeliah, the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, and JEREMIAH, the prophet, and Baruch, the son of Neriah. So they came into the land of Egypt; for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord. Thus came they even to Tahpanhes,” (Jeremiah 43:5-8).
‘Baruch, the scribe, was the companion of Jeremiah in prison, when the Lord took them out and hid them. He was also his companion in persecution and affliction and accusation. Now, since we find his name mentioned as one of this company which Johanan compelled to go to Egypt against the direct command of God, there is just one prophecy concerning him which we need to mention before we proceed further. It is as follows:
“Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, unto thee, O Baruch: Behold, that which I have built will I break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up, even this whole land… but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey (booty or reward) in all places whither thou goest,” (Jeremiah 45:2, 4, 5).
1. We have in this company, which has come down into Egypt from Judea, “the King’s daughters.” Since the plural form of speech is used there are at least two of them – history says there were three. These are the royal seed of the house of David, who are fleeing from the slayers of their father, Zedekiah, the last King of the house of Judah, and the slayers of their brothers, the sons of Zedekiah and princes of Judah.
2. In company with these princesses is Jeremiah, their grandfather, whom also the Lord has chosen to do the work of building and planting. In the princesses the prophet has royal material with which to build and plant.
3. In company with Jeremiah and his royal charge we have Baruch, his faithful scribe, whom expert genealogists prove to have been uncle to the royal seed.
4. God has promised that the lives of this “small number,” only five or six at most, shall be to them a prey (reward) in all lands whither they shall go.
5. Prior to this, at a time when Jeremiah was greatly troubled, when in his great distress and anguish of heart he cried unto the Lord, saying: “Remember me, visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors”; then the Lord said, “Verily it shall be well with thy remnant; verily I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil and in the time of affliction… And I will make thee to pass with thine enemies into a land which thou knowest not,” (Jeremiah 15:11-14).’
The contention amongst identity adherents is that Jeremiah took Zedekiah’s daughters to Ireland, whereby they married into the royal line already established in Ireland from ancient times; when descendants of the family of Zarah – Heman, Calcol and Dara (Darda) – migrated to the British Isles. As Zedekiah’s daughters were descended from Pharez, the line of King David, it is maintained that the two royal lines were joined together in the Irish High kings. That the original breach at birth of the twins had been healed.
‘By consulting the thirty-eighth chapter of Genesis we will find a record of the conception and birth of twin boys, whose conception and birth were both accompanied by such extraordinary circumstances that the question of their parentage is forever settled; for Tamar, the mother, did willingly stoop in order that she might conquer Judah, the father, and compel him to do justice by her. The never-to-be-forgotten manner in which Judah was forced to acknowledge that those children were his offspring and that their mother was more righteous than he, does most certainly place the fact of their royal lineage beyond the possibility of cavil.
When the mother was in travail and after the midwife had been summoned, there was the presentation of a hand. Then, for some reason either human or Divine, the midwife knew that twins were in the womb. So, in order that she might know and be able to testify which was born first, she fastened a scarlet thread on the outstretched hand. Since Judah’s was the royal family in Israel, and the law of primogeniture prevailed among them, it was essential that this distinction should be made so that at the proper time the first born or eldest son might ascend the throne.
After the scarlet thread had been made secure on the little hand it was drawn back and the brother was born first. Upon seeing this the midwife exclaimed: “How hast thou broken forth?” Then, seemingly, she was filled with the spirit of prophecy and said: “This breach be upon thee,” and because of this prophetic utterance he was given the name of Pharez, i.e., “A Breach.” Afterward his brother, who had the scarlet thread upon his hand, was born, and his name was called Zarah, i.e., “The seed.”
The very fact that Pharez was really born first would exalt him, and it eventually did exalt his heirs, to the throne of Israel, for King David was a son of Judah through the line of Pharez.But just so surely as this son of Judah and father of David, who was the first one of the line to sit upon that throne, was given the name of Pharez, just so surely must we expect – with that little hand of the scarlet thread waving prophetically before them – that a breach should occur somewhere along that family line.
The immediate posterity of this “Prince of the Scarlet Thread” is given as follows: “And the sons of Zarah; Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Dara, five of them in all,” (I Chronicles 2:6). Thus the direct posterity of Zarah was five, while that of Pharez was only two. For the reason that our Lord sprang out of Judah, through the line of Pharez, the unbroken genealogy of that family is given in the sacred records; but the genealogy of the Zarah family is given only intermittently.
One thing is made quite clear in the Bible concerning the sons of Zarah, and that is, that they were famous for their intelligence and wisdom, for it was only the great God-given wisdom of Solomon which is declared to have risen above theirs, as is seen by the following: And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding… and Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the East, for he was wiser than all men – than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara,” (I Kings 4:29, 31). Furthermore, we find that two of them, Ethan and Heman, were also noted singers, as we find by consulting the fifteenth chapter of First Kings and the nineteenth verse. By noting the titles of the eighty-eighth and eighty-ninth Psalms we also see that one of them was composed by “Heman the Ezrahite,” and that the other was the song of “Ethan the Ezrahite.”’
The celebrated leaders of Zarah’s family were called the ‘sons of Mahol.’ Several commentaries explain that Mahol is not a proper name but an appellation describing skills common to these men. Adam Clarke writes that the term signified dance or music and that a son of Mahol was a person particularly gifted in music. It is worth drawing a comparison with the popular musical output of England which has been far above its population ratio, compared with the other two nations that have either dominated or proportionately exceeded above their size, the United States and Scotland respectively.
At a certain point, when there was a Pharaoh – probably Amenemhet II (Nubkhaure), 3rd King of the 12th Dynasty from 1593 to 1558 BCE – ‘who did not know Joseph’ and the Israelites were no longer welcome in Egypt, it appears that a number of the wealthy and powerful Israelites left Egypt by ship. Danites were already exploring the Aegean sea and islands beyond; with the ruling aristocratic Zarahites leaving Egypt before the situation reached a crisis point, heading in the same direction. The unprivileged masses were left behind to go into slavery.
The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus circa 80 to 20 BCE, speaks of several Israelite flights from Egypt during this period, most notably into Greece under two key Israelite leaders, Danaus of the tribe of Dan and Cadmus. Walsh writes that the Egyptians claimed, a number of colonies were ‘spread from Egypt over all the inhabited world’ and exiles led by Danaus ‘settled… the oldest city of Greece, Argos.’ Ancient sources verify Danaus captured and developed Argos, known as the Danaidae. Ancient Greek literature refer to these ‘Egyptian’ explorers as Danaans or Danai, who reached as far as Mace-don-ia.
History records that the Greek city of Athens was founded by Cecrops and that colonists arrived from Sais, Egypt, located in the Nile Delta. Walsh notes that “some scholars maintain that Cecrops is none other that Chalcol of the Zarah branch of Judah.” Adding: “Like their Phoenician counterparts, the seafaring Danites and Zarahites spread colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is even said that Chalcol planted a royal dynasty of Irish kings in Ulster. Indeed, the ancient Greeks spoke highly of the Irish… Diodorus says that the [Irish] ‘are most friendly disposed toward the Greeks, especially towards the Athenians [Israelites].’”
Calcol’s brother, Darda, from Dara, as mentioned in Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon, is said to have founded the city of Troy. British History Traced from Egypt and Palestine, L G A Roberts, page 27: “Dardanus is said to have built Troy about thirty-four years [1480 BCE] before the Exodus in 1446 BCE.” As Darda was born circa 1675 BCE, the dating is amiss. Some scholars explain that Darda is in fact Dara due to a scribal error of omitting the Hebrew letter Dalet, or the English D, based on the fact a double Resh is not possible in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew letters Dalet and Resh are very similar and easily confused. Capt writes: “the descendants of Darda ruled ancient Troy for some one hundred years.” [prior to the Moabites and Ammonites who were the later Trojans of Troy and the Dardanians; later the Greco-Macedonians and ultimately becoming the Franks – refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon].
The Tojan Origins of European Royalty, John D Keyser – capitals and emphasis his, bold mine:
‘The early migration of Darda is noted in the book How Israel Came to Britain:
“Actually, groups of Israelites began to migrate away from the main body BEFORE THE ISRAEL NATION WAS FORMED – while, as a people, they were STILL IN BONDAGE IN EGYPT.
One of these groups under the leadership of Calcol,a prince of the tribe of Judah, went westward across the Mediterranean eventually settling in Ulster [Northern Ireland]. ANOTHER, under the leadership of DARDANUS, a brother of Calcol, CROSSED TO ASIA MINOR to found the Kingdom later known as TROY“
Author Roberts also reveals that “Mr. W. E. Gladstone says that the Siege of Troy was undertaken by DANAI (the Greeks) against DARDANAI (the Trojans), and THESE WERE ORIGINALLY ONE…”
In Symbols of Our Celto-Saxon Heritage, by W. H. Bennett, we learn more about the migration of DARDANUS from Egypt to the Troad:
“With these things in mind, let us now turn to that other part of ZARA’S DESCENDANTS which FLED OUT OF EGYPT under the leadership… (of) DARDA… the group which he led went NORTHWARD across the Mediterranean Sea to the northwest corner of what we now call ASIA MINOR. There, under the rule of DARDA (DARDANUS) they established a Kingdom, later called TROY, on the southern shore of that narrow body of water which bears his name to this day – DARDANELLES”
Details of DARDA’S voyage to the Troad (as found in the Greek legends) are revealed in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“DARDANUS, in Greek legend, son of Zeus and the Pleiad Electra, mythical FOUNDER OF DARDANUS on the Hellespont and ANCESTOR OF THE DARDANS of the Troad and, through AENEAS, of THE ROMANS. His original home was supposed to have been Arcadia. Having slain his brother Iasius or Iasion (according to some legends, Iasius was struck by lightning), DARDANUS FLED ACROSS THE SEA. He first stopped at SAMOTHRACE, and, when the island was VISITED BY A FLOOD, CROSSED OVER TO THE TROAD. Being hospitably received by Teucer, he married his daughter Batea and becameTHE FOUNDER OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF TROY”.
Actually, the FIRST stopover for Dardanus, on his way to the Troad, was CRETE! Notice what Herman L. Hoeh says in his discussion of the Early Bronze Age: “‘Early Bronze I’ – ends in 1477 [BCE] with VIOLENT DESTRUCTION everywhere in WESTERN ANATOLIA and AT TROY; 1477 marks the conquest of the Troad by DARDANUS AND THE TEUCRIANS FROM CRETE…” (Compendium of World History, Volume I, 1962, page 470).
The flood or deluge mentioned by the Encyclopedia Britannica and others is prominent in the Greek legends of Dardanus. At the time of the Exodus tremendous events of a cataclysmic nature occurred in the Mediterranean area. Caius Julius Solinus, in his work Polyhistor, notes that “following the DELUGE which is reported to have occurred in the days of Ogyges, a heavy night spread over the globe.”
Heavy DELUGES of rain are reported in the works of early Arab historians – all the result of massive upheavals in earth and sky. The great volcanic explosion of the island of Thera in the Aegean Sea occurred around this time and would have caused huge tidal waves or tsunamis throughout the Mediterranean. It seems apparent, therefore, that Dardanus left Egypt before the Exodus, spending some time in CRETE before voyaging on to Samothrace. After leaving the island of Samothrace his ship was probably disabled by the deluge or flood that occurred at the time of the Exodus, and drifted helplessly across the sea to the Troad.’
Apparently, Queen Elizabeth I was aware of her Trojan roots and she was in competition with the Scottish Bruce to find the Book of Enoch, She also wanted to visit Troy itself, as the place of her ancestors. It is recorded that she failed to retrieve the Book of Enoch by searching the Nile, but the Bruce it is said, did locate the book.
Capt continues of the Zarahite expansion west to Italy and Spain – emphasis & bold mine:
“Historical records tell of the westward migration of the descendants of Chalcol along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea establishing Iberian [Hiberi] trading settlements. One settlement, now called Saragossa, in the Ebro [from Eber and Hebrew] Valley in Spain, was originally known asZara–gassa, meaning the Stronghold of Zarah.” The Italian island known as Sardinia, retains elements of both Dan and Zarah – Zar–din-ia. “From Spain they continued westward as far as Ireland.The Iberians gave their name to Ireland, calling the island Iberne… which was subsequently Latinised to Hibernia, a name that still adheres to Ireland… [as do the smaller western offshore islands known as the Hebrides]. Many historical records point to Israel’s presence (particularly Dan and Judah) in Ireland at a very early date… Writers such as Petanius and Hecatoeus… speak of the Danai as being Hebrew people, originally from Egypt, who colonized Ireland… the ancient Irish, called the Danai… separated from Israel around the time of the Exodus from Egypt, [and substantially before] crossed to Greece, and then [later] invaded Ireland.”
The Athenian founders, the Zarahites from Calcol took the Greek city of Miletus about 1000 BCE. The Milesians are linked to these descendants of Judah. The line of Calcol at some point after the settling of Miletus, established a Milesian royal dynasty in Ulster. Archives give an account of Milesian conquerors of Ireland belonging to the “scarlet branch of Judah” – a red hand circled with a scarlet cord of the Zarahites – who subjugated the Tuatha de Danann. The Tuatha de Danann and the Milesians were kinsmen, who long ages before had separated from the main Hebrew stem as Dan and Judah – Zarah – Calcol.
These descendants of Calcol are recorded, as specifically being led by Gathelus Miledh, also known as Gaedal or Gaidelon, a son – or rather a descendant – of Cecrops, that is Calcol. Prior to the Exodus, he returned to Egypt after murdering a man.
After assisting a pharaoh in his fight against the Ethiopians of Cush – Boece states Gathelus winning “a great victory for Pharo against the Moris,” [derived from Mauri, meaning Mauritania of North Africa], from The Chronicles of Scotland, 1537 – Gathelus was given the hand of the Pharaoh’s daughter Scota in marriage, where they had two sons.
We will return to this mysterious Pharaoh and unmask his identity; which has alluded scholars for centuries. Keating states Gathelus befriended Moses, for Moses had healed Gathelus of a deadly snakebite. After living seven years in Egypt, Gathelus fled at the outset of the ten plagues, during the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea; travelling westward, leading the contingent of Zarahites via France – for a period of forty-two years – to Spain, or rather Portugal [Portingall = Port-of-the-Gael] founding the Brigantium kingdom, now Compostella on the northwest coast of Spain, some miles north of modern Portugal.
After residing for a long time in Iberia, Gathelus died and his widow Scota, along with their sons, voyaged northwest wards to the Emerald Isle. Five of her eight sons died in a storm related ship wreck upon arrival, with herself being killed in a battle that ensued with the native Irish, the Tuatha de Danann. It was one of her sons Eremon, their king, who founded the Kingdom of Ulster shortly after the Exodus – the first king of the Milesian Scots [from Miledh and Scota].
Historians erroneously include the Milesians with those Celts known as Gaels. We will discover that the Gaels who migrated into Ireland are a different tribe of Israel. The Milesians were in fact forerunners of the Celtic tribes that would wind their various paths across Europe from central Asia, blending in one great Gaelic stream into Britain and Ireland.
Returning to J H Allen:
‘It is not at all unlikely and would be but natural that the Zimri who overthrew Baasha, the third King of Israel (not Judah), belonged to the posterity of Zimri, the first-born son of Zarah, son of Judah and twin brother of Pharez. For, as we have shown, the seed of Jacob were at that time divided into two kingdoms, with the posterity of Pharez on the throne ruling over the kingdom of Judah. How natural it would be for the then living members of that family to think, and to say: “This is the long foretold breach for which we have been taught to look. This is the time to assert our royal prerogatives, take the throne, and rule over this the house of Israel.” Culling from a genealogical diagram… we have the following:
Gallam, begat Herremon, (who married Tea Tephi) [this name is disputed whether it is real or a fictionalised composite name] and Heber [Eber – Hebrew] and Ambergin his two brothers.”
‘In giving this genealogy we have given the direct line from father through only one son, but some of these men were the fathers of more than one son. Sru, for instance, the father of Heber Scot, had two other sons. Tait, who begat Aghenoin, had a son by the name of Heber. The fact that there are three Hebers in this branch of the royal family is most significant, for that is the name from which comes one of the national names of their race, i.e., Hebrews.
… it is generally conceded that there are two distinct phases to the Hebrew story of Ireland. The one is that concerning Jeremiah and the king’s daughters, and the other is that which is told in the Milesian records, in which we have the story of the prince who married one of Jeremiah’s wards. The Milesian story takes its rise in Egypt and Palestine amid the scenes of Israel’s infancy. Now we are ready to call your attention to two other names in the genealogy of Zarah’s royal house… Easru and Sru, for in the Milesian records the descendants of these men, and some of their predecessors, were called by a name which to this day means thechildren of the Red (or scarlet) Branch.
The prince in the Bible story, as given in Ezekiel’s riddle, is called a young twig, and the highest branch of the high cedar, and, after Zedekiah’s sons were slain, it was not possible to find a prince who was eligible to sit on that throne unless he belonged to the line of the scarlet thread, for the other line, from which Christ came… [were] in Babylon. Hence these children of the “Red Branch” must have belonged to the Scarlet-thread branch of the royal family. The Milesian records also call them“Curaithe na Cruabh ruadh,” the “Knights of the Red Branch.”
“The term Milesian is derived from the medieval title of Gallam, the conqueror of Ireland, who was called Milesius, or the Milesian, i.e., the soldier, a term derived from the Latin miles, whence we derive our word militia.” – Totten. “Furthermore, these knights of the Red Branch, of whom Gallam, the conquering Milesian, was one, called themselves Craunnogs, or ‘the crowned.’ The true meaning of their name is ‘Tree tops,’ for it comes from words common to all dialects: craun ‘a tree,’ and og ‘a tuft’ or ‘termination.’ We use the same word for a ‘crown,’ as they did, and the very use of it in common language would be enough to verify this identity of race were there not other reasons in their history and legends to establish it conclusively.” – Totten.
‘One hundred years ago Joseph Ben Jacob, a Celt, and a Catholic, in a work called “Precursory Proofs,” said: “Among the five equestrian orders of ancient Ireland was one called Craobh-ruadh (the Red Branch). The origin of this order was so very ancient that all attempts at explanation have hitherto failed. Some suppose that it originated from the Ulster arms, which are ‘luna, a hand sinister, couped at the wrist, Mars.’ But these admit it should in such case be called crobhruadh, or of the bloody hand.”
This man was really proving the Hebrew and Egyptian origin of the Irish Celts, but was applying all the evidence that he found to Joseph, knowing nothing of the story of the breach in the royal family of Judah, and of the exaltation of the Scarlet Branch, who landed in the plantation of Ulster. Else he would have known where to place the meaning of that ensignum of the red, or bloody, hand “couped at the wrist” with a scarlet thread which found its way into the royal arms of Ulster.
The prophet Nahum, while speaking of “the excellency of Israel,” says: “The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet.” Scarlet is the characteristic color of the English army, and they certainly wore “red coats” during the Revolutionary War. We were recently in an English city, and we took particular note of the scarlet thread, or stripe which ran up the front, around the neck, down the arms and up the pantaloon legs of the uniform of the post men of the province.
A British consul once told us that every official order he received was tied with a scarlet thread, and showed us one which he had just received. This same thing is true also with all English officials, to whom written orders are sent, and from this custom comes that well-known political and diplomatical metaphor, “Red-tape.”
We have also learned, from sources which we deem authentic, that a scarlet thread is woven into the material from which all ropes are manufactured, which are to be used in the construction of vessels for the British government, or navy. This is done so that under and all circumstances these vessels may be identified as the property of Great Britain, even though they be sunk in many fathoms of water at the bottom of the sea.’
The red or scarlet thread is a massive clue to the English identity, yet seekers of true identities have been blinded by the Jews are Judah ‘red herring’ so that this sign of Judah has been seen instead, as just a reflection of small group or handful of people nestled in a wider body of people called Ephraim. The Jews are Edom [refer Chapter XXIX Esau], Judah is England and the revealing of the true identity of Ephraim in Chapter XXXIII, will leave no doubt.
The Modern Descendantsof Zara-Judah, W H Bennet and John D Keyser – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘… until the coming of the Saxons [Angles, Jutes & Frisians] into South Britain (England)… a RAMPANT RED LION was the emblem of ALL Britain. With the coming of the Saxons its use in England as a national emblem was discontinued, being replaced by the emblems brought in by the Saxons and Normans. Nevertheless, in North Britain (Scotland) it [remained] the chief emblem – as found in the Scottish Standard.’
The temporary dropping of the Judaic Lion as a symbol at this time is due to the fact the Saxons, though containing Jutes of Judah, were also comprised of the main body of Joseph, the Angles.
Numerically, they dominated the political landscape of Britain south of Scotland. Scotland still retained the rampant Lion as it was Benjamin, with a close attachment to Judah, through the Zarah dominant family royal line. The Jutes and Normans on the other hand also included the family lines of Judah’s other two sons, Shelah and Pharez and his royal line; with all three populating England and their subsequent symbol, the royal standard of the the Three Passant Lions.
‘Further, it was also the ancestral emblem of the Royal Houses of several of the ancient principalities of Wales [refer Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad] – for instance Bleddyn ap Cynfyn who died in 1075 A.D. A color variant of this emblem appears in the Arms of several of the other ancient Welsh Royal Houses. Even in England it, or a color variant of it, appears in a few municipal Arms and in a much larger number of family Arms. Important, too, is the fact that the Rampant Red Lion emblem appears in the heraldry of the Netherlands [Midian – Chapter XXVII Abraham] – either on the shield or as a supporter – in the provincial Arms of South Holland, North Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland, Limburgh and Overijssel; and in the municipal Arms of some fifty other places. In this article we have presented evidence of the ancient usage of the Red Hand as the emblem of Ulster, and its use in much of the rest of Ireland and in Scotland. Also, we noted that the Rampant Red Lion was the emblem of ancient Britain. What the reader may have overlooked, however, is that for at least 1,500 years before the coming of the Saxons into Britain these two emblems of the Zara-Judah branch of the Israelitish Tribe of Judah were the chief emblems of the British Isles – the RED HAND in Ireland and the RAMPANT RED LION in Britain.’
Judah’s Sceptre & Joseph’s Birthright, The Sceptre and the Davidic Covenant, J H Allen, 1902 – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘About 585 B.C. a “notable man,” an “important personage,” a patriarch, a saint, an essentially important someone… came to Ulster, the most northern province of Ireland, accompanied by a princess, the daughter of an eastern king, and that in company with them was one Simon Brach, Breck, Brack, Barech, Berach, as it is differently spelled… This eastern princess was married to King Herremon on condition, made by this notable patriarch, that he should abandon his former religion, and build a college for the prophets. This Herremon did, and the name of the school was Mur- Ollam, which is the name, both in Hebrew and Irish, for school of the prophets. He also changed the name of his capital city, Lothair – sometimes spelled Cothair Croffin – to that of Tara… it is a well-known fact that the royal arms of Ireland is the harp of David, and has been for two thousand and five hundred years.
On the occasion of Queen Victoria’s coronation, June 28th, 1837, an article appeared in the London Sun, which gives a description of the coronation chair and the coronation stone, as follows:
“This chair, commonly called St. Edward’s chair, is an ancient seat of solid hardwood, with back and sides of the same, variously painted, in which the kings of Scotland were in former periods constantly crowned, but, having been brought out of the kingdom by Edward I, in the year 1296, after he had totally overcome John Baliol, king of Scots, it has ever since remained in the Abbey of Westminster, and has been the chair in which the succeeding kings and queens of this realm have been inaugurated. It is in height six feet and seven inches, in breadth at the bottom thirty-eight inches, and in depth twenty-four inches; from the seat to the bottom is twenty-five inches; the breadth of the seat within the sides is twenty-eight inches, and the depth eighteen inches. At nine inches from the ground is a board, supported at the four corners by as many lions. Between the seat and this board is enclosed a stone, commonly called Jacob’s, or the fatal Marble, Stone, which is an oblong of about twenty-two inches in length, thirteen inches broad and eleven inches deep; of a steel color, mixed with some veins of red. History relates that it is the stone whereon the patriarch Jacob laid his head in the plains of Luz… this stone was conveyed into Ireland by way of Spain about 700 years before Christ. From there it was taken into Scotland by King Fergus, about 370 years later; and in the year 350 B.C., it was placed in the abbey of Scone, by King Kenneth, who caused a prophetical verse to be engraved upon it, of which the following is a translation: ‘Should fate not fail, where’er this stone is found, The Scots shall monarch of that realm be crowned.’ This antique regal chair, having (together with the golden sceptre and crown of Scotland) been solemnly offered by King Edward I to St. Edward the Confessor, in the year 1297 (from whence it derives the appellation of St. Edward’s chair), has ever since been kept in the chapel called by his name; with a tablet affixed to it, whereon several Latin verses are written, in old English characters… The stone maintains its usual place under the seat of the chair.”
‘Prior to the time that King Kenneth had his verse engraved on that Coronation Stone, there was a prophetic verse which had attached itself to it, which Sir Walter Scott has rendered, one word excepted, as follows:
“Unless the fates are faithless grown, And prophet’s voice be vain, Where’er is found this sacred stone The Wanderers’ Race shall reign.”
Zedekiah’s Daughter Tamar Tephi of Pharez Married Eochaidh Heremon of Zarah in Ireland, unknown author, 2000 – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘The THRONE of BRITAIN is the oldest in Europe and it has preserved the same fundamental coronation service as far as records go back from Egferth in 785 A.D. That is for [1236] years. It is identical to the Bible’s coronation service: The anointing with oil (1 Kings 1:34), the crown of pure gold (Psalm 21:3), sitting on or “at his pillar” (stone) (2 Chronicles 23:13), presented with a Bible (Deuteronomy 17:14), given bracelets of St. George (2 Samuel 1:10), the shout, “God save the king” (1 Samuel 10:24) and an oath between king and people to obey [God] (2 Chronicles 23:16). This is proof the British are the HOUSE of ISRAEL [and England, the house of Judah].
The reason St. Edward’s crown has the twelve stones of the high priest’s breastplate on it is because the King [or Queen] of England is also the head of the Church of England, just as Christ is both king (Luke 1:32-33) and high priest (Hebrews 4:14). That is why the King of England is given one SCEPTER and one ROD. Kings have SCEPTERS (Psalm 45:6). Aaron had a ROD that budded (Hebrews 9:4).
Why has the THRONE of BRITAIN lasted so long? Because Genesis 49:10 says, “The SCEPTER shall NOT DEPART from Judah… until Shiloh (“Peace”) come.” Christ is the “Prince of Shiloh” (Peace) (Isaiah 9:6) and hasn’t come back yet so the THRONE of Judah must still exist. Later in 2 Samuel 7:16 God said to David, “thy THRONE shall be established FOREVER” (1 Chronicles 17:14). Jeremiah 33:17 says, “David shall NEVER LACK a successor (a man or woman) to sit upon the THRONE of the house of ISRAEL” (KJV; NEB; 1 Kings 9:5; 2 Chronicles 13:5). “I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure FOREVER, and his THRONE as the SUN before me. It shall be established FOREVER like the MOON” (Psalm 89:35-37).
Where? “On the THRONE of ISRAEL” (1 Kings 2:4). This promise pertained to the Pharez line of David’s house through Hezron (1 Chronicles 4:1), not Hamul (1 Chronicles 2:5). Jesus Christ was of this Pharez-scepter-kingly line (Luke 1:32) and [from Judah] (John 4:9; Heb.7:14) but refused to accept the rulership of the world at his first coming (Matthew 4:9). Christ will “sit on his (David’s) THRONE” (Isa.9:7; Acts 2:30) at his second coming (Revelation 11:15). So [Judah] must rule today on a THRONE wherever the LOST TEN TRIBES of ISRAEL [rather Judah] are located. Christ can’t come back to a non-existent THRONE (Luke 1:31-32; Jeremiah 33:20-21)… how many nations in the world today even have a THRONE besides BRITAIN? [most are located in northwestern Europe and are related to the British throne]
But Zarah wasn’t excluded from the rulership blessing. In fact, the last Davidic king mentioned in succession was Zedekiah of Judah who was dethroned in 585 B.C. Also, “the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah” (Jeremiah 39:6). In Jeremiah 52:11 we also read that Zedekiah was beginning, in 585 B.C., [Israel and Judah’s] seven times of national punishment and Jeremiah was commanded to “root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down” (Jeremiah 1:10) the royalty of the Pharez line in Judah. Why Jeremiah? Because Josiah “married Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah” (Jeremiah 1:1). Their son was Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). But after this “went Jeremiah … to Mizpeh” (Jeremiah 40:6) where King Zedekiah’s DAUGHTERS were (41:10).
Apparently Nebuchadnezzar didn’t know that Hebrew law permitted the PRINCESS to inherit the throne when there were no male descendants (Numbers 27:8). He didn’t harm Zedekiah’s DAUGHTERS or take them to Babylon. Now “the king’s DAUGHTERS… and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch… came into the land of Egypt” (Jeremiah 43:5-7). When they arrived in Tahpanhes (meaning “secret flight”), the Eternal warned Jeremiah that Babylon’s king would soon overrun Egypt also, and destroy the remnant of Judah there so Jeremiah returned “into the land of Judah” (Jeremiah 44:28).
“To this day Tahpanhes or modern Tell Defneh (the firtress mound) is called the PALACE of the JEW’S DAUGHTER” (The History of Egypt by Sir Flinders Petrie) – Qasr Bint el Yehudi.
Jeremiah 43:9-10 mentions hiding stones at the entry of Pharaoh Hophra’s house. He had offered protection to these Jews (Jeremiah 44:30) and Jeremiah predicts the conquest of Egypt and the death of this monarch (Ezra 30:10,19). This actually came to pass a few years later when Pharaoh Hophra was murdered by enemies from within his own nation – “them that seek his life.” Sir Flinders Petrie found this very pavement in June 1866. After tearing down the throne of PHAREZ Judah, Jeremiah was commissioned “to build, and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10) as the prophecy said, “the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of Mount Zion” (Isaiah 37:31-32). This remnant was the royal DAUGHTERS (2 Kings 19:30-31). In Ezekiel 21:25 we read that the royalty would CHANGE. The Eternal says, “take off the crown: this (crown) shall not be the same: EXALT him that is LOW, and ABASE him that is HIGH.” So Judah’s son PHAREZ was ABASED and ZARAH was EXALTED. The nation of JUDAH had been HIGH and ISRAEL LOW (Hosea 3:4). Now the positions were REVERSED.’
The unusual circumstance surrounding the twins’ birth caused controversy as to which child was truly the firstborn. The rights of the firstborn were at stake. The twins were born circa 1705 BCE prior to Jacob relocating his family to Egypt in 1687 BCE. Once in Egypt, it would be another seventeen years before Jacob would give his prophecy of Genesis forty-nine. When the boys were born, it was not yet known that Judah’s offspring would inherit the rights of rulership [Genesis 49:10]. Due to this unique inheritance and the rights of royal lineage, the Pharez and Zarah controversy became supremely important – the royal right to rule was paramount. As Pharez was born first by a technicality, he was blamed for and even named for the breach. A significant brotherly rivalry is a foregone conclusion. There is no doubt that Zarah and his subsequent line believed that they had been deprived of the firstborn position and the right to rule over Israel. This family breach, would be resolved through the royal marriage of Eochaidh of Zarah and ‘Tephi’ of Pharez.
‘The daughters were planted “In the mountain of the height of ISRAEL” (Ezekiel 17:24). But where was LOST ISRAEL? We know that Jeremiah was sent to “the kings of the ISLES which are beyond the sea” (Jeremiah 25:15-22; 31:10). Just as the prophecy said, “I will appoint a PLACE for my people Israel, and will plant them” (2 Samuel 7:10). Not only the tribes, but also the royalty.
The parable of Ezekiel 17 (encoded so no Babylonian spy could understand) describes this whole episode. Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh were the two “EAGLES.” The “HIGH CEDAR” is the royal house of David. The “HIGHEST BRANCH” was Zedekiah. The “TENDER ONE” of the “YOUNG TWIGS” was the young crown princess. The Hebrew word here used for “tender” is feminine, in contrast to the masculine form of the same word in Isaiah 53:2. After the transplanting to a “HIGH MOUNTAIN” which was Israel (verse 23) in IRELAND, this feminine twig would “bring forth boughs, bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar” which means that many royal descendants would come from it.
Through his grandmother, Matilda of Scotland, descent is claimed from the daughter of Zedekiah for Henry the Second, Henry Plantagenet of England. His surname means “a twig.” And “under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing” meaning nations of every race… The “TREES of the FIELD” are kings and peoples of the world. The ancient Chronicles of IRELAND (Leabhar Gabhala; Keating’s History of Ireland) inform us that a sage named “Ollam Fodla” (“Wonderful Prophet”) came from Egypt by way of Spain about six centuries B.C., and that he landed on the northeast coast of IRELAND where Carrickfergus is now. He brought with him a princess called “Tamar Tephi” (“Beautiful Palm”) and a secretary/scribe named “Simon Brug” or “Bruch.” Also a massive, strongly secured, and mysterious chest which they regarded with utmost reverence and guarded with zealous care (Ark of Covenant) and a large, rough stone and golden banner with a red lion on it. Perhaps the Ark and the two tables of stone lie buried in the Hill of Tara (2 Maccabees 2:7). Irish poetry and folklore identify Ollam Fodla as JEREMIAH and Tamar Tephi as the DAUGHTER of ZEDEKIAH.
Ancient Irish poetry is full of praises for Tamar Tephi and tells of her lofty birth, her stormy life in Jerusalem and at Tahpanhes in Egypt, her voyage to Spain and from there to Ireland. It is also claimed that Tamar Tephi’s younger sister SCOTTA, who was with JEREMIAH on the first lap of the journey, never reached Ireland because she married a Celto-Scythian MILESIAN prince in Spain. Tamar Tephi married the Irish king called Eochaidh Heremon of ZARAH JUDAH after he agreed to give up Baal idolatry and worship Yahweh according to the two tables of law and provide a school for ollamhs.’
Regarding Eochaidh, Walsh writes: “One of Ireland’s rulers was a man named Eochaidh Heremon. Eochaidh is Irish for the Greek name Achaios, and the term Heremon is a title meaning Chief of the Landsmen, a king. He was a Milesian living among the Tuatha de Danann… His genealogy traces back to Chalcol [I Chronicles 2:6; I Kings 4:31], the Zarahite founder of Athens, who is said to have planted a royal dynasty in Ulster [Northern Ireland]. Tephi, heiress to the Pharez Davidic throne, married into an existing Zarah royal line going back hundreds of years. As the newly crowned Queen of Ireland, Tephi contributed the authority of the throne of David to Eochaidh’s kingship. Eochaidh’s coronation is recorded taking place in 580 BCE, six years after the fall of Jerusalem. Through their children the tender twig grew to become a majestic cedar – a new royal dynasty in its own right, through which the Davidic throne would be perpetuated.”
‘This is how the two lines became united. Just as Jeremiah 31:22 prophesied, “a woman shall go about seeking for the husband.” They came on a ship belonging to the Iberian DANAAN [tribe of Dan].’
Both Danite and Phoenician traders had explored and colonised the Isles in the time of King Solomon. The Danites had originally arrived in Ireland considerably before 1000 BCE.
There is evidence they were not only visiting the Isles in the time of Israel’s Judges, for the tribe is criticised by Deborah – who governed Israel from 1192 to 1152 BCE – for being ‘away at sea’ during a protracted local conflict [Judges 5:17]; but also as far back when the Israelites were in Egypt. Danites like sons of Zarah, had struck out early to explore the Aegean, the Grecian Peninsula, Italy, Iberia and on to the Isles of Erin and Alba.
‘When Jeremiah reached Tara Ireland, about 580 B.C., he established the”Mur-ollamain” (Hebrew: “School of the Prophets”). Also the Iodhan Moran was created (Hebrew: ” Chief Justice”) and the Rectaire (Hebrew: “the Judge”). On the Four Courts at Dublin (the Supreme Court of Ireland) is a statue of the Prophet JEREMIAH.To this very day, JEREMIAH’S burial place is pointed out on Devenish Island, in Lough Erne, two and a half miles below Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh. The tomb is hewn out of solid rock. It has been known through the centuries as “JEREMIAH’S TOMB.” He was the real SAINT PATRIARCH – a name later corrupted to “St. Patrick” by Catholics.
From the union of Heremon and Tea Tephi came a long line of IRISH monarchs extending over a period of more than one thousand years. The SCOTCH monarchs were descended from the Irish kings. The last Scottish king, James VI of Scotland, became James I of ENGLAND, and from him the present Queen of Great Britain is descended. King Heremon and Queen Tamar Tephi were crowned at TARA (Hebrew. “TORAH”) upon the Lia Fail, (Hebrew: STONE of DESTINY) of Israel, just as the kings of Judah had been for centuries. It was as this time that the “HARP of DAVID” became part of the royal heraldic symbolism on family crests and flags since David was the Pharez line. Nathan told King David that “the sword shall never depart from thine house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to be thy wife” (2 Samuel 12:10). This is why the royal houses of Europe have suffered so many bloody revolutions and murders.’
There is much debate regarding the person of Zedekiah’s daughter. Whether she really existed or is a myth. Her name appears to be a composite of names which has added to a weakening of her credentials as a real person. Some call her, Tea or Tamar. As Tephi appears to be the common denominator in each case, this will be her name throughout.
Ezekiel 17:2-24
English Standard Version
2 “Son of man, propound a riddle, and speak a parable to the house of Israel; 3 say, Thus says the Lord God: A great eagle [Nebuchadnezzar II] with great wings and long pinions, rich in plumage of many colors, came to Lebanon and took the top of the cedar [Jeconiah*]. 4 He broke off the topmost of its young twigs [princes] and carried it to a land of trade [Chaldea] and set it in a city of merchants [Babylon]. 5 Then he took of the seed of the land [Zedekiah, the king’s Uncle*] and planted it in fertile soil. He placed it beside abundant waters… 6 and it sprouted and became a low spreading vine, and its branches turned toward him, and its roots remained where it stood…
7 “And there was another great eagle with great wings [Egypt] and much plumage, and behold, this vine bent its roots toward him and shot forth its branches toward him from the bed where it was planted, that he might water it.
Pharaoh of Egypt, with whom Zedekiah made an alliance. Pharaoh sent an army to raise a siege of Jerusalem in 588 BCE – 2 Chronicles 36:13; Jeremiah 37:5; Jeremiah 37:7. Pharaoh had a great army and Zedekiah leaned on his support and protection. ‘Zedekiah was courting the favour of Egypt while he owed his very position to the bounty of Babylon.’
9 “Say, Thus says the Lord God: Will it thrive? Will he not pull up its roots and cut off its fruit, so that it withers, so that all its fresh sprouting leaves wither? It will not take a strong arm or many people to pull it from its roots. 10 Behold, it is planted; will it thrive? Will it not utterly wither when the east wind strikes it—wither away on the bed where it sprouted?”
‘Zedekiah, besides the obligation of an oath, was bound to the king of Babylon by the ties of gratitude, as he owed all he possessed to him.’ Though his sons and nobles were put to the sword.
… 12 “Say now to the rebellious house, Do you not know what these things mean? Tell them, behold, the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and took her king and her princes and brought them to him to Babylon. 13 And he took one of the royal offspring and made a covenant with him, putting him under oath (the chief men of the land he had taken away), 14 that the kingdom might be humble and not lift itself up, and keep his covenant that it might stand.
‘… Jeconiah and all his princes and officers: see 2 Kings 24:12… Judging them unfit to be trusted any more with any office or power in their own country… taken from among the royal seed Mattaniah, [Jeconiah’s] brother, and advanced him to the throne in Jerusalem, 2 Kings 24:17… A solemn agreement, on terms acceded to and approved by Mattaniah… An oath of fealty: when Nebuchadnezzar caused Mattaniah to enter into this covenant and oath, he changed his name to Zedekiah, which word signifies, the justice of God, to express that God would avenge the crime of this restored captive, if he should break the covenant into which he had entered, and perjure himself… 2 Kings 24:17… Zedekiah being made only a tributary king, consequently was not in as honourable a condition as his predecessors had been in; but yet the keeping of his covenant was the only means, under present circumstances, to support himself and his government.’
15 But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army. Will he thrive? Can one escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape? 16 “As I live, declares the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant with him he broke, in Babylon he shall die. 17 Pharaoh [Hophra Jeremiah 44:30; 37:5] with his mighty army and great company will not help him in war, when mounds are cast up and siege walls built to cut off many lives.
18 He despised the oath in breaking the covenant, and behold, he gave his hand and did all these things; he shall not escape. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: As I live, surely it is my oath that he despised, and my covenant that he broke. I will return it upon his head. 20 I will spread my net over him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery he has committed against me. 21 And all the pick of his troops shall fall by the sword, and the survivors shall be scattered to every wind, and you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken.”
Many commentators misinterpret the meaning to not apply to Zedekiah but rather the prophecy as signifying Jeconiah’s descendant Zerubbabel, who later returned to Judea from the Babylonian exile as governor. He was only a governor under the Persians, not ruling in majesty as a king over ‘birds of every sort’ or many other peoples. Nor was he cut out from Judah when the nation and royal family stood as a tall Lebanon cedar, but long after the nation had been carried away into captivity.
With the problems of Zerubbabel as the interpretation, other commentators see the prophecy as messianic, as the Messiah would come from the line of David. When Christ lived, neither Judah nor its royal family could be symbolised by a tall cedar, as the area was occupied by the Romans and no Davidic king had ruled there for more than five hundred years. The bringing down of a high tree and exalting the low tree does not fit such an analogy. So the explanation is given that Christ descended, Himself a branch from the replanting in Jerusalem. Though Christ’s adoptive father Joseph came from this lineage, He Himself did not physically descend from Jeconiah and Zerubbabel or else He would not be a legitimate heir to the throne. Jesus, through His mother Mary, sprang from the Davidic line of Nathan, which was nowhere near the ‘highest branches of the high cedar’ at any time.
22 Thus says the Lord God: “I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar and will set it out.I will break off from the topmost of its young twigs [Zedekiah’s daughters] a tender one [Tephi], and I myself will plant it on a high and lofty mountain. 23 On the mountain height of Israel will I plant it [Ulster], that it may bear branches and produce fruit and become a noble cedar. And under it will dwell every kind of bird; in the shade of its branches birds of every sort will nest. 24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I am the Lord; I bring low the high tree [line of Pharez – Zedekiah], and make high the low tree [line of Zarah – Eochaidh], dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish. I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it.”
Ezekiel Chapter 17 Star Chart: Clockwise from 597 B.C. when “a great eagle (Aquila-Nebuchadnezzar)… took the highest (right red radius line) branch” (Jehoiachin) to Babylon in his beak and “took also of the (solar) seed of the land (Zedekiah the king’s uncle, not a Babylonian satrap, was [Virgo crowned] “made… king” – 17:16), and (Corvus-Nebuchadnezzar) planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters (Hydra), and set it as a red radius line) willow tree” (17:5) till “he (Orion-Zedekiah) despised the oath by breaking the (lunar half moon) covenant, when, lo, he had given his (Orion-Zedekiah) hand” (17:18) and (red radius iron) “stiffened his neck”
(2 Chronicles 36:13) in 587 B.C. when he made an alliance with Pharaoh (Hophra-Corvus) whose army came forth out of Egypt to defend Jerusalem is 121° months. Then till “the (Nebuchadnezzar Milky Way) east wind toucheth it” causing it to wither (17:10) in 586 B.C. is 144° days.
“I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender (Hebrew feminine) one (Zedekiah’s daughter – Virgo with solar crown – Jeremiah 41:10; 43:6), and will plant it upon an high mountain” (kingdom of Ulster – Milky Way hump) (17:22).
“In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth (red radius line) boughs, and bear (solar and lunar) fruit, and be a goodly (green Milky Way) cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing (British Empire); in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. And all the trees of the field (nations of the world) shall know that I the Lord have brought down the high tree (line of Pharez Judah – Zedekiah), have exalted the low tree” (line of Zarah Judah – Eochaidh Heremon) (17:23-24).
When the Danes, or Dene, peacefully migrated southwards from southern Sweden, they impinged on the Jutes and to the south of them, the Angles and Frisians. The Danes, not to be confused with the tribe of Dan, are one and the same as the later Danish Vikings, a distinct and separate tribe. The Danes had been part of a Scandinavian tribal collective which had suffered divisions in the fourth and fifth centuries, thus beginning the splitting of the Israelite Danish Vikings, from the remaining ‘Danes’ and Swedes who descend from Abraham and his second wife, Keturah [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham]. Thus they entered Jutland, formerly the Cimbric Peninsula – derived from Cymric – in the fifth century, forcing the Saxons tribes westward to Britain. As the Angles were allies of the Danes and their kin, they chose migration rather than warfare.
A Danish kingdom seems to have been established by the late fifth century, but the earliest records of its kings is fragmentary and allusive. It was a distinct state as opposed to Scania still surviving in southern Sweden. Identity adherents subscribe to the tribe of Dan leaving their name, as in, Dans-mark. It would seem the Dan part may have some credence, whereas the mark part is explained in that the march of the Danes – ‘a march, mark, or mierce being a borderland territory’ – was ostensibly the no-man’s land between them and the tribes which lay to the south, following the exodus to Britain by the Jutes, Angles and Frisians. This name became normalised as Denmark. Similar border states included Mercia in the west of England that bordered Wales, the North March of Eastern Germany, Finnmark in Norway and the Ostmark of what is now Austria.
The Jutes certainly lent their name to Jutland, the mainland peninsula of Denmark. Though most people think of the Saxons or the dominant Saxon tribe the Angles, when they consider the populating of Britain – south of the Caledonian Picts and east of the Cymric Britons – circa 450 to 650 CE, there were two other notable tribes that entered Britain. One as the Frisians – which was composed of two separate sons of Jacob – and the first wave of the tribe of Judah that entered as the Jutes. Notice in a moment who was first into Britain of the three; as well as those who remained in Scandianvia. The Geats and Wulfings, from whom the modern Danes and Norwegians descend today.
Kingdoms of Europe: An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Ruling Monarchs from Ancient Times to the Present, Gene Gurney, 1982, page 129 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Most of the country was conquered by these Teutons [Saxons], of whom the principle tribes were the Angles, Saxons [Frisians], and Jutes, who finally fused into one people, under the name of Anglo–Saxons, or Angles or English, while that portion of Britain in which they made their home was called England. The first of these Teutonic kingdoms was founded in Kent. A despairing British chieftain or king, Vortigern… to save his people from their northern foes [the Picts]… invited the Teutons to come to his aid. Two well-known Jutish Vikings, Hengist and Horsa, accepted the invitation with their followers, and in the year 449 landed on the island of Thanet, the southeastern extremity of… England… Eric, a son of Hengist, was, in 457, formally crowned king of Kent, that is, of England’s southeastern coast.He was the first of her Teutonic kings.’
Regarding the etymology of Judah to Jute.
An Introduction to Language, Victoria Fromkin & Robert Rodman, 1988, page 315 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The German linguist Jakob Grimm (of fairy-tale fame)… published a four-volume treatise (1819-1822) that specified the regular sound correspondences among Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic languages. It was not only the similarities that intrigued Grimm and other linguists, but the systematic nature of the differences… Grimm pointed out that certain phonological changes that did not take place in Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin must have occurred early in the history of the Germanic languages. Because the changes were so strikingly regular, they became known as Grimm’s Law’ … (one example of which is) d->t … voiced stops become voiceless.’
The people known as the Jutes or Juten and Yuten – for the letter J is pronounced as Y in German and the Scandinavian languages – would originally have been recognised as Juden or Yuden. Ironically, Juden became the German word for the Jews.
Horsa in 455 CE was killed during the Battle of Aegaelsthrep [Aylesford] along with King Vortigern. Vortigern’s son, Catigern was also killed in the fighting. Horsa’s brother Hengist was victorious and declared himself King of Kent [455 to 488 CE]. Hengist and Horsa were the Jutish leaders of a population that quickly expanded in southern England, with their Nobles gaining influence and becoming the longest established noble families of the Saxon population. Some claim that Hengist and Horsa could trace their descent from Woden [Odin], making them royal descendants of Zarah and perhaps even King David. The neighbouring kingdom of Sussex was founded by Aelle in 477 CE and in 495 the Saxon Cerdic and his son Cynric landed in the south of England. By 519, Cerdic had become the first king of Wessex. His son Cynric took Wiltshire in 552 and defeated the Britons in 556. In 575, the Angles founded the Kingdom of East Anglia and then Mercia in 586.
After the reigns of Hengest and of his son Aesc, or Oisc little is known of Kentish history from 512 CE until the reign beginning in 560, lasting to 616 of Aethelberht, who by 595 had become overlord of all the kingdoms south of the River Humber. His wife Bertha, daughter of Charibert, the Frankish king of Paris, was a Christian and it may have been for that reason that Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine’s mission to Aethelberht’s court in 597. Aethelberht, after his conversion and as the first Christian king in Britain in 601, donated a place of residence in Canterbury for the missionaries and hence this became the first and senior archiepiscopal see for the English church that would later be known as Anglican.
From 825 CE, Kent was a province of Wessex, whose kings became kings of all England in the tenth century. The social organisation of Kent exhibited many distinctive features, which supports the statement of the Venerable Bede that ‘its inhabitants were a different tribe from the Angles and Saxons, namely the Jutes. Instead of two classes of nobles, or gesithcund, as in Wessex and Mercia, Kent had only one, the eorlcund; and the Kentish ceorl, or peasant, was a person of considerably greater substance than those elsewhere.’
The main area of intrusion by the Jutes into England matches in large part, the area of England historically known as the Home Counties. Generally speaking, the Home Counties are Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey and East and West Sussex. There’s no official designation to these counties as a unified group. The description is more of a social and demographic way to identify the stomping grounds of the traditional English middle and upper classes. Sometimes parts of Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, Hampshire and even Dorset are included. The Jutes for instance, did settle in Hampshire after their arrival and thus a classification of Saxon or Wessex can be misleading, as the Jutes were and are Saxons.
Aethelred I became king of Wessex and Kent in 866 CE and was the son of Aethelwulf. The Kingdom of Wessex heartland was in the area of the modern county of Hampshire. As it grew, it covered all of the country south of the river Thames from the borders of Kent and Sussex to the Tamar River. By the tenth century, the Kingdom of Dumnonia, west of the Tamar, was under West Saxon rule. Notice the Judah family name of Tamar, the mother of Pharez and Zarah and also a daughter of King David.
Aethelred’s reign was a long struggle against the Danes. In the year of his succession a large Danish force landed in East Anglia and in the year 868, Aethelred and his brother Alfred went to help Burgred of Mercia against this host, but the Mercians soon made peace with their foes. In 871, the Danes encamped at Reading, where they defeated Aethelred and his brother, but later in the year the English won a great victory at Aescesdun. Two weeks later they were defeated again, this time at Basing but partially retrieved their fortunes by a further victory at Maeretun [perhaps Marden in Wiltshire]. In Easter of this year Aethelred died and was buried at Wimborne. His brother Alfred, also spelled Aelfred, by name Alfred the Great, born 849 and died in 899, became king of Wessex [871 to 899 CE]. He prevented England from falling to the Danes and promoted learning and literacy. It was during these events in southern England, the heartland of Judah, that Kenneth McAlpine, hundreds of miles to the north, united the Scots and Picts, forming the Kingdom of Scotland and hastening the emergence of Benjamin from the shadows.
The second wave of the tribe of Judah, the Northmen now known as Normans as referenced previously, arrived from Normandy, France. The historic Battle of Hastings in 1066 CE with the killing of King Harold, began the Norman Conquest of England under William the Conqueror, formerly the Bastard and son of Robert I – who was crowned at Westminster Abbey on December 25th, 1066. William I was born in 1028 and died in 1087. Arthur kemp states:
‘One of William the Conqueror’s first undertakings was a survey of England. This resulted in the famous Domesday Book which was a full account of all property and wealth in that country at the beginning of the eleventh century… it’s detail is staggering, including even the smallest villages; the number of mills, fisheries, animals; and the sizes of all woodlands and meadows.’
William was succeeded by his son, William II who was known as William Rufus or William the Red, due to his reddish hair. These descendants of Judah acted with authority and used their wealth, power and influence to great effect. Were they aristocratic and royal lines of Pharez? Their impact was immediate and it was severe. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 29, page 33: ‘The major change, was the subordination of England to a Norman aristocracy. William distributed estates to his followers (barons from Normandy) on a piecemeal basis as the lands were conquered.’
In Search of the Dark Ages, Michael Wood, 1987, page 233 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The redistribution of land after the Norman Conquest has been called a tenurial revolution of the most far-reaching kind and a catastrophe for the higher orders of English society from which they never recovered. The record of Domesday Book, completed only twenty years after Hastings, shows that though some Englishmen still held considerable estates, very few held any position of influence.It has been estimated that only eight per cent of the land was still held by [existing] English [Nobles] in 1086 [a mere twenty years after the conquest].’
There is much evidence for a widespread emigration of Englishmen into other countries, into Denmark, into Scotland and, most remarkably of all, to Greece and the Byzantine empire where there is good contemporary evidence that large numbers of Englishmen took service with the emperor in Constantinople in the generation following Hastings.’
This new order of Norman nobility swiftly took control of not just England, but also Scotland – for instance through Robert the Bruce’s ancestors – Wales, as well as Ireland’s nobility. These Norsemen or Northmen were Vikings who had settled in France some two hundred years previously. They spoke Frankish, a form of French and had already entwined themselves within the ruling class of France, setting up for the future Angevin Monarchs and therefore controlling influence of Ammon and Moab [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon].
In 911 CE, the Frankish King Charles had ceded land to the Normans in return for their loyalty and protection against other Viking incursions – naming their chief Rollo, a Duke. Time Frame AD 800-1000: Fury of the Northmen, Time Life Books, 1988, page 38: ‘His Vikings melded into the local culture much more rapidly than in England. They took local women as wives and concubines and watched their children grow up speaking the Frankish tongue.’
As discussed, the Sicambrians or Franks were part of the Teutonic invasions of Europe, which had followed on the heels of the Celtic ingress. Royal Genealogies or the Genealogical Tables of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, from Adam to These Times, James Anderson, page 611: ‘The Sicambrian Kings, Antenor, of the House of Troy, King of the Cimmerians, 443 B.C.’ We have learned the Franks descend from Ammon and Moab and from Abraham’s nephew Lot. Intermarriage between them and Judah was a union between family, with a pedigree going back all the way to the Triad. Similarly, a number of these Frankish Nobles may well have been from ruling families of Israel already [refer Chapter XXXIV Dan]. The Frankish nobility had blended with the older Gaulish nobility from Celtic times and the Gauls had intermarried with the noble Romans of Ishmael prior to that. Roman nobility also traced its descent from Aeneas of the house of Troy. Whatever the specific line, the close relatedness of the German, French and British lines is without question as our studies of Ammon, Moab and Ishmael have shown [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon and Chapter XXVIII Ishmael].
The Angevins were the first three Plantagent kings of England: Henry II [1154-1189] – the husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine – Richard the Lionheart [1189-1199] and John the Bad [1199-1216], the king who famously signed the Magna Carta. On the 25 November 1120, the White Ship carrying William Adelin sank, killing all three hundred people aboard, bar one. William was the future monarch and eldest son of Henry I. Henry was the youngest son of William the Conqueror. The death of William left one child, Empress Matilda, wife of Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V. Five years later, Henry V died and Matilda returned to Normandy and was named Henry I’s successor.
After 1066, the rise of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy depended on the preeminence of the Duchy of Normandy. It was a jewel of wealth and power, desired by every royal descendant. Henry I had taken it by force from his older brother, William Rufus – William II. To secure its southern border, William Adelin had married the daughter of the Count of Anjou, who also controlled the adjacent counties of Maine and Touraine. King Henry I now arranged the marriage of his widowed daughter who was twenty-six, to the eldest son of the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey Plantagenet who was fourteen. They hated each other, yet still produced three sons. Though Matilda’s cousin Stephen of Blois – Nephew of Henry I – had usurped the throne in 1135, Geoffrey worked tirelessly to win it back for her. Following Stephen’s death in 1154, their eldest son ascended the throne as Henry II, King of England. England came to be ruled not by the son of an Anglo-Norman king, but rather, by the son of an Angevin Count and his Norman empress.
Henry possessed a larger proportion of France than the King of France himself. Hence it led to inevitable conflict, with King John being defeated in the Anglo-French War of 1213 to 1214, by Philip II of France. John lost control of most of the continental possessions apart from Gascony in southern Aquitaine. This defeat set the scene for further conflict and the Hundred Year’s War between 1337 and 1453. A conflict over the French throne between the English royal House of Plantagenet and the French royal House of Valois. Eventually, the House of Valois retained control of France, ending the intertwined French and English monarchies, so that they remained separate. This close, yet antagonistic relationship between Judah, Ammon and Moab was mirrored millennia’s earlier between the Trojans and Athenians.
Of the Kings and Queens of England, it is interesting to note some of the Houses and how many monarchs have been contributed. Working back, the current House of Windsor [Saxe-Coburg-Gotha] combined with the House of Hanover that preceded it, as both are German-Jewish – Ishmael and Edom [refer Chapter XXIX Esau] – have provided nine Kings and two Queens. Eleven monarchs in total from George I in 1714 to the current monarch, Elizabeth II from 1952.
The House preceding it were the Stewarts of Scotland, or the tribe of Benjamin. Seven Monarchs in total, including two Queens from James I in 1603 to Anne in 1702. The next House was that of the Tudors of Wales, or the tribe of Simeon. Five Monarchs in total, including two Queens from Henry VII in 1485 to Elizabeth I in 1558. Then we arrive at the Plantagenets deriving from the Angevins of France, or Ammon & Moab and their branches, the Houses of York and Lancaster, which provided eleven kings from Henry III in 1216 to Richard III in 1483. Before that as mentioned, the three Angevin Kings of Henry II, Richard I and John.
We finally arrive at the Norman Kings – derived from the Norse Vikings – of William I, his son William II from 1087 to 1100 and William I’s grandson, Henry I from 1100 to 1135. It is these three kings, some one thousand years ago that we could possibly perceive as being a genuine line of Judah. All the subsequent lines have varying degrees of Judah descent via Zarah or Pharez in these foreign royal lines from Ammon and Moab of France, Simeon of Wales, Benjamin of Scotland and the Ishmael, Edomite mix of Germany; though the unmistakable fact, is that admixture within these lines means the percentage of Judaic blood is just that, a percentage.
The Current royals may have a smidgeon of a Pharez or Zarah bloodline, but the reality is, that the English throne – which includes the ancestry of French Angevins, a Dutch William of Orange, William III and two German-Jewish Houses – is not very English and hasn’t been for a very long time. Does this negate the legitimacy of the British throne being the Davidic throne? No. Does it contradict a descendant of David being available to sit on the throne? No. After an Edomite overturn, does it signify we have entered the end game of foretold events? Yes.
The Duke of York, who became King George VI of England from 11 December 1936 until his death on February 6, 1952, reportedly wrote in 1922: ‘… I am sure the British Israelite business is true. I have read a lot about it lately and everything no matter how large or small points to our being “the chosen race.” [Letter, 1922, facsimile printed in The Independent, April 6, 1996].’ The last King of England, believed in Britain’s Israelite past and its modern identity.
Royal Coat of Arms of Elizabeth I – ‘Always the same’ (Ever the Same)
It is ironic that as the first Queen Elizabeth, reigned during the rapid growth of England as a chrysalis empire and the planting of new Colonies in the Americas; it is her namesake Queen Elizabeth II – Elizabeth I of Scotland and daughter of George VI – who should witness the rapid dissolution of Britain’s empire and collapse of her once unrivalled power. A man who helped shape the destiny of England, America and the world, perhaps more than any other, is ‘the man that should have been king’ after Elizabeth I.
In an article under the same name, History Exposed writes concerning Francis Bacon – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Unknown to most people, Sir Francis Bacon has been one of the most influential people in western society since Jesus Christ. Few people are aware of the full story of Francis Bacon or why it has been hidden for so long by those who have written our history.
Many of us may know that he was the father of modern science because he introduced research through recorded trial and error. He was the editor in chief for the King James Bible. Some may know that he was perhaps the greatest politician who ever lived having represented 3 seats in the House of Commons plus a Member of the House of Lords all concurrently. He also rose to the position of Attorney General in the Parliament of King James I.
But not many know of his royal birth [1561] as the firstborn son of Queen Elizabeth 1st, ‘the Virgin Queen’, which has been hidden and denied for 400 years. His incredible literary talents as the creator of William Shakespeare have also been hidden and denied for 400 years. He created a new religion combining Jesus, Horus and Lucifer under the banners of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry.
Bacon was the first child from the marriage of Queen Elizabeth 1st and the Earl of Leicester (Robert Dudley), but was adopted by the Bacons after being rejected by his mother.The Queen also had a second son, Robert (Earl of Essex), who was adopted by the Devereuxs. At this time, England was split between Catholicism, ruled by the Pope in Rome and the new Anglican Church created by Henry VIII, Elizabeth’s father. When Henry died, his son Edward acceded to the throne but died a few years later and after him, Queen Mary then reigned with her Spanish husband as Catholics. When Mary died, the protestant parliament put Elizabeth on the throne, but because of the threat to her from Rome and Spain she chose neutrality and courted the favours of the Catholic kings of France, Spain, Portugal and Holland to keep the Pope in Rome at arm’s length. She declared herself as ‘the Virgin Queen of England’. So when Francis was born, she denied his existence in order to keep peace between England and Europe.
Francis Bacon was well educated by the Bacons and wrote his first play at the age of 12. At age 15 when he became aware of his royal birth, he was sent immediately to Europe where over time, he gained knowledge of the European Courts. He was to be a spy for his mother but he also gathered knowledge for his plays. While in France he embraced the Renaissance in Europe and started the Rosicrucian movement. Some say that it was Dr. John Dee, the Queen’s astrologist who created Rosicrucianism, but as he was one of Francis’ tutors, it was possibly a joint effort. He returned to England and set about establishing the English language as the premier language of Europe. This period is referred to as the Renaissance of English literature.
Francis formed a group of writers under the banner of ‘Knights of the Helmet” after the goddess Pallas Athena, who was known as the shaker of the spear. This group added more than 20,000 new words to the English language. As his plays became more political he needed to conceal his identity. He created the name of William Shakespeare [1564 – 1616: note the subtly different dates to Bacon’s] as the author and found a man called William Shaksper to pose as Shakespeare, the author reminiscent of ‘Shaker of the Spear’.
Throughout his life the Queen denied him his birth right as the Prince of Wales and so he became a lawyer and a Member of Parliament while continuing to write his plays and social reformations. Through the treachery of Robert Cecil, James VI of Scotland was appointed king and as James was aware of Bacon’s legitimate right to the throne bestowed honours and positions upon Francis, provided he swore never to have children who might lay claim to the throne. Even though he did marry, he did not have descendants. And so the House of Stuart took the throne of England from the Tudors.
Francis Bacon developed Freemasonry into its current form with the 33 degrees. It was his new religion and included Roiscrucian philosophies as well as elements of Egyptian mythology – the gods of Horus, Osiris and Isis, and the religion of the Druids. He wrote them to mirror the terms of Christianity, with which he was familiar, having been involved in the King James publication of the Holy Bible. Unfortunately Bacon was unaware of the gift of the Holy Spirit and so this new religion has resulted in the worship of Satan… (by another name)
He also wrote The New Atlantis, a blueprint for government which was free of religion and hereditary leadership. It was to be leadership by a group of benevolent, intelligent and ethical men believing in science and man’s own inner abilities and enlightenment. This was his dream for Freemasonry. The privileged elite, study the sciences in secret and act as an invisible government deciding what people should [and] should not be told. Unfortunately, the power exercised by this secret society, corrupted the dream as well as the men involved. This elite group still secretly manipulates… events [and] information… today.
He co-wrote the charters for the Virginia Company and the settlement of [the] USA. This decreed that 50% of profits from the New Territories would go to the ‘Crown’ [to Judah]. The Crown was actually ‘The City of London’ and not King James; however the king was a shareholder. America was to become this New Atlantis and most of the Founding Fathers and early presidents were Freemasons.Most Freemasons are unaware that as they worship ‘the great architect of the universe,’ they are actually worshiping Lucifer.
Bacon was finally hounded out of politics due to jealousies from his peers and retired to study the sciences and developed processes for scientific research. He faked his own death in 1626 and hid out in Germany until his death around twenty years later. Bacon recorded his whole life in coded documents that were deciphered and even published from the end of the nineteenth century up to the present time but because this history differs from what we have been taught it has been covered over. The clear-sighted manipulating the partially sighted. But now the time is right, as he so many times, in his own words, has cried out for his story to be told especially at the end of his play Hamlet;” In your great pain, please tell my story. Let my story be told!’
Francis Bacon is the Father of Empiricism. The belief that external influences experienced via our senses are paramount in formulating answers from knowledge acquired; as opposed to rational thought that stems from our innate intellect in answering questions. ‘Bacon’s philosophy was that it was nearly impossible for most people to see the world as it really is because they cannot set aside their prejudices and their preconceptions.’ In other words, our versions of the truth are mis-truths. ‘He said any obstacles that distract from seeing the world objectively were idols. His idea can be summarised by the phrase “everything is not as it appears.”’
Aside from Bacon, a contemporary forever responsible for guiding the world down an even darker path is John Dee, who lived at the same time.
History Exposed, Dr. John Dee – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Queen Elizabeth’s life was in danger from the time of her birth [and] exponentially so when she ascended to the throne… assassination could come by either physical or spiritual means. Magical threats had to be quashed with as much ferocity as physical ones, and in such an environment of paranoia, nothing could be dismissed as coincidence – particularly when sorcery, which operates by the engineering of coincidence was involved. To further complicate matters, Queen [Elizabeth’s] administration was too financially strapped to effectively suppress Catholicism in the country. This meant that the threat of assassination could never be fully circumvented, making John Dee’s services in protecting against magical attack as critical as Walsingham’s in espionage.
In 1638, a poem published in Moray’s hometown of Edinburgh proclaimed, ‘We be brethren of the Rosie Crosse: We have the Mason word and second sight. Things for to come we can foretell aright…” (Second sight is a well-known phenomena by which certain Scottish families are believed to possess inborn psychic abilities, publicized in Walter Scott’s 1817 Rob Roy.) References connecting the Masons to the Rosicrucians continued throughout the 17th century, including the establishment of Rose Croix degrees in the Scottish Rite. Masonry is itself concerned with the same themes Dee and his forebears were, and is an expression of the truths of the adepts that any man, of any background, provided he is a worthy brother, should be able to enter and visualise within his own life at a deep level. And far beyond the obscure writings of cloistered Hermeticists, Masonry has formed the backbone of Western civilization for over three centuries.
Enochian magic was fabricated initially by John Dee and his associate Edward Kelley. Together, they contacted the spirit world with various spirits giving them revelations. Some of them were illuding spirits which led them off track. But from Dee’s writings, a form of magic was developed which is part of the higher levels of Freemasonry. The system claims to relate to secrets contained within the apocryphal book of Enoch and consists of complex language and alphabet, magic squares, and cubes. It is complex and very powerful.
Adept Rosicrucians and Freemasons have used these magical texts – The Key of Solomon [refer Chapter XX Alpha & Omega and Chapter XXIX Esau] and the Lesser Key of Solomon – for years (to do just that) to bind, loose, and control the seventy-two stars (demons) over the nations.’
Recall, we addressed earlier the Angelic princes that govern all the nations of this world.
‘This is a counterfeit version of the key of David: ’that He shall open and no one shall shut and He shall shut and no one shall open’ (Isaiah 22:22). The keys of the kingdom are also associated with the key of David. ‘Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven’ (Matt. 16:19). The depth of this counterfeit and deception knows no bounds. It is just so curious that they use this scripture where it suits their purposes, and they obviously know the power in it but totally reject anything to do with Jesus. Interestingly, the witches in Macbeth used a mirror for scrying in one of the scenes in which apparitions of kings and the descendants of Banquo appear. This is an example of Enochian magic redesigned to legitimise, make normal, and condition people into believing that this stuff is okay. It seems to be a precursor to all the ‘mirror, mirror on the wall’ fairy tales.’
The English King Edward I conquered Wales in 1282. In order to appease the Welsh, the king’s eldest son was made the Prince of Wales, a title which still exists today. The two countries became unified in 1536, with the Kingdom of England now including Wales. The Kingdom of England ceased being a separate sovereign state on May 1, 1707, when the Acts of Union put into effect, the terms agreed in the Treaty of Union the previous year. The resulting Kingdom of Great Britain born from a political union with the Kingdom of Scotland. To accommodate the union for both, institutions such as the law and national churches remained separate.
It is interesting to note that the relationship between England and Wales, or Judah and Simeon is revealed in the Bible, which we will look at in the next chapter. Similarly with Scotland, Benjamin, with whom we will study next. Of all the territories, colonies or nations that England acquired during its empire evolution; the Kingdom of Scotland was the only nation that was not conquered, occupied, purchased, traded, bargained for, acquired by treaty or seized as a protectorate.
Turning points for England were its imperial expansion westwards in the sixteenth century, particular during Elizabeth I’s reign from 1558 to 1603 and the colonies sprung in North America, leading to a prominent nation and a nation comprised of many peoples. Considerable value was attached to these fledgling colonies and the wealth that they provided to Britain and the crown. Another was the Spanish Armada in 1588, sent by Spain to bring Great Britain into line with Catholic Europe. After the disastrous Spanish navy’s expedition, England became the world’s dominant sea power.
A notable decision by Elizabeth I was the expulsion of all Black Africans from England in 1601. From 1555 the first Black slaves were imported into England via Liverpool and Bristol ports. By 1601 there were officially twenty thousand Black slaves in London. A significant Black presence, unlike America, was delayed until increased immigration from African colonies in the twentieth century.
Author Paul Johnson describes the awakening of Judah’s lawgiving destiny and calling to fulfil its commission, through the enterprise of building an empire – emphasis & bold mine:
‘“However, the fact that England had declared itself an empire invalidated the papal award in official English eyes, a judgment made formal by Queen Elizabeth I’s chief minister, Sir William Cecil, who told the Spanish Ambassador that English settlers were free to claim for the Crown any territory in the Americas not yet settled. The term “the British Empire” came into use at about the same time. It was given a religious underpinning by the widespread belief in England, made explicit in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, the most popular book in Elizabethan and Jacobean England after the Bible, that for historical reasons the English [Judah] had succeeded the discredited Jews [Edom] as the Elect Nation, had vindicated their claim by the Reformation, and had a global mission to carry thus-purified Christianity throughout the world.’
When James VI of Scotland became James I due to Elizabeth being ‘childless’ – an irony as James was the son of Mary Stuart who had been executed by Elizabeth I in 1567 – England expanded under the Stuart House in trade, finance and prosperity; developing Europe’s largest merchant fleet. The United Kingdom played a major role in the advancement of civilisation, taking a significantly leading role in advocating democracy, writing literature and adding to scientific achievement. At its peak, during the nineteenth century, the British Empire covered over one quarter of the surface of the earth and its share of the world’s wealth by GDP, was a similar percentage.
The newly formed Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 led to the combined output from the Royal Society and other English enterprises with the Scottish Enlightenment, to create numerous innovations in science and engineering. Coupled with the enormous growth in overseas trade, which was ably protected by the British navy, this paved the way for the unabated expansion of the British Empire. It also drove the Industrial Revolution; ‘a period of profound change in the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of England, resulting in industrialised agriculture, manufacture, engineering and mining, as well as new and pioneering road, rail and water networks to facilitate their expansion and development.’
This period also saw the presence and contribution of an intellectual giant and one of the greatest scientists and thinkers the world has ever known, Isaac Newton, who lived from 1642 to 1726. Kemp says: ‘Newton was a prestigious natural philosopher and mathematician who invented the mathematical system known as calculus and was author of the laws of motion and gravitation.
Newton’s works… saw England dominate the world’s stage with scientific and intellectual thought – a situation of eminence which contributed to the domination of the physical world by the British.’
The opening of Northwest England’s Bridgewater Canal in 1761 began the canal age in Britain and in 1825 ‘the world’s first permanent steam locomotive-hauled passenger railway – the Stockton and Darlington Railway – opened to the public. For the Scottish scientist ‘James Watt had perfected the steam engine, enabling mechanisation on a scale never before seen. By 1830, the Industrial Revolution had turned Britain into the foremost industrial power in the world.’
Great Britain’s power was no better displayed than at the Battle of Trafalgar on land by the Duke of Wellington and at sea by Lord Nelson when the naval engagement between the British Royal Navy, comprising twenty-seven battle ships and the combined fleets of the French and Spanish Navies, with thirty-three battle ships during the the Napoleonic Wars resulted in their decisive victories. It was at this time, in the early 1800s during the fight against Napoleon’s France for hegemony of Europe, which ‘fostered a concept of Britishness and a united national British people’ shared by the English, Scots and Welsh.
The Union Jack – ‘the Union of Jacob(’s sons)’
In 1851, London became the biggest and most populous metropolitan area in the world with two and a half million people, achieving considerable prestige, as the financial hub of the world.
During the Victorian era, the occupation of India underscored the historical link between Cush and Judah [Numbers 12:1; 2 Kings 19:9; Jeremiah 39:15; 2 Samuel 18:21, 32]. Many British officers stationed in India, brought back Indian wives to Britain and Ireland. This admixture is evident in an Indian-origin blood disorder which is now found in Britain [refer Chapter XIII Cush & Phut].
Power shifts in Europe led to World War I, with hundreds of thousands of English soldiers lost, fighting for the United Kingdom and its Allies. Two decades later, in World War II, the United Kingdom stood up to the same European aggressor again, its cousin Ishmael. Following the war, the British experienced rapid decolonisation and a powerful Empire of substance dissolving into an impotent Commonwealth of form only. A major contribution was Frank Whittle’s development of the jet engine which transformed air travel.
March of the Titans, The Isle of Influence – England, Scotland and Wales, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016, page 207 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Even its most vehement detractors will admit that the nation of Great Britain has been one of the foremost countries of present-day Western civilization. Its achievements are legion – at one stage its empire existed on all the continents of the world except Antarctica. Its language became the second most widely spoken language on earth (after Chinese); its writers, poets, and playwrights are acknowledged as some of the greatest of all time, and its history and culture have become ingrained in the traditions of many people on earth. Britain was also directly responsible for the initial mass settlement of the North American continent that, together with immigrants from the rest of Europe, created the giant that became America.The Industrial Revolution, which it spearheaded, shaped the infrastructure of the current world. Yet it is a small island, slightly more than half the size of France. The history of this island of kings and queens is a remarkable one and worthy or an overview.’
During the twentieth century there has been significant population movement to England, mostly from other parts of the British Isles, as well as from the Commonwealth; primarily from the Indian subcontinent. In the past two decades while a member of the European Union, increased numbers of people from Eastern Europe have also moved to the United Kingdom. Also in recent decades, the administration of the United Kingdom has moved towards devolved governance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England and Wales continue to exist as a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. One result of devolution has stimulated a greater emphasis on a more English specific identity and patriotism that has been subsumed in a British identity for the past two centuries.
The name ‘England’ as discussed is derived from the Old English name Englaland, which means ‘land of the Angles.’ The Angles came from the Anglia peninsula in the Bay of Kiel area – the present-day German state of Schleswig-Holstein – of the Baltic Sea as opposed to the Jutes, dwelling further north. ‘The earliest recorded use of the term, as “Engla londe”, is in the late-ninth-century translation into Old English of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English people. The term was then used in a different sense to the modern one, meaning “the land inhabited by the English”, and it included English people in what is now south-east Scotland but was then part of the English kingdom of Northumbria.’
Most of the separatist movements in Europe involve the family of Abraham and in large part include the ‘Celtic fringes.’ Brittany has strong links with Cornwall. Both have strong regional identities, with similar flags.
In the first century work by Tacitus, Germania, the first reference to the Angles is used in the Latin Anglii. The etymology of the tribal name itself is disputed by scholars. Some suggesting that it derives from the shape of the Angeln peninsula, or an angular shape. ‘How and why a term derived from the name of a tribe that was less significant than others, such as the Saxons, came to be used for the entire country and its people is not known, but it seems this is related to the custom of calling the Germanic people in Britain Angli Saxones or English Saxons to distinguish them from continental Saxons (Eald-Seaxe) of Old Saxony between the Weser and Eider rivers in Northern Germany.’
The old Brittany flag, the current Brittany flag and the flag of Cornwall
There is no mystery, for it is worth re-iterating that the Germanic tribes of the Angles – constituting two tribes of Israel – the Jutes and the Frisians, again representing two Israelite tribes, were collectively, the Saxons. The Angles were the dominant tribe in numbers, so their name lingering in Britain – their home for centuries – from the name for their previous home is not a surprise. Non-Celtic Britain, is in fact the land of the Jutes of Judah, like Jutland from Jute-land in northern Denmark. Similarly in Scottish Gaelic, the term Saxon is the name given to the English of Sassenach. Alternatively, the Welsh name for the English is Sasseneg. Loegria is a romantic name for England related to the Welsh word for England, Lloegr in Arthurain legend.
Albion is also applied to England in a poetic capacity; though its original meaning is the island of Britain as a whole, tending towards the north and Scotland, such as its derivative, Alba.
The St George’s Cross has been the national flag of England since the thirteenth century. Originally the flag was used by the maritime Republic of Genoa and Richard I paid a tribute to the Doge of Genoa from 1190 onwards so that English ships could fly the flag as a means of protection when entering the Mediterranean. The red cross was also a symbol for the Crusaders in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Tudor Rose is England’s national floral emblem and was adopted as a national emblem of England around the time of the Wars of the Roses as a symbol of peace. It is a combined white rose of the Yorkists and the red rose of the Lancastrians – cadet branches of the Plantagenets who went to war over control of the nation, just two years after the Hundred Years War ended in 1455.
In a series of civil wars, the first at St Albans on May 22, 1455, with terrible loss of life and almost extinguishing the male lines, it ended on August 22 1485 at the battle of Bosworth Field where usurper Richard III of York died and a total of over one hundred thousand men lay dead. The House of Tudor had allied with the House of Lancaster. It was Henry Tudor who defeated Richard III, assumed the throne as Henry VII and married Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter and the sole heir of Edward IV, uniting the rival claims.
The oak tree is a symbol of England, representing strength and endurance as is the British bulldog, representing an indomitable tenacity. The Royal Arms of England, with a national coat of arms featuring three lions, originated with its adoption by Richard the Lion Heart in 1198. It provides one of the most prominent symbols of England and unsurprisingly, it is similar to the traditional arms of Normandy. England does not have an official designated national anthem, as the United Kingdom as a whole uses God Save the Queen. Though the following songs are often considered unofficial English anthems: Jerusalem, Landof Hope and Glory, Rule Britannia and I vow to Thee, My Country.
One subject that is well rooted in prehistory is that of giants in Britain.
The Giants of Ancient Albion & the Legendary Founding of Prehistoric Britain, Hugh Newman, 2017 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Giants are at the heart of national folklore concerning the founding of Britain, and archaic traditions state they have inhabited the country since deep antiquity. This article investigates not only the origins of Britain. It also uncovers a lost legacy of extremely tall and powerful individuals who once ruled this part of the world.
The earliest traditions agree that the first inhabitants of Britain were of the tall persuasion. Britain’s oldest acknowledged name is thought to be taken from a prehistoric giant king called ‘Albion’ who made his way to the island after being banished from his homeland of Greece. “He was begotten by the sea-god whom the Greeks called Poseidon, the Romans Neptune.” In Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, by Raphael Holinshed, Albion and the giants were said to have gradually consolidated their position in Britain, ruling the land for hundreds or possibly thousands of years.
After a long reign, Albion went to the south of France (called Gaul at the time) to help his army defeat Hercules. To ensure winning, Hercules summoned his father Zeus and a shower of stones fell from the sky. These were used as weapons against Albion and he was defeated. However, the giant race of Britain continued for hundreds more years, although their numbers decreased and ended up at southwestern tip of Cornwall, until the arrival of Brutus after the Trojan wars. However, Britain’s original name could also be from a Greek giantess called ‘Albina’:
“The Chronicles of Britain, written by John de Wavrin between 1445 and 1455, relate that in the time of Jahir, the third judge [Ehud 1292-1212 BCE Judges 3:30, 31 or Shamgar 1212-1192 BCE?] of Israel after Joshua, Lady Albine and her sisters came to, and settled in, an island which they named Albion after her, and which afterwards got the name of Britain. While they were living there the devil assumed the shape of a man, and dwelt among the wicked women, and by they had issue great and terrible giants and giantesses, who afterwards much increased and multiplied, and occupied the land for a long time, namely, until the arrival of Brutus, who conquered them [circa 1100 BCE].”
The story of Albina has variations. Most versions agree that her father had thirty-three wicked daughters, but he managed to find thirty-three husbands to curb their unruly ways. The daughters were displeased and under the leadership of their eldest sister Alba (also Albina, or Albine) they plotted to cut the throats of their husbands as they slept.
“For this crime they were set adrift in a boat with half a year ’s rations, and after a long and dreadful journey they arrived at a great island that came to be named Albion, after the eldest.
Here they stayed, and with the assistance of demons… “mated with”… they populated the wild, windswept islands with a race of giants”
‘… and with their offspring a new ruling giant elite were founded. These giants are evidenced in the story by huge bones that were said to be unearthed in the country during the 1400s.
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s influential 12th century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain)… [claims] thousands of years after the giants had populated the island, Brutus and other warriors fleeing the Trojan wars landed on the coast of Albion and legend states that the modern name of Britain comes from Brutus. Geoffrey asserts that he translated the Historia into Latin (in about 1136) from “a very ancient book in the British tongue,” that was loaned to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford. What this book was, has had scholars debating for centuries, but it could have been the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) from the ninth century, written by Nennius, a monk from Bangor, Wales. This is likely, as he covered many Arthurian myths, including the giants of ancient Albion. An important section of Geoffrey’s text has Brutus and his men realizing that Albion was already partly populated by unexpectedly tall foes: “It was uninhabited except for a few giants… they drove the giants whom they had discovered into the caves in the mountains.” After scaring off the giants and launching attacks on the titans, the land was then divided up and Corineus was given the southwest area of Cornwall to rule, named after the great warrior.
“Corineus experienced great pleasure from wrestling with the giants, of whom there were far more there than in any of the districts which had been distributed among his comrades. Among the others there was a particularly repulsive one, called Gogmagog, who was twelve feet tall.”
Other chroniclers state that he was in fact twelve cubits tall, so this would have made him 18 feet (5.5 meters) tall. Gogmagog was described as being so strong that he could uproot an oak tree and shake it like a hazel wand… the ferocious giant attacked Corineus’ camp with twenty of his kin. This turned into an all-out battle and Corineus and his men called on their local allies and eventually defeated them in a bloody conflict. Brutus chose to keep one of the giants alive, as he wanted to witness a wrestling match between Gogmagog and Corineus. During the tightly fought match, Gogmagog broke three of Corineus’ ribs, and he was so enraged, he hoisted Gogmagog up on his shoulders with superhuman strength and ran to the cliff where he threw him off to his death. His body smashed into many pieces after hitting sharp rocks and stained the water red, that “ was so discolored with his blood as to continue tinged with it for a long time .” The cliff from which he was thrown became known as Langnagog or ‘The Giants Leap’. It was on Plymouth Hoe that became the legendary place that the wrestling occurred because it was recorded in 1486 that a giant turf-cut figure was carved depicting two figures, one of them being Gogmagog.
… the names of Gog and Magog first appear in the Hebrew Bible with reference to Magog, son of Japheth in the Book of Genesis, then Gog, the king of Magog, appears in the Old Testament in Ezekiel (38:2) as the instigator of a terrible battle. Gog was referred to as being a person and Magog was the land he was from. Similar stories are echoed in the Book of Revelation and the Qur’an. The tradition is sparse and confused as Gog and Magog are presented as men, supernatural beings (giants and demons), national groups or lands, and appear widely in other folklore and mythology. For example, Gogmagog and Gogmaegot are identified with giants in Spencer’s Faerie Queen (1590) and in the medieval legends of [Arthur]. The names even reached Cambridge in Eastern England where the hilly area became known as the ‘Gog Magog Hills’, where interestingly, some taller than average skeletons were unearthed in the 1800s.
After defeating the giants, Brutus travelled all over the country to find a suitable spot to rule from. He decided on the River Thames and founded the city of Troia Nova , or New Troy, which became Trinovantum, we now know as London, with his captured giant in tow. Another, later version of the story describes how the giants Gog and Magog were two people and were taken prisoners and forced to become porters at the Royal Palace, now the London Guildhall. The effigies of Gog and Magog have remained at the Guildhall since the reign of Henry V. In The Gigantick History of the Two Famous Giants of Guildhall (1741) it proclaims that Gogmagog and Corineus were in fact two giants:
“Corineus and Gogmagog were two brave giants who richly valued their honour and exerted their whole strength and force in the defence of their liberty and country; so the City of London, by placing these, their representatives in their Guildhall, emblematically declare, that they will, like mighty giants defend the honour of their country and liberties of this their City; which excels all others, as much as those huge giants exceed in stature the common bulk of mankind.”
The defeat of Gogmagog by Corineus was the beginning of the end for the remaining giants, and the few that remained turned up again [in] the tales of Jack-the-Giant-Killer and Cormoran (mainly based in Cornwall), while others were said to have fled to Dartmoor and the mountains of Wales… the stories of Jack-the-Giant-Killer are worthy of a mention. The violent chronicles of Britain’s most famous giant hunter stretch far back into prehistory, to the times when the giants and humans were attempting to co-exist, before the arrival of Brutus. Mainly based in Cornwall, his exploits lingered across the whole of Britain. He was presented as a clever young man who often outwitted his gargantuan foes.
The most famous story is that he defeated the terrible Cormoran on St Michael’s Mount. By blowing a horn loudly, he caused the giant to come rushing out, but it fell into a deep pit that Jack had prepared and covered with twigs. Cormoran was then hacked to death by Jack. The other stories continue in this vein, and it was only when the printing press was developed in the Victorian age that the story was toned down, and it transformed into the children’s classic Jack and the Beanstalk . Even though there are thousands of legends of giants throughout Britain, there are a surprising amount of accounts of large and powerful people in the archaeological and historical record.
Their physical strength and stature became exaggerated as their deeds pass into legend, but in a strange twist, it is often in the same locations that actual giant skeletons and bones were reportedly unearthed. Here are a few intriguing examples:
St. Michael’s Mount: A prehistoric eight-foot (2.4 meter) skeleton was unearthed from a dungeon on the island 250 years ago, that may well be the giant that Jack was said to have slayed.
“The Annual Register for 1761 tells us that in March of that year, as a miner was working at Tregoney, in Cornwall, in a new mine, he accidentally discovered a stone coffin, on which were some inscribed characters. Within it was the skeleton of a man of gigantic size, which, on the admission of the air, mouldered into dust. One tooth, two inches and a half long, and thick in proportion, remained whole. The length of the coffin was eleven feet three inches, and its depth was three feet nine inches.”
Devonshire – This is the area where Gogmagog was thrown off the cliff by Corineus: “A stone coffin in Devonshire contained a thigh-bone belonging to a man eight feet nine inches high.”
Later in Histories giants reappear in the stories of the Welsh wizard, Merlin. He tells the King that in a distant epoch, giants transported huge trilithons from North Africa to Killarus in Ireland, where “The Giant’s Dance” was positioned. Later, they were transported to Salisbury Plain by mysterious means. However, huge skeletons have also been discovered in the mounds in the local landscape. In Journey into South Wales (1802) George Lipscomb reported: “a skeleton which measured fourteen feet ten inches in length.” In A Theological, Biblical, and Ecclesiastical Dictionary (1830), it describes a nine foot four inch (284.48 cm) skeleton unearthed near Salisbury in 1719. It also recounts a mound named ‘Giant’s Grave’ next to St Edmunds Church, just a few miles from Stonehenge.
The authors have collated over 150 accounts of giant bones, skeletons and skulls throughout the British Isles. Although the founding of Britain is still shrouded in mystery, and Geoffrey’s Histories… [a version] of older books and myths, the stories of the giants seem to go very far back. The Legends and [foundational] myths of Britain are so strongly associated [with] these local titans, we hope this introduction to giant-lore gives some indication that they could be the ancestral memories of real-life giants who ruled here long before [the British] ever lived here, and could have been responsible for the thousands of megalithic constructions that grace this ancient landscape.’
An article by an Identity adherent addresses the debate within the inner circle of the identity movement, regarding who the Jews really are. As the subject has been addressed in depth in the preceding chapter, we will not labour the point.
My first thought was, to whom do they ascribe Edom? After some investigating, I learned that the author supports the belief that Edom is Turkey. We have likewise discussed Turkey in length [refer Chapter XVIII Elam].
One reason given was the ‘fulfilment of Zephaniah’s Prophecy’ in chapter two.
Zephaniah 2:1-15
King James Version
Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired;
2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord’s anger come upon you… 4For Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation: they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day, and Ekron shall be rooted up. 5 Woe unto the inhabitants of the sea coast, the nation of the Cherethites! the word of the Lord is against you; O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant. 6 And the sea coast shall be dwellings and cottages for shepherds, and folds for flocks.
7 And the coast shall be for the remnant of the house of Judah; they shall feed thereupon: in the houses of Ashkelon shall they lie down in the evening: for the Lord their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.
8 I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached my people, and magnified themselves against their border. 9 Therefore as I live, saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them. 10 This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified themselves against the people of the Lord of hosts.
11 The Lord will be terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and men shall worship him, every one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen. 12 Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword. 13 And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness…
15 This is the rejoicing city [the capital of Edom, Bozrah] that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
Zephaniah chapter two is speaking about the future Day of the Lord, which is His wrath. A reading of the verses shows that many nations are going to experience His vengeance and destruction, including the mighty Assyrians of Russia, the King of the North and Cush of India, the Queen of the South.
The Creator is angry with certain nations due to their involvement in bringing the Israelite peoples into tribulation, such as the French from Moab and Ammon. The reason this chapter in Zephaniah is not speaking about Palestinians, Jews and the state of Israel, is because as stated in point number two in the introduction, every nation has migrated. It was Edom who was prophesied to return and ‘rebuild the ruins.’
Thus, the nations being targeted in this chapter are all in their modern day locations. The Philistine peoples [refer Chapter XV Casluh & Caphtor] are located along the coastal strips of Central and Southern America. Zephaniah Chapter two is not evidence that the Jews are Judah. Any Biblical references to Jerusalem, including Zion and the Mount of Olives, are always in reference to Judah’s capital, not the city called Jerusalem today. That city is called Bozrah in the Bible, or the Great city in Revelation, or as Zephaniah describes it, ‘the rejoicing city’ that arrogantly thought it was safe, yet was made ‘desolate’ – including the Abomination of Desolation.
One other reason cited is that, ‘the Jews are not a Christian people.’ The author states: ‘Some material sent to me argues that “the Jews can’t be an Israelite tribe because they did not become Christians like the rest of the tribes.”’ We have discussed the fact that the English were the first ‘Christian’ nation in Britain and ancient Parthia, as well as disseminating both Testaments of the Bible to the world. The crux of this argument is held up by the Jews being Judah, hence they are not Christian like all the Israelite nations. Of course, the English as Judah are in fact ‘Christian’ and the Jews not being Christian, is explained by the fact they are rebellious Esau, who have deliberately fought against the Messiah and the Christian tenets in all their forms.
A different article, states in their introduction regarding those who believe the Jews are not from the tribe of Judah – emphasis & bold mine:
‘[They]… claim that the present-day Jews are not descended from Judah-but rather from Edomites or other people. Some… of these reprobates say the true descendants of Judah are the Germans, others say they are the Africans! Perhaps it was the Germans or the Afro-Americans who really killed Jesus. Maybe it was an African-German Conspiracy? These claims about the Jews not belonging to Judah are stupid but they do have some influence some times [because the seed of truth is evident, even though the answer promulgated is incorrect].’
Their conclusion is thus, though this writer remains unconvinced:
‘As we said the… Biblical Proofs are a sample. It is possible that similar evidence could be adduced from every few verses of the Bible. The Jews are Judah! The Bible says they are…Only the Jews are universally recognized as “Judah”.The very name “Jew” is a shortened form of Judah… only the Jews possess all [?] the prophesied characteristics of Judah [The Jews are not a sizeable people [1] with a prominent Monarchy [2]. Nor have they be rejoined [3] with their brothers in the Isles to the northwest [4] as prophesied].
There is a Biblical Principle that everyone is created in the way that they would want to be if they had been given the choice and known the options. We are each and all most suited to be ourselves.’
The tribe of Benjamin has been discussed in former sections and a precursory picture of him has been steadily growing. Benjamin is the nation of Scotland…and now we can add the extra details in fully painting an intriguing character as well as the colourful nation of the Scots. The identification of Scotland was not as straight forward as one might assume, even once England was correctly understood as Judah.
Reasons for this were, 1. There are three tribes – aside from Levi – who had a close association with Judah; Benjamin, Simeon and Dan. Yet Scotland and Wales are only two nations. 2. Understanding the unique relationship of Scotland as a separate kingdom from England and Wale’s special status as a principality – until 2011 when it officially became a nation – only aided in making the identification more difficult.
3. Scotland could have been Benjamin or Dan but not Simeon – for reasons that will be made clear. Wales could have been Benjamin, Simeon or Dan. Going round in circles for many years was the result. The very last nations in the identity jig-saw puzzle, were Benjamin, Simeon and Dan, yet one would have thought once Judah was understood, they would have simply fell into place. The unknown key, was understanding the Tribe of Dan and it is because of this, that Dan will be left to the final chapter [refer Chapter XXXIV Dan].
4. Identity adherents have identified Benjamin historically with Norway or Iceland and it has also been linked with Belgium and the Normans. Close and warm, not cold but incorrect. In my research I also considered Canada as a possible answer for Benjamin. Latterly, there is growing popularity to identify the Scots ironically, with the tribe of Judah.
Two factors that have distracted researchers in interpreting the sons of Jacob correctly, have been that they were ascribing Abraham and Keturah’s sons identities to the sons of Jacob [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham]. Secondly, everyone seemed to forget Judah and Benjamin are inextricably linked – like ‘a hand and glove.’ Where one is, so will the other be found. Of course, the massive red herring of the Jews being Judah, was also going to make the correct connection next to impossible [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].
An online contributor stated: ‘Here are some comments from the late Dr. Hoeh (I left out Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah as they have more coverage elsewhere).’ From, Location of the Tribes of Israel, Herman Hoeh, circa 1950. Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah are always deemed very obvious; yet believers remain unaware that the pairings respectively with England, the United States and the Jews are all incorrect.
‘Benjamin constitutes Norway and Iceland. The Icelandic people in reality a colony of Norwegians [1]. Benjamin was given to David because Jerusalem, David’s capital, was in the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah. God said He would give David light in Jerusalem (I Kings 11:36). This verse could not refer to Judah which did not have to be given to the Jewish House of David [2]. Benjamin was told to flee the destruction of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 6:1) which many of them did. Benjamin is compared to “a wolf that raveneth; in the morning he devoureth the prey, and at even he divideth the spoil” (Genesis 49:27). This is certainly an apt description of the Vikings who pillaged Northern Europe, and even Mediterranean regions. Almost all Viking raids came from Norway [3]. It is also significant that Benjamin, the smallest tribe, still is the smallest today [4]. There are fewer Norwegians (plus 148 thousand from Iceland) than any other Israelite nation [5]. (Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33 has particular reference to this fact that Jerusalem was in the tribe of Benjamin.) [6]’
Though I am indebted to Dr Hoeh for his research as a spring board for investigation, it is for all the wrong reasons. It is a foundation that had to be torn apart and rebuilt. What is regrettable, is that thousands of people have believed these findings at face value and have then never questioned whether they were actually right. How can this writer’s research be the first to question their validity forty years later and to then present them some seventy years on?
The Icelanders are a nation in their own right [1], not an appendage of Norway [refer Chapter XXVII* Abraham]. David’s House and Tribe are Judah not Jewish [2]. The Vikings as we shall learn were Israelite, just not from Benjamin [3]. Benjamin is described as little, in that he was the youngest [4]. The Tribe of Reuben was predicted to be the smallest tribe. Beside the fact that Norwegians* are not a son of Jacob, Dr Hoeh has forgotten about Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, New Zealand and the British descended peoples living in South Africa and Zimbabwe, who all have smaller populations than Norway [5]. The city of Jerusalem, formerly Jebus, was originally in Benjamin’s territory, though no scripture says that in the future a similar configuration would occur [6]. The city of Jerusalem today is London, firmly planted in the heart of Judah, England.
We learned that Benjamin lost his mother Rachel at birth… a character defining tough break, which made him independent and strong. He was also much younger than all his brothers. Benjamin had not even met his elder brother Joesph until his visit to Egypt, when he was about twelve in 1687 BCE and Joseph was thirty-nine, born twenty-seven years earlier in 1726 BCE.
Reuben, the eldest was now sixty-five years of age and Zebulun the third youngest was fifty-three. One can understand Jacob’s heartfelt pain in any possibility of losing Benjamin, after the devastating early losses of Joseph and then Rachel. There is an aura of sadness and vicissitude surrounding Benjamin that continued to envelope his people and is evident in the Scots up and till today. Perhaps it explains their unbridled sense of humour, coupled with their poignant philosophical insight.
In the scriptures, aside from the tribe of Judah, there are more prominent personalities written about from the tribe of Benjamin than any other. Interestingly, they heavily favour the righteous rather than the wicked. Only King Saul is on the incorrect side of the Eternals favour. They include, the beautiful Esther [refer Chapter II Madai & Chapter XVIII Elam], faithful Mordecai, loyal Jonathan the son of King Saul, brave Ehud, the second Judge from 1292 to 1212 BCE and the dynamic apostle Paul. When reading the large body of scripture attributed to him, one can’t help but hear his Scottish accent ascending from his profound and perceptive messages in the Bible.
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The name Benjamin meaning: Son Of The Right Hand, Son Of The South. From (1) the noun (ben), son, and (2) the noun (yamin), right hand.
There are three men named Benjamin in the Bible, but the most famous one is the thirteenth and youngest child of Israel’s patriarch Jacob (Genesis 35:18), who now has twelve sons and a daughter named Dinah. Benjamin is the second son of Rachel – the first being Joseph – and she dies giving birth to him. With her dying breath she names the boy Ben-oni, but father Jacob swiftly renames him Benjamin.
An often neglected curiosity is the disproportionally important role of the tribe of Benjamin in the development of Israel, or even the very pattern of redemption displayed by the Bible: The city of Jerusalem was originally assigned to Benjamin (Joshua 18:28, Judges 1:21). The tribe of Benjamin was decimated after the atrocities committed in Gibeah (Judges 19-21) but still, a generation later Israel’s first king was from the surviving remnant of Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:1). Mordecai, whose adopted daughter Esther helped to avoid Israel’s annihilation, was a Benjaminite (Esther 2:5). And the apostle Paul. who authored half the New Testament, was from the tribe of Benjamin as well (Philippians 3:5).
The other men named Benjamin are: A descendant of the original Benjamin, namely a son of Bilhan, son of Jediael, (1 Chronicles 7:10). A son of Harim, who had married and probably divorced a foreign woman during the purge of Ezra (Ezra 10:32).’
Genesis 35:16-19
English Standard Version
16 Then they journeyed from Bethel. When they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel went into labor, and she had hard labor.
17 And when her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for you have another son.” 18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni [son of my sorrow]; but his father called him Benjamin. 19 So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)…
Benjamin was born circa 1699 BCE in late October, early November. The Book of Jubilees recounts his birth.
Book of Jubilees 32:3-16, 30-34
32:3 And in those days Rachel became pregnant with her son Benjamin. And Jacob counted his sons from him upwards and Levi fell to the portion of Yahweh, and his father clothed him in the garments of the priesthood and filled his hands. 4 And on the fifteenth of this month [the Sabbath and first day of the feast of Tabernacles* – seventh month: September/October], he brought to the altar fourteen oxen from amongst the cattle, and twenty-eight rams, and forty-nine sheep, and seven lambs, and twenty-one kids of the goats as a burnt-offering on the altar of sacrifice, well pleasing for a sweet savor before Yahweh. 11 This ordinance is written that it may be fulfilled from year to year in eating the second tithe* before Yahweh in the place where it has been chosen, and nothing shall remain over from it from this year to the year following.
16 And on the following night, on the twenty-second day of this month [the Sabbath and the Last Great Day of the feast], Jacob resolved to build that place, and to surround the court with a wall, and to sanctify it… 30 And in the night, on the twenty-third of this month, Deborah Rebecca’s nurse died, and they buried her beneath the city under the oak of the river, and he called the name of this place, ‘The river of Deborah,’ and the oak, ‘The oak of the mourning of Deborah.’ 33 And Rachel bare a son in the night, and called his name ‘Son of my sorrow’; for she suffered in giving him birth: but his father called his name Benjamin, on the eleventh of the eighth month [October/November]… 34 And Rachel died there and she was buried in the land of Ephrath, the same is Bethlehem, and Jacob built a pillar on the grave of Rachel, on the road above her grave.
In Genesis chapter forty-nine we read and studied the blessing given by Jacob to Judah and the uncanny directness of his words in describing the attributes and destiny of Judah and his descendants. The same applies for all of Jacob’s sons. How strange that the words have always been there so-to-speak, yet looking ‘through a glass darkly’ means understanding of them has remained allusive [1 Corinthians 13:12].
Genesis 49:1-2, 27
English Standard Version
Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in days to come. 2 “Assemble and listen, O sons of Jacob, listen to Israel your father.
27 “Benjamin is a ravenous [H2963 – taraph] wolf, in the morning [H1242 – boqer: ‘beginning of day’, ‘coming of sunrise’] devouring [H398 – ‘akal: ‘eat, consume, slay’] the prey [H5706 – ad] and at evening [H6153 – ereb: evening, sunset] dividing [H2505 – chalaq]the spoil.”
The Hebrew word for raven or ravenous means: ‘to tear, rend’ and ‘to be torn in pieces’ to ‘provide food. The KJV translates it as, tear [6], ravening [3], catch [2], feed [1] and prey [1]. An act of aggression, violence and taking by force. The Hebrew word for prey means as well as prey, ‘booty.’ Booty as in what is won ‘in the sense of the aim of an attack.’ The Hebrew word for divide means: ‘to share, plunder, apportion’ and ‘distribute.’ In the King James Bible it is translated as, divide [40], flatter [6], part [5], distribute [4], portion [1] and received [1].
The Amplified Bible says; ‘The tribe of Benjamin invariably displayed courage and ferocity, particularly in their war with the other tribes.’ A quick perusal of any history of the Scots and the Picts before them – for they are the same people, with a different name – will quickly affirm their prowess in both war and any situation necessitating survival.
CEB: Benjamin is a wolf who hunts…”
NCV: “… In the morning he eats what he has caught, and in the evening he divides what he has taken.”
NIRV: “… In the morning he eats what he has killed. In the evening he shares what he has stolen.”
TLB: “Benjamin is a wolf that prowls. He devours his enemies in the morning, and in the evening divides the loot.”
ISV: “Benjamin is vicious like a wolf; what he kills in the morning he devours in the evening.”
CEV: Benjamin, you are a fierce wolf, destroying your enemies morning and evening.
This verse reveals two key identifying markers. First, the tribe of Benjamin were fearless survivors – as evidenced in the war with the other twelve tribes – and second, they have had to scrap for survival, sharing the won spoil. Scottish people, unlike the harsh stereotype of being stingy – which is a reflection of the Highlander, not the Lowland Scot – are in fact a generous people and look after their own. This dangerous element of Benjamin’s nature was exhibited by the ancient Pictish nation. Arthur Kemp in his seminal work, pages 207-208, states – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… the Celts in the far north of the country – particularly the Picts – continued to be troublesome for the Roman Britons. The emperor Hadrian finally built a wall in 122-123 AD across northern Britain to try and keep them out.
After Hadrian’s death, the emperor Antonius built a new wall some one hundred miles north in an attempt to extend Roman control further north. By 164, this new wall – known as the Antonine Wall – had been abandoned and the border reverted to Hadrian’s Wall once again. Scotland never fell under Roman rule, and the Picts continued to be a thorn in the side of the Romans until the very end of Roman rule in Britain.’
The Scots as part of the United Kingdom have also shared in the spoil – the immense economic benefits of building and maintaining an Empire – with England and as their name signifies, Benjamin is the son of the right hand and has sat at the right hand of Judah. For wherever Judah grew a ‘choice vine’ [Genesis 49:11], planting a new colony, it was a Benjamite who was invariably the Governor or ruler for the Crown, of the many colonies, dominions and territories of the British Empire.
English writer Sir Walter Besant:
“Wherever the pilgrim turns his feet, he finds Scotsmen in the forefront of civilization and letters. They are the premiers in every colony, professors in every university, teachers, editors, lawyers, engineers and merchants – everything, and always at the front.”
This relationship and blessing is supported by Moses in his final blessing to the tribes before he passed away.
Deuteronomy 33:1-2, 12
English Standard Version
This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death. 2 He said…
12 Of Benjamin he said, “The beloved [H3039 – ydiyd: ‘loved, beloved, well loved’] of the Lord dwells in safety [H983 – betach]… [by him]. The High God surrounds [H2653 – chophaph] him all day long [H3117 – yowm], and dwells between his shoulders [in his heart].”
The Hebrew word for safety means: ‘a place of refuge, securely’ and ‘security’, ‘without care’ and with ‘confidence.’ The Hebrew word for surrounds is translated as: cover, enclose, shelter and shield. The Hebrew meaning for all day is: a whole day, ‘from sunrise to sunset.’ It is translated in the KJV as: day [2008], time [64], ever [18], continually [10] and always [4].
The location of Scotland certainly is a relatively safe portion of the globe to reside, though Benjamin is protected also in their close association with Judah and more vitally in the protection that the Creator affords them. Wales understandably, could not contend with the numerical strength of the English. Thus, it does not make sense on paper that Scotland should have withheld the might of England to remain an independent kingdom without intervention.
CEB: He said to Benjamin: “The Lord’s dearest one rests safely on him. The Lord always shields him; he rests on God’s chest.”
DRA: And to Benjamin he said: The best beloved of the Lord shall dwell confidently in him: as in a bride chamber shall he abide all the day long, and between his shoulders shall be rest.
ERV: Moses said this about Benjamin: “Benjamin is loved by the Lord and lives close to him in safety. The Lord protects him all the time like a child at rest on its mother’s back.”
GNT: About the tribe of Benjamin he said: “This is the tribe the Lord loves and protects; He guards them all the day long, And he dwells in their midst.”
NLT: Moses said this about the tribe of Benjamin: “The people of Benjamin are loved by the Lord and live in safety beside him. He surrounds them continuously and preserves them from every harm.”
There can be no denying the affection from the Creator towards Benjamin. He is beloved in the same way the Eternal has extended towards King David and the tribe of Judah. In the Book of Judges, Deborah a married Prophetess and fourth Judge of Israel from 1192 to 1152 BCE, gives further insight into the sons of Jacob. In this case, with Benjamin we do not learn anything of consequence, apart from their being sandwiched between their nephews, Ephraim and the half tribe of East Manasseh from Machir.
Judges 5:14
English Standard Version
Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day: 2 “That the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the Lord! 3 “Hear, O kings; give ear, O princes;
From Ephraim their root they marched down into the valley, following you, Benjamin, with your kinsmen; from Machir marched down the commanders…
Deborah from the tribe of Ephraim had replaced the Benjamite Judge Ehud who had died in 1212 BCE. In the interim twenty years, the Israelites had gone astray and were being cruelly oppressed by Jabin the King of Canaan. His commander Sisera had nine hundred chariots made with iron. Deborah decided to go on the offensive and enlisted the help of Barak from the tribe of Naphtali. They ultimately defeated Jabin the Canaanite and Sisera, with forty years of peace ensuing.
The Book of Judges also recounts a rather ugly story in the history of Israel that shows two wrongs don’t make a right. The Benjamites showed a mis-directed stubbornness and tenacity, though one has to admire their sheer gaul and solidarity. The remainder of the sons of Jacob exhibited equal stubbornness and unity; and to think a tribe was on the verge of total destruction is incredible. Reason won over emotion and the tribe of Benjamin survived. In time, they became a highly valued component of a United Kingdom of Israel and later the Kingdom of Judah.
Judges 19
English Standard Version
In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite was sojourning in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, who took to himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 And his concubine was unfaithful to him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. 3 Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back… And she brought him into her father’s house. And when the girl’s father saw him, he came with joy to meet him. 4 And his father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay… 9 And when the man and his concubine and his servant rose up to depart, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold, now the day has waned toward evening. Please, spend the night. Behold, the day draws to its close. Lodge here and let your heart be merry, and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home.”
10 But the man would not spend the night. He rose up and departed and arrived opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him. 11 When they were near Jebus, the day was nearly over, and the servant said to his master, “Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it.” 12 And his master said to him, “We will not turn aside into the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel… And the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin, 15 and they turned aside there, to go in and spend the night at Gibeah. And he went in and sat down in the open square of the city, for no one took them into his house to spend the night.
16 And behold, an old man was coming from his work in the field at evening. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was sojourning in Gibeah… 20 And the old man said, “Peace be to you; I will care for all your wants. Only, do not spend the night in the square.” 22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” [a very similar situation to the one we have encountered with Lot – refer Chapter XVI Moab & Ammon] 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and made her go out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, until it was light.
27 And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up, let us be going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey, and the man rose up and went away to his home. 29 And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and taking hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30 And all who saw it said, “Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day; consider it, take counsel, and speak.”
Judges 20
English Standard Version
Then all the people of Israel came out, from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, and the congregation assembled as one man to the Lord at Mizpah. 2 And the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 men on foot that drew the sword. 3 (Now the people of Benjamin heard that the people of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the people of Israel said, “Tell us, how did this evil happen?” 4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, “I came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night. 5 And the leaders of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house against me by night. They meant to kill me, and they violated my concubine, and she is dead…they have committed abomination and outrage in Israel. 7 Behold, you people of Israel, all of you, give your advice and counsel here”… this is what we will do to Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot, 10 and we will take ten men of a hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and a hundred of a thousand, and a thousand of ten thousand, to bring provisions for the people, that when they come they may repay Gibeah of Benjamin for all the outrage that they have committed in Israel.” 11 So all the men of Israel gathered against the city, united as one man.
12 And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What evil is this that has taken place among you? 13 Now therefore give up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and purge evil from Israel.” But the Benjaminites would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the people of Israel. 14 Then the people of Benjamin came together out of the cities to Gibeah to go out to battle against the people of Israel. 15 And the people of Benjamin mustered out of their cities on that day 26,000 men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who mustered 700 chosen men.16 Among all these were 700 chosen men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. 17 And the men of Israel, apart from Benjamin, mustered 400,000 men who drew the sword; all these were men of war.
18 The people of Israel arose and went up to Bethel and inquired of God, “Who shall go up first for us to fight against the people of Benjamin?” And the Lord said, “Judah shall go up first.”
19 Then the people of Israel rose in the morning and encamped against Gibeah. 20 And the men of Israel went out to fight against Benjamin, and the men of Israel drew up the battle line against them at Gibeah. 21 The people of Benjamin came out of Gibeah and destroyed on that day 22,000 men of the Israelites. 22 But the people, the men of Israel, took courage, and again formed the battle line in the same place where they had formed it on the first day. 23 And the people of Israel went up and wept before the Lord until the evening. And they inquired of the Lord, “Shall we again draw near to fight against our brothers, the people of Benjamin?” And the Lord said, “Go up against them.”
24 So the people of Israel came near against the people of Benjamin the second day. 25And Benjamin went against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed 18,000 men of the people of Israel. All these were men who drew the sword. 26 Then all the people of Israel, the whole army, went up and came to Bethel and wept. They sat there before the Lord and fasted that day until evening, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. 27 And the people of Israel inquired of the Lord (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28 and Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, ministered before it in those days), saying, “Shall we go out once more to battle against our brothers, the people of Benjamin, or shall we cease?” And the Lord said, “Go up, for tomorrow I will give them into your hand.”
29 So Israel set men in ambush around Gibeah. 30 And the people of Israel went up against the people of Benjamin on the third day and set themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times. 31 And the people of Benjamin went out against the people and were drawn away from the city. And as at other times they began to strike and kill some of the people in the highways, one of which goes up to Bethel and the other to Gibeah, and in the open country, about thirty men of Israel. 32 And the people of Benjamin said, “They are routed before us, as at the first.” But the people of Israel said, “Let us flee and draw them away from the city to the highways.” 33 And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place and set themselves in array at Baal-tamar, and the men of Israel who were in ambush rushed out of their place from Maareh-geba.
34 And there came against Gibeah 10,000 chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was hard, but the Benjaminites did not know that disaster was close upon them. 35 And the Lord defeated Benjamin before Israel, and the people of Israel destroyed 25,100 men of Benjamin that day. All these were men who drew the sword. 36 So the people of Benjamin saw that they were defeated.
The men of Israel gave ground to Benjamin, because they trusted the men in ambush whom they had set against Gibeah. 37 Then the men in ambush hurried and rushed against Gibeah; the men in ambush moved out and struck all the city with the edge of the sword… 43 Surrounding the Benjaminites, they pursued them and trod them down from Nohah as far as opposite Gibeah on the east. 44 Eighteen thousand men of Benjamin fell, all of them men of valor. 45 And they turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon. Five thousand men of them were cut down in the highways. And they were pursued hard to Gidom, and 2,000 men of them were struck down. 46 So all who fell that day of Benjamin were 25,000 men who drew the sword, all of them men of valor. 47 But 600 men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon and remained at the rock of Rimmon four months. 48 And the men of Israel turned back against the people of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, the city, men and beasts and all that they found. And all the towns that they found they set on fire.
Judges 21
English Standard Version
Now the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah, “No one of us shall give his daughter in marriage to Benjamin.” 2 And the people came to Bethel and sat there till evening before God, and they lifted up their voices and wept bitterly. 3 And they said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, why has this happened in Israel, that today there should be one tribe lacking in Israel?” 4 And the next day the people rose early and built there an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings… 6 And the people of Israel had compassion for Benjamin their brother and said, “One tribe is cut off from Israel this day. 7 What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since we have sworn by the Lord that we will not give them any of our daughters for wives?”
8 And they said, “What one is there of the tribes of Israel that did not come up to the Lord to Mizpah?” And behold, no one had come to the camp from Jabesh-gilead [half tribe of East Manasseh], to the assembly. 9 For when the people were mustered, behold, not one of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead was there. 10 So the congregation sent 12,000 of their bravest men there and commanded them, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. 11 This is what you shall do: every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. 13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the people of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon and proclaimed peace to them.
14 And Benjamin returned at that time. And they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead [half tribe of East Manasseh], but they were not enough for them. 15 And the people had compassion on Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.
16 Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?” 17 And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. 18 Yet we cannot give them wives from our daughters.” For the people of Israel had sworn, “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.” 19 So they said, “Behold, there is the yearly feast of the Lord at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” 20 And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, “Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards 21 and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and snatch each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh [Tribe of Ephraim], and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.’” 23 And the people of Benjamin did so and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off. Then they went and returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and lived in them.
25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
A dramatic turn of events with Judah having to lead the charge for Israel against their future ally, Benjamin. The tribes of Israel showed more mercy to Benjamin than Benjamin did for the Levite or his dead concubine. The wives provided for the remaining six hundred Benjamite men, were from Ephraim and Manasseh the sons of Joseph, their only full blood brother. The genetic gene pool forever changed in Benjamin, though less than if the wives had come from a half brother. Note the skill and ambidextrousness, of the Benjamite men in warfare and battle, particularly with the Bow and sling.
1 Samuel 20:19-20
English Standard Version
19 On the third day go down quickly to the place where you hid yourself when the matter was in hand, and remain beside the stone heap. 20 And I [Jonathan] will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I shot at a mark.
2 Samuel 1:22
English Standard Version
“From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.
1 Chronicles 12:1-2
English Standard Version
Now these are the men who came to David at Ziklag, while he could not move about freely because of Saul the son of Kish. And they were among the mighty men who helped him in war. 2 They were bowmen and could shoot arrows and sling stones with either the right or the left hand; they were Benjaminites, Saul’s kinsmen.
A 2009 study showed that the Netherlands had the highest percentage for left handedness – to go along with their high average for height – of 13.2%, The average worldwide is approximately 10%. Second was the United States, 13.1%, Belgium 13.1%, Canada fourth, 12.8%, the United Kingdom 12.2%, Ireland 11.7%. A breakdown of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remains allusive at time of writing. Switzerland is next, 11.6%, France, 11.1%, Denamrk 11%, Italy, 10.5%, Sweden 10.4%, Norway 10.2%, Germany, 9.8%, Spain, 9.6% and then well below the world average, Russia 6%, India, 5.2%, Japan, 4.7%, China 3.5% and Mexico 2.5%. It is interesting to note that the family of Abraham displays this trait in the top six nations represented and ten of the top thirteen; with the other three descended from Abraham’s brothers Haran and Nahor.
As France [refer Chapter XXVI Moab & Ammon] is high on the list as well, could there be a link between being left handed and rh negative blood type? Data does support rh- people being more likely to be left handed. Scotland is interesting when studying frequencies of rh- people because of it strong variation of numbers based on locations. According to ‘Distribution of the ABO and rhesus (D) blood groups in the north of Scotland’ by Elizabeth S Brown, ‘people in the region of Inverness top the list of rh negative people in Scotland with a whopping 30.44%.’
Is there a link between left handedness and lactose tolerance, that is also highest amongst northwestern Europeans [refer Chapter XIII Cush & Phut]. Recent studies have confirmed increased verbal skills in left handed people, plus a higher percentage of left handers excelling in sport; thus possibly translating to superior combat skills.
2 Chronicles 17:17
English Standard Version
Of Benjamin: Eliada, a mighty man of valor, with 200,000 men armed with bow and shield;
2 Chronicles 14:8
English Standard Version
And Asa had an army of 300,000 from Judah, armed with large shieldsand spears, and 280,000 men from Benjamin that carried shields and drew bows. All these were mighty men of valor.
The Normans used long shields as was typical of the Vikings, whereas the Britons used round shields.
2 Chronicles 15:7-9
English Standard Version
7 But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded.”
8 As soon as Asa [King of Judah] heard these words, the prophecy of Azariah the son of Oded, he took courage and put away the detestable idolsfrom all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the cities that he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim, and he repaired the altar of the Lord that was in front of the vestibule of the house of the Lord. 9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the Lord his God was with him.
Ezra 4:1
English Standard Version
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the Lord…
The land of Benjamin was a distinct territory yet always attached to Judah.
Jeremiah 1:1; 37:11-13
English Standard Version
The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin… 11 Now when the Chaldean army had withdrawn from Jerusalem at the approach of Pharaoh’s army, 12 Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin to receive his portion there among the people. 13 When he was at the Benjamin Gate, a sentry there named Irijah the son of Shelemiah, son of Hananiah, seized Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “You are deserting to the Chaldeans.”
The Eternal promised David that the tribe of Benjamin would be reserved for his descendants, with Judah.
1 Kings 11:29-32
English Standard Version
29 And at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had dressed himself in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the open country. 30 Then Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 And he said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes
32 (but he shall have one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel),
2 Chronicles 21:7
English Standard Version
Yet the Lord was not willing to destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and since he had promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.
1 Kings 15:4
English Standard Version
Nevertheless, for David’s sake the Lord his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, setting up his son after him, and establishing Jerusalem,
A prophecy for Benjamin receiving a different and bigger territory in a future re-division of land. Benjamin is the youngest son and tribe, not the smallest as some translations state. The Book of Jubilees gives Benjamin’s wife’s name and Benjamin’s sons are listed twice.
Obadiah 1:19
English Standard Version
Those of the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and those of the Shephelah shall possess the land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria, and Benjamin shall possess Gilead [half tribe of East Manasseh].
Psalm 68:27
Christian Standard Bible
There is Benjamin, the youngest, leading them, the rulers of Judah in their assembly, the rulers of Zebulun, the rulers of Naphtali.
Book of Jubilees 34:20
And after Joseph perished, the sons of Jacob took unto themselves wives… and the name of Benjamin’s wife, ‘Ijasaka.
Book of Jasher 45:21-22
21… Jacob sent to Aram, the son of Zoba, the son of Terah, and he took for his son Benjamin Mechalia the daughter of Aram, and she came to the land of Canaan to the house of Jacob; and Benjamin was ten years old [?] when he took Mechalia the daughter of Aram for a wife.
22 And Mechalia conceived and bare unto Benjamin Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera and Naaman, five sons; and Benjamin went afterward and took for a wife Aribath, the daughter of Shomron, the son of Abraham [?], in addition to his first wife, and he was eighteen years old; and Aribath bare unto Benjamin Achi, Vosh, Mupim, Chupim, and Ord; five sons.
Benjamin’s first wife was possibly arranged for him when he was ten. As he was Jacob’s favourite in the absence of Jospeh, this is plausible. A descent from Terah, Abraham’s father would mean Mechalia was family even if she was not from Nahor or Haran, Abraham’s brothers. For example, both Isaac’s and Jacob’s wives were from the family of Nahor and Abraham’s from Haran. If accurate, a second wife and Benjamin’s sons having half brothers may explain the divide between Highlander and Lowlander Scot. As there is no record of a son called Shomron from Abraham, it may well mean descent from Abraham indirectly from either Ishmael or the sons of Abraham with his second wife, Keturah.
Genesis 46:21
English Standard Version
And the sons of Benjamin: Bela [swallow], Becher [family name of Ephraim], Ashbel [capture], Gera, Naaman [grace], Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard.
Numbers 26:38-41
English Standard Version
38 The sons of Benjamin according to their clans: of Bela, the clan of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the clan of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the clan of the Ahiramites; 39 of Shephupham, the clan of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the clan of the Huphamites.
40 And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the clan of the Ardites; of Naaman, the clan of the Naamites. 41 These are the sons of Benjamin according to their clans, and those listed were 45,600.
1 chronicles 7:6-12
English Standard Version
6 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, and Jediael, three.
7 The sons of Bela: Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth, and Iri, five, heads of fathers’ houses, mighty warriors. And their enrollment by genealogies was 22,034.
8 The sons of Becher: Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth, and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Becher. 9 And their enrollment by genealogies, according to their generations, as heads of their fathers’ houses, mighty warriors, was 20,200.
10 The son of Jediael: Bilhan. And the sons of Bilhan: Jeush [family name of Esau], Benjamin, Ehud, Chenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish [family name of Javan], and Ahishahar. 11 All these were the sons of Jediael according to the heads of their fathers’ houses, mighty warriors, 17,200, able to go to war.
12 And Shuppim and Huppim were the sons of Ir, Hushim the son of Aher.
1 Chronicles 8:1-5, 33-34
English Standard Version
Benjamin fathered Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, 2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth. 3 And Bela had sons: Addar, Gera, Abihud, 4 Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, 5 Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram.
33 Ner was the father of Kish, Kish of Saul, Saul of Jonathan, Malchi-shua, Abinadab and Eshbaal; 34 and the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal; and Merib-baal was the father of Micah.
Genesis lists ten sons; Numbers lists five sons; I Chronicles seven lists three sons and chapter eight which includes Saul’s genealogy, unhelpfully lists five sons. Even if one assumes the change from five to three was due to the Israelite civil war against Benjamin – it doesn’t explain the drop from ten to five in the first place – and if the six hundred men remaining were from Bela, Becher and Jediel, apart from Bela the one consistent son, the firstborn in all four references, Becher is missing from the second and fourth references and Jediel is only mentioned once – unless he is Ashbel. Even Muppim seems to have turned into Shuppim. There may be a connection between Rosh and the clan Rossand also Ard-encaple with Benjamin’s tenth son, Ard. Ard means ‘wanderer, fugitive’ from the verb ‘arad, ‘to flee’ or ‘be free.’ Rosh means ‘head, chief’ or ‘top.’ [refer Chapter X Magog, Tubal & Meshech] Interestingly, the name Ross, means: ‘up-land peninsula’, ‘promontory head-land’, ‘cape’, ‘elder’ and may also be derived from the Gaelic word for ‘red.’
Speaking of red… we discussed earlier in this chapter the Red Hand of Ulster and its symbolism for the red hand of Zarah. The identification of this with the tribe of Judah’s second royal line – the first being Pharez – continues with a transfer from Northern Ireland into Scotland.
The Modern Descendants of Zara-Judah, W H Bennet and John D Keyser – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘… three of Ulster’s six counties (as well as the towns of Bangor and Dungannon) have the Red Hand as a part of their official emblems… since the division of Ireland in 1920 the official Arms of Northern Ireland show the Red Hand alone without the Scarlet Cord, but this in no way alters the fact that the ancient and traditional emblem of Ulster was – and still is – a Red Hand circled by a Scarlet Cord. The use of the Red Hand as [an]… emblem is not confined to just Ulster – or even to just Ireland. In Scotland it is found in the Arms of several of the old families and in those of at least fourteen of the Clan Chiefs: Davidson, MacBain, MacDonell, MacIntosh, MacKinnon, MacLean, MacLachlan, MacNeil, MacNaughten, MacPherson, MacGillivray, MacDonald of Sleat, Clanranald, and Shaw of Rothiemurchus… A color variant of this emblem appears in several more: The Earldom of Fife; Abernethy, Lord Saltoun; Dundas; Duff, Farquharson; Guthrie; Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell; Leslie; Lindsay; MacBain; MacIntosh; MacLachlan; Clanranald; Maitland, Earl of Lauderdale; Moncreiffe; MacDonald of Sleat; Shaw of Rothiemurchus; Spens of Lathallan; Stuart, Marquis of Bute; and Wemyss. It is also important to note that the Rampant Red Lion appears on the Royal Standard and on the shield in the Royal Arms.’
Though Scotland is the tribe of Benjamin, the prevalence of the Red Hand of Zarah is evidence of a royal line of Judah, threaded within the Benjamite nation. It should not be a surprise then, that outside of Judah-England, the strongest symbolism of Judah’s royal pedigree would be exhibited in the other ‘royal nation’, Benjamin-Scotland.
The Modern Descendants of Zara-Judah, W H Bennet and John D Keyser – capitals theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘… how is it that the Scots who later invaded what is now called Scotland in 501 A.D. also have among their emblems the Red Hand that has been associated with Ulster since around 1350 B.C.? … in the Register House in Edinburgh, Scotland there is an ancient document called the Declaration of Arbroath, which consists of an official letter sent to the Pope by the Parliament of Scotland in 1320 A.D. and signed by King Robert the Bruce and some thirty of the Scottish nobles, in which it is clearly stated that this branch of the Scots came… from Scythia after living for a long period of time in Spain. This document states that they moved… to the country now called Scotland “1200 years after the outgoing of the people of Israel”’
The Scottish Declaration of Independence was sent to Pope John XXII “by the Scottish Estates in Parliament assembled in the Abbey of Aberbrothock under the Presidency of King Robert the Bruce” declared:
“We know, Most Holy Father and Lord, and from the chronicles and books of the ancients gather, that among other illustrious nations, ours, to wit the nation of the Scots, has been distinguished by many honors; which passing from the greater Scythia through the Mediterranean Sea and Pillars of Hercules, and sojourning in Spain among the most savage tribes through a long course of time, could nowhere be subjugated by any people however barbarous; and coming thence one thousand two hundred years after the outgoing of the people of Israel, they, by many victories and infinite toil, acquired for themselves the possessions in the west which they now hold..”
‘… it could be argued that this “outgoing of the people of Israel” refers to the fall of Israel and the deportation of the Ten Tribes to Assyria, rather than the exodus of Israel from Egypt. If this refers to the Exodus – which occurred somewhere around the year 1487 B.C. – then this means that the Scots, if they came into what is now Scotland 1,200 years later, must have arrived there around the year 287 B.C. – whereas Scottish history shows that they did not arrive until approximately 500 A.D. If the deportation of Israel to Assyria is meant (which was completed in 718 B.C.) then this branch of the Scots arrived in Scotland in 483 A.D. (or a few more years later as indicated in the 1703 translation of the Declaration of Arbroath), which brings us very close to the year 501 A.D. which Scottish history gives as the date the Scots did indeed arrive.
… we should note that the Red Hand, as it appears in Scottish heraldry, is NOT encircled by a Scarlet Cord as was the ancient Ulster emblem. However, despite this slight difference, it is obvious that the Red hand (sometimes pink) as it appears in Scottish heraldry and the Red Hand of Ulster are the same emblem… it becomes evident that the Red Hand must have been an ANCESTRAL EMBLEM which both branches of the Scots brought with them from some ancient homeland. Of even GREATER IMPORTANCE is the fact that the Scots dated the arrival of a later branch in Scotland from an event in the history of Israel. This is something they would be very UNLIKELY to do unless they themselves were Israelites.
Further, they say they came from Scythia, which is the place to which the [Israelites]… migrated after their departure from Assyria. In view of the origin of the Red Hand emblem recorded in Genesis 38, and in the fact that a Red Hand thereby became one of the emblems of the descendants of Zara-Judah, we have to conclude that the people who brought the Red Hand to Ulster so long ago, and the Scots who later brought it to Scotland… had a COMMON ORIGIN in the Zara branch of the… Tribe of Judah. Finally, in consideration of the heraldic significance of the Red Hand, we should note that, as descendants of Zara-Judah, the first settlers in Ulster were also entitled to use the Rampant Red Lion. In the official Arms of Northern Ireland we indeed see that it holds an important place therein. Another point of interest in these Arms is that the Red Hand has as its background a six-pointed star which is reminiscent of the form of the hexagram or Shield of David [rather the Star of Solomon – refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega and Chapter XXIX Esau] – whose significance is another story.’
We will return to the points raised in these last two sentences [refer Chapter XXXIV Dan]. Even if one wishes to contend who the Scots and by extension the Picts are, one is left in no doubt that Scotland with England, comprise two of the thirteen tribes of Israel, for Joesph split into two tribes: Ephraim with West Manasseh is one and East Manasseh, otherwise known as Gilead or Machir is the other.
It is worth mentioning that the arrival of the Gaelic Scots of Dal Riata and the merging with the Picts and subsequently combining the two royal lines; Scot with Pict and the emergence of the new Kingdom of Alba, did not make the Picts as a people or nation disappear. It did not change the Pictish nation into a Scottish nation. The Picts were and are the predominant peoples of ancient Caledonia or Pictland; otherwise known as Pictavia.
The Milesian Scots contained both the residue of the tribe of Benjamin from Ulster and the fusion of the royal lines – of Zarah from the Royal Milesians and Pharez, from Zedekiah’s daughter – which took over the throne of Pictavia and the governorship of the Pictish people. What changed was the name, so that Scot and Scotland were now the identifiable names of the ‘northern Britains.’ The Irish name Scot from the Milesians had been transferred to the Benjamite-Picts; just as the name of the Anglii’s, became the name of the Judaic-Jutes.
The Royal Milesian Scots are credited with being the keepers of the Stone of destiny, mentioned in a quote earlier. The stone is claimed to be Jacob’s pillar stone when he dreamed of the stairway to the angelic realm and Heaven.
Lost Israelite Identity, The Israelite Origin of Celtic Races, 1996 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The Milesians brought with them to Ireland a sacred stone on which their kings were coronated. This manner of coronation over a stone is believed to have been an Israelite custom hinted at in the Bible. Later this same stone of the Milesians was carried over to Scotland and there it was known as the Stone of Scone. The Stone was afterwards taken from Scotland and placed under the Coronation Chair of the monarchs of Britain where it remained until recently. At present the Stone is in Scotland. Legend states that the stone brought over to Ireland by the Milesians was that on which Jacob slept:
Genesis chapter 28: 18 Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it. 19 And he called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of that city had been Luz previously. 20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, 21 so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. 22 And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”
‘The Stone of Scone may (and yet may not) be an ordinary piece of rock that was hewn out of a quarry in Scotland, as some claim it was. Even so, the definite origins of The Stone of Scone are unknown. It was considered in tradition to be the stone upon which Jacob slept and that on which he received the promise concerning the future of his descendants. The Stone would have significance for the descendants of Jacob and not for other peoples. A poem attributed to Sir Walter Scott concerning the Stone of Scone is said to actually be a free rendition of an ancient Gaelic couplet. The poem goes:
“Unless the fates are faithless grown, And Prophets voice be vain, Where’er is found this sacred stone, The wanderer’s (Scothic) race shall reign.”
‘Sir Walter Scott understood the word “Scott” to mean “wanderer” and this is one of its possible meanings. The word Hebrew (“Ivri”, “ibri”) comes from the word “aver” (related to the English “over”) and one of its connotations could also imply “wanderer”. The Scotts came from Scythia to Ireland and Scotland and from Ireland there was a later additional movement into Scotland. According to Hollingshed’s Chronicles:
“When our king (Edward I) went forth to see the mountains [of Scotland], and understanding that all was at peace and quiet, he turned to the Abbey of Scone which was of chanons regular, where he took the stone, called the Regal of Scotland, upon which the kings of that nation were wont to sit at the time of their coronation for a throne, and sent it to the Abbey of Westminster. The Scots claim that this was the stone whereon Jacob slept when he fled to Mesopotamia”.
‘The British believed that their rulers were coronated (i.e. received the right to rule) on the stone of Jacob: They therefore, it is inferred, thought that the right of their rulers to Empire came from the Promise to Jacob. John Toland (1670-1772) reported:
“The Fatal Stone (Liag Fail) so called, was the stone on which the supreme kings of Ireland used to be inaugurated, in the time of heathenism on the hill of Tara; it was superstitiously sent to confirm the Irish colony in the north of Great Britain, where it was continued as the coronation seat of the Scottish kings ever since Christianity; till in the year 1300 Edward I, of England brought it from Scone, placing it under the coronation chair at Westminster…”
Queen Elizabeth II Royal Coat of Arms of The United Kingdom – ‘God and My Right’ (to rule)
A large clue and indicator of identity is language, as stated in the Introduction. Celtic languages were divided into two main groups – Continental Celtic and Insular Celtic. The Continental Celtic languages spoken on the continent fell into two main languages – Gaullish and Celto-Iberian. The Gaulish language covered the ancient Celtic people living in Gaul, that is all of France, Belgium, the Low Countries, parts of Switzerland and Austria, the Alps and the northern parts of Italy. As there were many different Gaulish tribes, it is assumed the Gauls may have had numerous dialects.
Celto-Iberian was spoken on the Iberian Peninsula, in mostly north and central Spain; principally between the Ebero and Tagus rivers. Both Iberia-Spain and Gaul-France were locations that the sons of Jacob dwelt before migrating to Erin-Ireland. The Israelites as mentioned have always been known as Hebrews, after their forebear descended from Arphaxad, Eber. Thus the words Iber-ia, Hiber-nia and Hebri-des in Ireland and Scotland are clues to the whereabouts of the Hebrews.
Another major location of the Celts, as mentioned, were those who dwelt in central Asia Minor from the mid-second century BCE – the Galatians. The region was called Galatia – a Roman protectorate which the Apostle Paul visited and wrote letters to the Galatian believers. The Celtic Galatians originated from the ancient Cimmerians. They travelled overland from the Middle East via the Danube valley. They invaded Spain and merged with the Hebrew elements already there. Circa 700 to 500 BCE Ireland was settled by a people who employed concentrated hill forts which usage is often associated with Celtic, Halstatt culture. They produced many varied bronze and gold products and had connections as far afield as Scandinavia, the Greek Isles and the Syrian coast. From 200 BCE to 300 CE a new group introduced into Ireland ring forts similar to those known in northern Portugal and Spanish Galicia.
All Continental Celtic languages are extinct, with next to nothing known about them. Insular Celtic is well documented. Insular Celtic refers to the languages spoken in the British Isles and Brittany in north-western France. Insular Celtic was divided into two broad groups, in which modern Celtic languages have derived: Brythonic [British] and Goidelic [Irish/Scottish]. Brythonic is also called P-Celtic and includes Welsh, Cornish and Breton in France.
After the Romans left and with the Saxons settling in Britain, the Celtic Britons were pressed into the regions where they are still living today. The Cornish people, replete with their own language are in Cornwall, south-west England. Welsh had been spoken throughout England and southern Alba-Caledonia. Some of the Welsh speaking Britons fled across the channel to the Armorican Peninsula, now known as Brittany. However, Breton became unintelligible to Welsh.
The Goidelic languages are referred to as Q-Celtic languages, comprising of Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic and Manx in the Isle of Man. It is not certain if Ireland had ever spoken P-Celtic languages before the arrival of the Gaelic Celts. As Simeon, the Welsh are linked to Ireland anciently, it well may be possible.
The ruling lineage of the Scotti in Ireland was Zarah-Pharez from Judah; therefore, Ireland was called Scotia. When the Milesian Scots or Gaels – comprising Zarah-Pharez and Benjamin – invaded and colonised Argyll in Caledonia-Pictavia, they established the Dal Riada kingdom.
The Scots warred and then intermingled with the Picts, and that is the reason why Scotland speaks a Gaelic language, sharing strong cultural, historical ethnic, mythological and folkloric ties to Ireland. People from Ireland settled on the Isle of Man, in about the fifth century, displacing the P-Celtic language spoken there. Irish invaders also established the Dyfed kingdom in southwestern Wales. Dyfed is not far removed from Dafydd, which is Welsh for David and David is the patron saint of Wales. These Irish settlers may have been a royal line similar to the royal Milesian Scots.
Archaeology reveals that there were people living in both Ireland and Britain before the arrival of the P and Q Celtic people. These pre-Celtic people were involved in the megalithic cultures; erecting large standing stones and megalithic tombs. Examples are Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England and the Giants causeway between Ulster and Alba. The presence of giants has been touched upon and they were a common theme in Britain and Ireland to contend with, as they had been in Canaan for the sons of Jacob.
There are a number of routes that early peoples may have sailed in entering the British Isles, thus identifying where certain peoples came ashore is difficult. Many just suddenly turn up in records. Migrating people could have travelled to Ireland’s eastern shore, directly from Britain via the Continent. Simeon may have entered from this direction. It is documented that the Gaels migrated into Ireland from the south having come from Spain. Whereas the Vikings landed upon the northern shores of Ireland and Scotland from Norway via the Hebrides islands and the Orkney Islands.
It is not clear to historians where the Picts originated, whether they arrived from Scandinavia or Ireland; as the Picts left no records and so it is not known what the Picts even called themselves. The Romans called them Picti or ‘painted ones.’ The Picts were renowned for painting themselves blue and tattooing much of their bodies. A frightening sight in Battle. Some Scottish rugby union supporters paint their faces blue on match days. The tartan kilts are a cloth of colours and one wonders if these are a throwback to their brother Joseph’s coat of many colours that Jacob had given him. The Picts are descendants of the Celtic Caledonii tribe. In the Q-Celtic language of Irish Gaelic, the Picts were called Cruthini, Cruithni, Cruithini, Cruthin or Cruthni. While in P-Celtic, the Picts were called Preteni or Pretani. We will endeavour to answer this question of their route, by tracking the Cruithne.
The Ulster Kingdoms: 3 – Dalriada (Causeway Coast and Glens Districts), Dr Ian Adamson OBE:
‘The Epidian Cruthin or Epidii (Greek Επίδιοι) were an ancient British people, known from a mention of them by Ptolemy the geographer c. 150. The name Epidii includes the Gallo-Brittonic root epos, meaning horse (Compare with Old Gaelic ech). It may, perhaps, be related to the Horse-goddess Epona. They inhabited the modern-day regions of Argyll and Kintyre, as well as the islands of Islay and Jura…’
There is a link between the Picts, the Cruthin, the Epidii horse and the prominent Scottish heraldic symbol, the Unicorn.
Ireland was called Ierna by the second century geographer Ptolemy and Hiberia by the Romans. An early people of Ierna were known as the Iverni, which has been identified with the Erainn and Erin. The Belgae, a tribe that lived in Gaul, between the Seine and Marne, established a southern kingdom in Britain, before Caesar’s campaign in Gaul. They then migrated to Ireland with one scholar arguing that the Erainn could identify with the Belgae. This view has been discredited by most other scholars, though this writer would not be so quick to dismiss. Biblical scholar Yair Davidy proposes a link between Benjamin, Belgium, the Belgae and Benjamin’s eldest son, Bela; saying that in ancient Hebrew it was pronounced ‘Belagh.’ We will discover that the Bela-Belgae link is not necessarily associated with Benjamin directly or solely, but also with the tribe of Reuben.
Another Irish people were the Lagin who followed the Erainn, settling mostly in Leinster and in Connacht and according to their own legends, they had migrated from Armorica – Brittany. The Gaels or Goidels are cited as the last invaders, known as the Feni and are equated with the Milesians in the Lebor Gabala – Book of Invasions. The Feni or Gaels migrated to Ireland directly from Iberia. Irish and Scottish Celtic legends state that their ancestors, the Hiberi, came from the Middle East via Gallaecia in Spain. La Tour d’Auvergne, 1801 quotes Dionysus who spoke of Bretons in ancient times living near the Pillars of Hercules – the Straits of Gibraltar – close to Gades [derived from the tribe of Gad] and close to Tartessos [etymologically derived from the son of Javan – refer Chapter IX Tarshish]. Dionysus states the Gauls had once occupied a province of Lusitania [Portugal] which was called Britonia. Ephoros of Thyme, circa 350 BCE said the Hebraic Celts had ruled Gades, eventually leaving Spain moving to Gaul, Britain and Ireland.
Lost Israelite Identity, The Israelite Origin of Celtic Races, 1996 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Thomas F. O’Rahilly (“Early Irish History And Mythology”, Dublin, 1971, Eire) compared traditional accounts of peoples who invaded Ireland with the results of research in his own time and came to the conclusion that the invaders of Ireland could be divided into four:
The Cruthin and Picts: The Cruthin were mainly in [Northern] Ireland but clans believing they were descended from them were also to be found in Connaught (the West) and Leinster (southeast). They struggled with the Ulaid for control of Ulster until both were subdued by the People of Neal. The Picts of Northern Scotland were also known as Cruthen.Scottish tradition said that the Picts came from Scythia, went to [Northern] Ireland, and from there moved to Scotland…
The Erain or Builg referred to as the Fer Bolg. They equal the Belgae of the Continent and Britain. Included with them were the Osraige, Iar and Ulaid.
The Laginian invaders also known as Gabair. They included the Lagin, Domain, and Galioin. They came from Armorica (Brittany) in Gaul and conquered much of Leinster (southeast) and Connacht (west). There may be a link between the Domnain and the Dana [tribe of Dan].
The Goidels [or Gaels].These are identical with the Hiberi, Scotti, and Milesians [the Milesian Scots were a combination of Benjamin and the Zarah-Pharez royal line]… Amongst the Milesians were The Ue Ne’ll (Irish for descendants of Niall; Ue pronounced ‘Ee’ ). Niel was a High King of Ireland who died about 405. The Ue Ne’ll ruled* over all Ireland and parts of Scotland. Their descendants are concentrated in the Northwest of Ireland though also numerous throughout Ulster. They are marked by a unique Y haplogroup DNA marker of their own a sub-section of R1b.’
The terms Gaels and Milesians – like Saxon, which includes more than one tribe – are terms which includes the Goidels, Hiberi and the Scotti. The Goidel Gaels or Milesians are a separate and distinct tribe of Israel, as opposed to the Royal Milesians or the later Milesian Scots. We will discuss the Goidels or Hibernians in the next chapter. Similarly, the Belgae, Fir Blog are also a separate tribe, one that had an historic association with the Gaels; previously in the distant past in Canaan and still does today in modern Ireland. The Laginians are more mysterious and a link with the tribe of Dan is worth pursuing.
The Cruithne were living first in Ireland, before Alba. The direction of the Benjamites migration path appears to mirror most other tribes in sailing from the continent directly to Ireland, before moving to Britain. With the Belgae, Fir Bolgs, the Tuatha de Dannan and the Milesian Gaels; it became a crowded Isle for all these peoples and hence why the Cruithne after dwelling in Ulster, eventually completed their migration from Ireland to join their Pictish brethren in Caledonia-Alba, in the form of the Milesian Scots.
The Picts are thought to have first arrived in Britain circa 1100 BCE. We will return to the Cruithne Picts and their arrival in Britain in the following chapter. It was the arrival of the Romans much later, that roused the Caledonian tribes of Alba to insurrection. The savageness of their hostility resulted in the Romans erecting Hadrian’s Wall. The eventual withdrawal of the Romans, led to the Picts raiding northern and middle England. Hence the British King Vortigern inviting the Jutes to counter these Pictish excursions in 425 CE.
The Angles of Bernicia over ran British kingdoms including Deira, which combined with Bernicia was called Northumbria. The Picts were a tributary to Northumbria until the reign of Brideimac or Bridei III son of Beli I [Bela?] from 672 to 693 CE. The Angles under their king Ecgfrith, suffered a severe defeat at the battle of Dun Nectain in 685, which stopped the Angles northward expansion. The Picts resolutely sent the Angles back to southern Britain. The first recorded Pictish king was Vipoig who reigned from 311 to 341 CE.
By the mid-ninth century the Danish Vikings had destroyed the kingdoms of Dal Riata and Northumbria and greatly diminished the power of the Kingdoms of Strathclyde; founding the Kingdom of York. During a major battle in 839 CE, the Vikings killed the King of Fortriu, Eogan man Oengusa. After this, Cinaed mac Alpin – Kenneth I MacAlpin – a Milesian Scot from Zarah-Judah, with a Pictish mother from Benjamin, became king of the Picts from 848 to 858 CE. He united the Picts and the Scots and together these tribes formed the new Kingdom of Scotland. They then defeated the Danish Vikings. In 1018 at the Battle of Carham, the Scots defeated Northumbria with their southernmost borders established under the reign of Duncan I from 1034 to 1040 CE. Internal turmoil and civil wars led to Duncan’s assassination by Macbeth – of Shakespeare fame – steward of Ross and Moray, ruling from 1040 to 1057 CE.
A series of border conflicts between 1138 and 1237 ensued between the Scots and the ‘English’ for they incorporated a number of Israelite tribes by this stage. Represented by the Jutes, Angles, Frisians and Danes – Danish Vikings. The Scots were defeated and Northumbria was incorporated into English territory. Fifty years of peace was followed by the death of Alexander III in 1286. With the infant Margaret as the closest relative and thirteen other distant relatives all laying claim to the throne, a melee broke out, plunging the nation into chaos. in 1292, Edward I of England interceded, placing John de Baliol on the throne. Unrest resulted from the intervention and choice with the Battle of Dunbar in 1296. The Scots were defeated by the English and Baliol deposed. Scotland was placed under English military occupation.
In 1297, Scottish Nobleman and rebel freedom fighter William Wallace, recruited a Scottish army, defeating the English at the Battle of Stirling. The english struck back in 1298, winning the Battle of Falkirk. Guerrilla warfare ensued, with Wallace declared a treasonous outlaw in 1304. In 1305, Wallace was betrayed and handed over to the English who hung, drew and quartered him in London. The most well known king of Scotland between Kenneth I and James VI, is Robert the Bruce from 1306 to 1329, a descendant of the Norman conquest and famous for taking up the mantle of Scottish resistance and his part in halting England’s designs in subduing the Scottish kingdom to their rule. It was a tussle between Judah and Benjamin, for the Benjamin’s right to be a distinct nation, a separate kingdom. The battle of Bannockburn and the defeat of Edward II’s army, the pivotal highlight of Robert’s reign in 1314. Conflict between the two kingdoms lasted until 1328, when the Treaty of Northampton eventually recognised Scottish independence.
The Picts spoke Insular Celtic languages; with the Pict languages being related to the southern Brythonic languages. Place names prove the existence of historic Pictish settlements in Scotland. The Brythonic prefixes, Aber – Llan – Pit – in modern place names indicate regions inhabited by Picts from the past: Aberdeen, Lhanbryde and Pitmedden.
Medieval Welsh traditions credited the founding of Gwynedd to the Picts. Wales has traced their principal royal families, the Houses of Aber-ffraw and Din-efur to Cunedda Wiedig to the Pict language and the Picts are said to have invaded North Wales from Lothian.
During the fifth century, Pictish came under increasing pressure and influence from the Gaelic language of Dal Riata until its eventual replacement. Pictish influenced the development of modern Scottish Gaelic by influencing the syntax of Scottish Gaelic and therefore, bears greater similarity to the Brythonic language than does Irish Gaelic. Toponymist William Watson, conducted research of Scottish place names and concluded that the Pictish language was a northern extension of British and that Gaelic was later introduced from Ireland. Today, Scottish Gaelic, unlike Irish, maintains a substantial closeness to Brythonic loan words and uses a verbal system modeled on the same pattern as Welsh.
What this highlights is that the Picts and Welsh were the earlier and original inhabitants of Ireland and Britain and that the Milesian Gaels, though fellow Israelites, were not of the tribes of Simeon or Benjamin, but of Zarah-Judah and Gad, arriving considerably later; speaking an Irish Gaelic that was demonstrably different from the Brythonic related Pictish and Welsh tongues.
The history of the modern Scot is one of invention and influence far above the size of its population. They are in fact, the inventors of modern capitalism and democracy. Victorian historian, John Anthony Froude:
“No people so few in number have scored so deep a mark in the world’s history as the Scots have done.”
A landmark work by Arthur Herman is: How the Scots invented the Modern World. The True Story of how Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created our Modern World and Everything in it:
“… This is the story of how the Scots created the basic idea of modernity. It will show how that idea transformed their own culture and society in the eighteenth century, and how they carried it with them wherever they went. Obviously, the Scots did not do everything by themselves: other nations – Germans, French, English, Italians, Russians, and many others – have their place in the making of the modern world. But it is the Scots more than anyone else who have created the lens through which we see the final product.
When we gaze out on a contemporary world shaped by technology, capitalism, and modern democracy, and struggle to find our place as individuals in it, we are in effect viewing the world as the Scots did… The story of Scotland in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is one of hard-earned triumph and heart-rending tragedy, spilled blood and ruined lives, as well as of great achievement.”
Another work detailing the Scots creative genius, their massive influence on the world stage and capacity for effective administration is When Scotland Ruled the World by Stewart Lamont. The last chapter includes observations on the Scottish psyche – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Scots are fighters. Their belligerence may or may not take a violent or military form. It might simply be the wish to fight for rights or a principle. Scots are proud of being fighters, but they are also sentimental. Scots have a reputation for being quarrelsome over religion.” The motto ‘Who dares meddle with me?’ is more than an echo… in the motto ‘Who Dares, Wins’ adopted by the crack troops of the Special Air Service (SAS), founded by a Scot, David Stirling. Their fighting instincts are defensive rather than provocative, and he is at his best when fighting to defend a principle than to enlarge his power or dominion. We do not like money to be wasted, nor do we admire those who have it in abundance.’
To list every Scottish invention would be too long to include them all. Some interesting and landmark accomplishments include:
Colour Photography Television Breach-loading rifle
Hypodermic Syringe
Lawnmower
Steam Engine
Oil Refinery
Refrigerator
Electric Clock Penicillin
Insulin Discovery Chloroform Anaesthetic
Radiation Therapy
Genetic Cloning
Finger Printing Grand piano First British War Memorial
SAS
Radar Logarithms and decimal point
Encyclopaedia Britannica Modern Capitalism
Bank of England First Savings Bank
Cash Machine Co-op principle of distributing dividends
Two important points concerning the genetic inheritance and homogeneity of the British people need to be understood. One may be difficult to agree with and for most, one will be near impossible to assimilate. Firstly, though the twelve tribes, plus the half tribe of East Manasseh were taken into captivity, deported and transplanted, migrated different routes in tribal packs or separately as well as journeying of their own accord prior to captivity, they did not become ‘watered down’ enough to lose their family relatedness and commonality. In other words, their Haplogroup sequencing reveals that all the Celts, Saxons and Vikings that entered Britain in their numerous waves and collectively became known as Britons, are all the same stock of people. Not a mongrel nation as some proclaim. They are the thirteen tribes who united as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and then later as Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This homogeneity was noted anciently.
March of the Titans, Arthur Kemp, 1999 & 2016, pages 114-115 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The Roman historian Tacitus, writing… the first century… on the racial nature of the Germans [Saxons]: ‘I concur in opinion with those who deem the Germans never [rather less than other nations] to have intermarried with other nations but to be a pure and unmixed race,stamped with a distinct character. Hence a family likeness pervades the whole, though their numbers are great. Their eyes are stern and blue, their hair ruddy, and their bodies large.’
Scientists in an Oxford University study learned that Britain can be divided into seventeen distinct genetic clans. There was a surprise in that the Cornish for instance are much more genetically similar to other English groups than they are to the Welsh. People whose grandparents had all been born near each other and were white European in origin had been examined. A further surprise for the scientists was remarkably, many of these modern day clans found in the same parts of the country as the tribes and kingdoms that were established from the sixth century, confirmed that little had changed on the genetic landscape for almost fifteen hundred years.
Which leads to the second matter. As there are five nations located in the islands of Britain and Ireland, how does that mathematically square with a total of thirteen tribes. Where are the other eight? These other tribes migrated to the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – including Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia.
The opposite is true of what all identity experts, teachers and adherents have believed. The peoples of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the British descended people of South Africa are not the same people as the English in England; or the Scots of Scotland, the Irish of Ireland and the Welsh of Wales. They are all individual tribes and peoples in their own right with their own unique nations. This has not been understood before and is pivotal in locating the sons of Jacob and identifying them correctly. Up until now, the Israelite tribes not linked to Joseph have either been labelled as living in northwestern Europe or conversely, that they are all living in the United States of America.
Within those nations broadly termed Celtic, scientists have viewed them as one race with two deviations of language. In fact, this study confirmed that the Celts share language, history and culture but not the exact DNA.
‘The Celtic Myth exposed: Despite their claims to a cultural kinship, the Celtic peoples do not form a single group… Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall have a very different genetic make-up. The Cornish have DNA that is much more similar to that of other English groups than to the Welsh or the Scots. Oxford University geneticist Professor Peter Donnelly said: “One might have expected those groups to be quite similar genetically because they were Celtic.
But while [we] see distinct groups in those regions they are amongst the most different.” Archaeologist Professor Mark Robinson said: “I had assumed that there was going to be this uniform Celtic fringe extending from Cornwall through to Wales into Scotland.And this has very definitely not been the case”.’
As we have learned that the nations of northwestern Europe are in fact descended from Abraham and Keturauh [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham] and though we are now going to identify all the other tribes in subsequent chapters, it leaves one open ended question. Studies, apart from the United States in part, have not been conducted for Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and the British of South Africa – that I am aware – because they are possibly not seen as different peoples. They are understandably, though incorrectly perceived as being either English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh.
Thus, studies on the peoples of the Celtic, Saxon, Viking nations of the New World will be the very last studies conducted as no priority is attached to them. The situation is the same as we encountered for the Philistines [refer Chapter XV Casluh & Caphtor].
The Latino-Hispanics of Spanish Central and South America are not the same people as the Latins of Spain. The Brazilians [refer Chapter XXIII Aram] are closely related to the Portuguese, Spanish and southern Italians, though they are not the same people as in Portugal.
Of course we are still two tribes short for those performing mental arithmetic. In fact, we are actually three tribes short. There are five nations in Britain and Ireland and five nations in the New World; yet there are fourteen tribes to account for. Jacob had twelve sons, so we are looking for twelve nations that all speak English and have or have had given allegiance to the Monarchy of England.
Joseph was divided into two, Manasseh and Ephraim. Now thirteen. Manasseh then split into two, the half tribes of East and West Manasseh. The East remained separate and the West joined with Ephraim to form one entity, Joseph. Fourteen back to thirteen.
Simeon and Levi were punished for their cruelty and prophesied they would be scattered within Israel. Thirteen down to eleven. Later, when land was being apportioned in the promised land, Judah said to Simeon that his allotment was generous and that Simeon could share. Eleven up to twelve. A careful reading of bible verses reveals that the two full brothers, Issachar and Zebulon would share an inheritance. Twelve nations becomes eleven. Finally, we arrive at the enigmatic tribe of Dan. His inheritance is shrouded in mystery. For now, eleven becomes ten. Thus, ten ‘nations’ must exist in the world, who speak a common tongue, share a similar ancestral heritage and have an existing or past relationship with the throne and rule of England.
Those ten nations are England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These ten nations are comprised of twelve identifiable tribes – for two nations contain two tribes each – plus two scattered tribes within them, totalling fourteen tribes or tribal divisions. It is worth stating that though the peoples of Britain are different one from another as brothers and half brothers would be expected to be; they are more similar to each other compared to their kin on the continent.
The people of Orkney are the most distinct, a result of six hundred years of Norwegian rule. Y-DNA Haplogroup N3 is essentially nonexistent in the British Isles compared to Scandinavia and other Nordic nations in the Artic circle; as the British share considerably more genetic commonalities with France, Belgium and the Netherlands than they do with Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
Y-DNA Haplogroup I1 is the most common type of Haplogroup I in northern Europe and is found in highest levels in Scandinavia and Finland, where it can represent over 35% of the Y chromosomes. I1 is Associated with Norse ethnicity and is found in all the regions invaded by ancient Germanic tribes as well as the Vikings. After Scandinavia, the highest frequencies of I1 are observed in nations such as Germany, Austria, the Low Countries, England and the Scottish Lowlands; which all have between ten and twenty percent of I1 lineages. In other words, the nations that descend from the Patriarch Abraham. Recall that I1 – and I2a2 – is a northern European identifying Haplogroup as opposed to I2a1, which is associated with southern Europe.
‘Fair hair was another physical trait associated with the Indo-Europeans. In contrast, the genes for blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I. The genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a, but those for red hair have not been found in Europe before the Bronze Age, and appear to have been spread primarily by R1b people.’
Scots are ol’ blue eyes, says study, The Herald, David Leask, 2014 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘A major new study of the DNA of the British Isles has found the highest level of the gene that causes the light iris colour in Edinburgh, the Lothians and Borders. Fifty-seven percent in the south-east of Scotland have the OCA2 gene, compared with 48 percent in the rest of the country – a figure that also happens to be the average for the UK and Republic of Ireland. The blue-eye gene was just 35 per cent in south-west England, 41 per cent in east England and 45 per cent in Wales… places where blue eyes are more common than not are in a swathe of territory running across northern Germany [Ishmael], northern Poland [Joktan], all three Baltic states [Joktan], Finland [Arphaxad], central Sweden [Abraham & Keturah] and much of northern Russia [Asshur].” Overall across Britain, the eye colour breakdown is 48 percent blue, 30 percent green and 22 percent brown.’
A study conducted by Bryan Sykes broke mtDNA mitochondrial results into twelve haplogroups for various regions of the isles: H, I, J, T, V, W, X and U. Within U: U2, U3, U4 and U5. Sykes discovered that the maternal Haplogroup pattern was similar throughout England but there was a distinct trend from east and north to west and south. Minor Haplogroups, were primarily found in the east of England.
Sykes found Haplogroup H to be dominant in Ireland and Wales. In fact, studies of ancient DNA have corroborated ‘that ancient Britons and Anglo-Saxon settlers carried a variety of mtDNA haplogroups, though type H was common in both.’Also highlighted were a few differences between north, mid and south Wales. There was a clear closer link between north and mid Wales than either had with the south. If the people of South Wales are Simeon, it poses the question of who are the people to the north. The same as Judah and the English, or someone else altogether?
Sykes designated five main Y-DNA Haplogroups for various regions of Britain and Ireland: R1b, R1a, I, E1b1b and J. According to Bryan Sykes: “… although the Romans ruled from AD 43 until 410, they left a tiny genetic footprint.” Two reasons for this. First any intermarriage would have been minimal and a very long time ago. Secondly, as the Romans were descended from Ishmael – modern Germany – the family similarity would not reveal any surprises in DNA and Haplogroup sequencing. The Haplogroups R1b and I1 and R1a in part, are indicative of the northwestern, Abrahamic peoples. E1b1b and J are evidences of admixture with Southern Europeans and possibly Arabic peoples in the past.
Haplogroup R1b is dominant throughout Western Europe. One common R1b subclade in Britain is R1b-U106 [S21], which reaches its highest frequencies in the North Sea areas such as southern and eastern England, the Netherlands and Denmark. Due to its distribution, this subclade is often associated with the Saxon migrations. Ancient DNA has shown that it was also unsurprisingly, present in Roman Britain. For the Romans as Ishmaell, also carried the U106 subclade as the Germans do today [refer Chapter XXVIII Ishmael].
In contrast, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and north western England are dominated by R1b-L21, which is also located in north western France, the north coast of Spain and western Norway – from the slave trade. This lineage is often associated with the historic Celts, as the Iberian and Gaulish regions where it is predominant have had a significant Celtic language presence into the modern period, as well as relating to a Celtic cultural identity. R1b-L21 was also present among Celtic Britons in eastern England prior to the Saxon and Viking invasions, as well as Roman soldiers stationed in ancient York.
Of the nine royal dynasties since the first king of all Britain, Athelstan from 924 to 939 CE, who defeated the Danes, Vikings, Scots and Britons at the bloody battle of Brunanburh, only two dynasties Y-DNA Haplogroup is known for certain. Studies are required for the Houses of Knytlinga, with Patriarch Harthacnut I King of Denmark from 880 to 936; Wessex, with Patriarch Egbert from 770 to 839; Norman, with William I and Patriarch Robert I (Rollo father of William) Duke of Normandy from 846 to 931; Plantagenet, with Edward I and Patriarch Geoffrey Ferole II of Gastinois from 1000 to 1046; Tudor, with Elizabeth I and Patriarch Ednyfed Fychan from 1170 to 1246; and Hannover, with Victoria and Patriarch George of Brunswick from 1582 to 1641.
Whereas, Mountbatten, with Patriarch John II of Oldenburg from 1272 to 1301 is listed as R1b, and Windsor, with Elizabeth II and Patriarch Dietrich I of Wettin from 916 to 976, as specifically the Germanic R1b-U106-Z305 and the Stuarts, with James I and Patriarch Alan FitzFlaad from 1070 to 1114, as the Celtic R1b-L21-L745.
Haplogroup I is a grouping of several quite distantly related lineages. Within Britain, the most common subclade as mentioned is I1, which also occurs frequently in northwestern continental Europe and southern Scandinavia. It has been associated with the settlement of the Saxons and Vikings, as an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ male from northern England who died between the seventh and tenth centuries was determined to have belonged to Haplogroup I1. It is more likely that I1 is an original Haplogroup.
Haplogroup R1a, a cousin of R1b, is most common in Eastern Europe [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad]. Approximately nine percent of Scottish men belong to the Norwegian R1a subclade, which peaks at over 30% in Shetland and Orkney. There is no conclusive evidence that all came via the Vikings. It is more likely that it is an original Haplogroup with additional Viking admixture.
Whereas Haplogroups E1b1b and J are found throughout Southern Europe and North Africa. Both are rare in Northern Europe. E1b1b for instance – found in high levels amongst many Arabs and trace levels in Sub-Saharan Africans – is found in 1.5% of Scots, 2% of English, 3.5% of Dutch, 5% of Flemish and 5.5% of Germans. In contrast, It reaches its peak in Europe in Kosovo at 47.5% and in Greece at 30%.
Scottish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries, Kevin Alan Brook – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Contrary to amateurish speculations and misinterpretations of genetic data, Scots do not descend from the Israelites in any amount.’
A dogmatic statement to those who are perceived as academically stretched and intellectually challenged… to even think the Scots could be a tribe of Israel. The laugh-ability of such a conjecture.
The full irony being that they actually are, a tribe of Israel, with evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the tribe of Benjamin. Unless of course, one is basing data on the Sephardic and Ashkenzai Jewish Haplogroups as discussed in the previous section [refer Chapter XXIX Esau].
‘R1b-M269, which originated in western Europe, is an important Y-DNA haplogroup found among Scottish men who participate in Family Tree DNA’s “Scottish Y-DNA Project”. Other members of that project who have unbroken Scottish patrilineal ancestry carry other Y-DNA haplogroups, including E-M2, E1b1b1-M35, E1b1b1a1b-V13, G-M201, I-M170, I1d-L22, I1d-P109, I1-M253, I2a-L160, I2a-M423, I2a-P37.2, and J2-M172, among others.
Members of Family Tree DNA’s “Scottish mtDNA Project” whose matrilines are Scottish carry a wide variety of mtDNA haplogroups, including H (38.38%), I, J (8.64%), K, T (7.63%), U4, U5, V (4.26%), W, X…
About 13 percent of Scots have red hair, and 40 percent of Scots carry at least one red hair mutation. Their red hair is determined by allele settings on their melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene in combination with 8 additional genes that determine whether the MC1R gene is turned on…
… Bryan Sykes. “mtDNA and the Islands of the North Atlantic: Estimating the Proportions of Norse and Gaelic Ancestry.” American Journal of Human Genetics 68:3 (March 2001): pages 723-737. First published online on February 1, 2001.’
“This study of mitochondrial DNA compares mainland Scots with Scottish islanders (including Western Islands and the Isle of Skye, plus Orcadians from the Orkney Islands), Icelanders, Norwegians, and many other European ethnicities. Figure 5 shows Scots [Benjamin] clustering close to the English [Judah] and the Welsh [Simeon].”
The Scots, English and Welsh all share the same father Jacob, and the last two, also share the same mother, Leah.
You might be a Pict If… 2013 – emphasis & bold mine :
‘… a new SNP, S530… It’s also called SNP L1335… [a Y-DNA R1b-L21 subclade] has been discovered and it is a Pict marker… [the] marker is evidence that the Picts are living among us today and can be identified genetically… 10% of the 1000 Scottish men tested carry this marker, while it is found in only [0.8%] of English men and about 3% of the men in Northern Ireland… [but it is only seen once in more than two hundred men from the Republic of Ireland]… this marker is 10 times more prevalent in men with Scottish grandfathers than men with English grandfathers… What was surprising… was the really huge difference between Scotland and England.’
Yes, because Benjamin and Judah share the same father, Jacob; though their mothers are Rachel and Leah respectively and so they are half brothers, with far more lee way for genetic differences. Coupled with this was the six hundredBenjamite men bottleneck and their subsequent taking of wives initially from the half tribe of East Manasseh and then regularly from Ephraim until their numbers swelled.
The top ten mtDNA Haplogroups for England and Scotland and a comparison with near family. The Belgium Flemish, the Netherlands, Germany and France. That is, Sheba, Midian, Ishmael, Moab and Ammon. As Belgium and its Flemish north have a near identical Haplogroup sequence, I have used them interchangeably.
England: H [44.7%] – J [11.5%] – U5 [9.1%] – K [7.8%] – T2 [6.2%] –
H5 [4.1%] – I [4%] – HV0+V [3.2%] – U [2.7]
Scotland: H [44%] – J [12.7%] – U5 [8.1%] – K [6.9%] – T2 [5.9%] –
H5 [3.1%] – HV0+V [3%] U4 [2.8%] – X [2.5%]
Belgium: H [46.9%] – K [12.1%] – T2 [ 9.4%] – H5 [6%] – J [6%] –
U [5.4% ] – U5 [3.4%] – W [3.3%] – HV0+V [2.7%]
Netherlands: H [45%] – T2 [12%] – J [11%] – K [10%] – HV0+V [8%] –
U5 [7.5%] – U4 [6.5%] – I [2.5%] – W [2.5%]
Germany: H [45%] – J [9%] – U5 [8.8%] – T2 [7.8%] – K [6.6%] –
H5 [4.8%] – HV0+V [4%] – U4 [2.9%] – T1 [2.8%]
France: H [44.3%] – K [8.7%] – U5 [8.2%] – J [7.7%] – T2 [6.2%] –
HV0+V [5%] – H5 [3.1%] – U4 [2.5%] – I [2%]
England: H – J – U5 – K – T2 – H5 – I – HV0+V – U
Scotland: H – J – U5 – K – T2 – H5 – HV0+V- U4 – X
Germany: H – J – U5 – T2 – K – H5 – HV0+V – U4 – T1
France: H – K – U5 – J – T2 – HV0+V – H5 – U4 – I
Belgium: H – K – T2 – H5 – J – U – U5 – W – HV0 + V
Netherlands: H – T2 – J – K – HV0 + V – U5 – U4 – I – W
The comparison of the mtDNA Haplogroups shows that England and Scotland are more closely related as expected. It is Germany that mirrors their sequence most closely, then France, then Belgium and the Netherlands the least similar of the six close family members of Judah, Benjamin, Ishmael, Moab & Ammon, Sheba and Midian.
Recall that Abraham’s wife Sarah was his niece from his brother Haran, the grandfather of Moab and Ammon. The German similarity reveals that Hagar was not just Pharaohs’s daughter but descended from stock similar to Abraham and Sarah. The lesser similarity with Sheba and Midian indicates that Keturah was not as closely related and lends itself to the theory that she may have been descended from another line of Peleg or more likely via Arphaxad’s other sons, Anar or Ashcol.
H HV0+V J K T2 U4 U5 T1
Scotland 44 3 13 7 6 3 8 2
England 45 3 12 8 6 2 9 2
Germany 45 4 9 7 8 3 9 3
French 44 5 8 9 6 3 8 2
Netherlands 45 8 11 10 12 7 8 3
Sephardic 46 9 5 8
Benelux 47 3 6 12 9 3 3 2
Denmark 47 4 13 9 6 2 6 2
Norway 46 4 11 5 8 3 11 2
Sweden 46 5 8 6 4 3 12 3
The pairings show the gradual mtDNA distancing from England and Scotland by their related neighbours. England and Scotland are very similar, showing they have the same father and two mothers who are sisters. Their percentage variation minimal as expected. Percentage wise, France and Germany are not only similar with each other, but also with their cousins across the channel. The addition of family from Abraham and Keturah of Scandinavia, highlights their closeness with their brothers in the Benelux nations as well as with Ishmael, Benjamin and Judah. The Sephardic Jew as Esau is the other main family member and as expected does not seem out of place with their twin and uncles.
Colour code: Green – Nahor and Haran; Blue – Keturah and Ishmael; Yellow – Esau; Red – Jacob.
H J T2 K HV U5 HV0+V
Switzerland 48 12 9 5 0.5 7 5
Benelux 47 6 9 12 0.7 3 3
Denmark 47 13 6 9 6 4
Norway 46 11 8 5 0.2 11 4
Sweden 46 8 4 6 0.5 12 5
Sephardim 46 5 8 8 9
England 45 13 6 8 9 3
Netherlands 45 11 12 10 8 8
Germany 45 9 8 7 0.5 9 4
Austria 45 9 8 9 0.8 9 2
Scotland 44 13 6 7 0.2 8 3
Brazil 44 11 2 11
Portugal 44 7 6 6 0.1 7 5
Spain 44 7 6 6 1 8 8
France 44 8 6 9 3 8 5
Poland 44 8 7 4 10 5
Greece 41 10 7 5 6 2
Russia 41 8 7 4 2 10 4
Italy 40 8 8 8 3 5 3
Ukraine 39 8 8 5 10 4
Iceland 38 14 10 10 2 8 2
Romania 37 11 5 8 7 4
Finland 36 6 2 5 20 7
Turkey 31 9 4 6 5 3 1
Ashkenazim 23 7 5 32 5 2 4
Iran 17 14 5 7 7 3 1
Previously: ‘A pattern has emerged showing the percentage levels of the main European mt-DNA Haplogroup H, increasing as one heads west across Europe…’ The addition of two of Jacob’s sons, Judah and Benjamin is interesting to say the least. Scotland goes against type as its westerly position in Europe is not mirrored by its level of mtDNA Haplogroup H. In fact, Scotland or Benjamin bookends the family of Abraham with the Benelux nations at the other end and is sandwiched between extended family of Austria from Hagar and France from Moab and Ammon.
England on the other hand is extraordinarily sandwiched between the Sephardim of Esau and the Dutch of Midian. This is fascinating for two reasons; in that the parallels between the Jew and true Judah are such, that a correlation now clearly visible genetically are a wonder on one hand and inevitable on the other. Much has also been said of the likeness between the English and the Dutch and we now have genetic proof of these observations.
Regarding Y-DNA Haplogroups; a recap from the last chapter: “Haplogroup R-M269 is the sub-clade of human Y-chromosome Haplogroup R1b that is defined by the SNP marker M269. According to ISOGG 2020 it is phylogenetically classified as R1b1a1b.” R-M269 is the most common European Haplogroup, in the genetic composition of mainly Western Europe; increasing in frequency from an east to west gradient. For instance in Poland it is found in 22.7% of the male population, compared to Wales at 92.3% and is carried by over 110 million European men. Scientists propose that the age of the M269 mutation is somewhere between 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. The time frame is plausible and neatly fits with the birth of Peleg and hence the beginning of the R1b mutation, circa 7727 BCE – according to an unconventional chronology. The most recently significant R1b mutations originated with Abraham and his descendants beginning in 1977 BCE.
The sub-Haplogroup R1b-U106 (S21) is more frequent in central to western Europe, reaching 66.8% in Germany; R-U198 is most prevalent in England, while the sub-lineage R-S116 is the most frequent in the Iberian Peninsula; R-U152 is more frequent in Switzerland, France and Italy, and R-M529 in the Celtic nations of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. As we progress through the descendants of Shem, we will find the levels of R1b vary, though gradually increase. We will keep a record of the levels of the two main R1b sub-Haplogroups for some of the nations we will study. R-M269 stretches across Europe, with levels increasing as one heads westwards. R-U106 stretches from Central Europe westwards.
Italy was the first nation with their main Y-DNA Haplogroup being R1b and shows a marked difference with eastern Europe. The north to south axis is as important as the east to west and this explains why for instance Poland has slightly higher percentages of both clades of R1b than Russia as it is further west. Comparably, the Czech Republic displays a higher level of R-U106 than Italy which is further south; yet less R1b [M269] overall as it is the descendants of Peleg, Aram and the mixed line of Caphtor that have the highest levels of R1b [refer Chapters XV Casluh & Caphtor and XXIII Aram].’
Turkey R-M269 14% — R-U106 0.4%
Russia R-M269 21% — R-U106 5.4%
Slovenia R-M269 17% — R-U106 4%
Poland R-M269 23% — R-U106 8%
Ukraine R-M269 25% — R-U106 9%
Czech R-M269 28% — R-U106 14%
France R-M269 52% — R-U106 7%
Italy R-M269 53% — R-U106 6%
Swiss R-M269 58% — R-U106 13%
Netherlands R-M269 54% — R-U106 35%
Denmark R-M269 34% — R-U106 17%
Austria R-M269 27% — R-U106 23%
Germany R-M269 43% — R-U106 19%
England R-M269 57% — R-U106 20%
With the addition of England we see that the English possess similar levels of R-M269 as the Swiss, Dutch, Italians and French. Regarding R-U106, they are at the higher end, though the Netherlands and Austria have even higher percentages and Germany and Denmark share comparable levels. It is clear that England is closely related to all these nations. Clarity is intensified when one appreciates that they equate to Judah, Ishmael, Medan, Midian, Haran, Nahor, Moab and Ammon all of Abraham’s direct or extended family tree.
Overall, England has a high percentage of both M269 and its sub-Haplogroup U106, compared to its related near neighbours. In Cornwall, R-M269 is as high as 78% and in middle England, Leicestershire has 62%. From M269, sub-Haplogroup L165 equates to northern England, L11 to central England, L1 to southern and eastern England; M529 which equates to England and Scotland and L1335 to the Picts.
The R1b of the English includes sub-clades of U106 at 19-20%, which is associated mainly with Germany; L21 at 12%, shared with Ireland; U152 at 6%, associated mainly with France and Italy; DF27 at 6%, DF19 at 1% and others accounting for 13% of the total. Germany’s breakdown of R1B includes similar sub-clades as England, of U106 at 18% [Germanic], L21 at 5% [Celtic], U152 at 9% [Alpine], DF 27 and DF19 at 9% [Iberian] and others at 3%. The Germans and English have almost the exact Germanic R1b. The difference is that England has more Celtic influence and Germany has more Alpine and Iberian influences.
The sequencing is almost a mirror image, though the subtle percentage variations are what make the English, England and the Scottish, Scotland; two separate, distinct, ethnic groups, peoples, nations and identities. A breakdown of the Haplogroups for the major regions of England and Scotland and the percentages for the five defining key Haplogroups compared to the national average.
A comparison of England and Scotland, reveals that they are markedly different. Most commentators place the English and Lowland Scot as being the same, with little difference. As if, geography, accent, culture divides them rather than ethnicity; but the table highlights the differences in the key three Y-DNA Haplogroups, R1b, I1 and R1a. Scotland is higher in R1b and R1a, whereas England is higher in I1 and I2 – I2a2 and I2a1. The two nations, though closely related, are decidedly two different peoples – the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Recall, that R1b is indicative of Western Europe and includes all of Abraham’s descendants as well as that of his two brothers. Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a is distinctly related to the peoples of Eastern Europe and is in considerably lower levels heading from Central to Western Europe. Haplogroup I1 is strongly attached to north western Europe and hence the higher levels in Scotland and much of England. Similarly, I2a2 is a northern European sub-Haplogroup of I2, but I2a1 is more indicative of southern Europe and hence its much lower levels in England and Scotland.
Comparing the English regions, highlights that R1b and I2a1 are higher in the south and west; whereas I1 is higher in the north and east. R1a and I2a2 are consistent throughout England. The high population regions of the Home Counties, West Midlands and the Northeast are all comparable and match England’s overall percentages. East Anglia stands out as being different from the rest of England. It is this area that has experienced the biggest depletion of population due to migration, particularly to America and also bore the brunt of the successive invasions by the Saxon tribes from the Continent.
In Scotland, the Shetland and Orkney Islands reveal the Norse influence with the higher levels of R1a. Southern Scotland, a little like East Anglia in England has been influenced by invasion and the centuries of sharing a border with northern England. The higher population regions of the west and northeast of Scotland are comparable to each other and with the totals for Scotland overall.
Comparing England and Scotland Y-DNA Haplogroups with their related near neighbours.
An interesting difference displayed in the similarity of Y-DNA to mtDNA. The Flemish are more similar to England and Scotland, whereas it was Germany, then the French, Flemish and Dutch least in the mtDNA Haplogroup percentages. This time regarding the male Y chromosome, it is the Flemish who are closest, then the French, the Dutch and Germany last. As all these peoples have Abraham as their father, apart from the French and Italians, it means Midian and Ishmael have a stronger similarly to each other and thus have inherited from Abraham similar Y-DNA code. Sheba with the English and Scottish have inherited a different aspect of Abraham’s Y Chromosome DNA that makes them in turn more similar.
Colour code: Green – Nahor and Haran; Blue – Keturah and Ishmael; Yellow – Esau; Red – Jacob.
R1b E1b1b J1 & J2 I1 & I2 G2a R1a T1a N1C1
Scotland 73 2 2 14 0.5 9 0.5
Spain 69 7 10 7 3 2 3
England 67 2 4 21 2 5 0.5
Luxembourg 61 5 11 12 6 3
Flanders 61 5 5 20 4 4 1
Wallonia 60 6 2 18 6 7 4
France 59 8 8 16 6 3 1
Portugal 56 14 13 7 7 2 3
Brazil 54 11 10 9 5 4
Switzerland 50 8 4 24 8 4 1 1
N Italy 50 11 12 12 8 5 2
Netherlands 49 4 5 25 5 4 1
Germany 45 6 5 22 5 16 1 1
Iceland 42 33 23 1
Italy 39 14 19 10 9 4 3
Denmark 33 3 3 42 3 15 1
Austria 32 8 10 22 8 19 1 1
Norway 32 1 1 41 1 26 7
Sephardim 30 9 28 12 [8] 5
S Italy 28 19 26 7 11 3 3
Sweden 22 3 3 43 1 16 7
Turkey 16 11 33 6 11 8 3
Greece 16 21 26 15 6 12 5
Romania 16 14 15 34 3 18 1 2
Poland 13 4 3 16 2 58 1 4
Ashkenazim 12 20 36 4 [10] 10 3 0.2
Iran 10 7 32 1 10 16 3 1
Ukraine 8 7 5 26 3 44 1 6
Russia 6 3 3 20 1 46 23
Finland 4 1 30 4 62
Placing England and Scotland into our progressing European Nations table of Main Y-DNA Haplogroups, sees the striking difference from not just their family members descended from Abraham but also from all other Europeans.
England is not surprisingly, towards the western extremity, sandwiched between Spain and Luxembourg. England though has lower percentages for those Haplogroups that are more associated with southern Europe, North Africa and Anatolia; such as J, E1b1b and G. Spain has bookended for a most of our journey, now to be replaced by Scotland which has a higher national percentage of R1b.
… anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
Revelation 3:18-20 New King James Version
Call to Me, and I will answer you. I will tell you of great things, things beyond what you can imagine, things you could never have known.
Jeremiah 33:3 The Voice
“When a man who is honestly mistaken hears or sees the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.”
Richard Humpal
“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.”
Robert Ringer
“Cowardice asks the question: Is it safe?
Expediency asks the question: Is it politic?
Vanity asks the question: Is it popular?
But conscience asks the question: Is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it simply because it is right.”
A handful of identities attract the most interest in the subject, enthralling the attention of those whether they be students or authorities on the matter. The most popular include the mighty Assyrians descended from Asshur, the mysterious Israelite tribe of Dan, the violent and vicious Amalekites, the especially blessed birthright sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh and last but not least, the mercurial twin brother of Jacob, Esau. There is not a more contentious identity. For Esau or Edom, has been overly identified with a variety of peoples. Principally with either Turkey, to go hand-in-hand with the Arabs being Ishmael, which has a measure of legitimacy, as the Ashkenazi branch of Jewry may have a genetic link with the Turks; or with Italy and Germany, which again has a degree of accuracy, as the ruling element of these nations has included infiltration by Esau.
The Jewish people – similarly with the Arabs, who make their own assertion [refer Chapter XIV Mizra: North Africa & Arabia] – overtly claim descent from Judah, a son of Jacob. Many researchers and commentators have arrived at the conclusion and offer convincing evidence to support, that modern Jewry is in fact descended, or in part, from Esau. We will cover a large and significant body of material in seeking to verify if this is so. Incredibly, some Jews themselves not so secretly, admit to descending from Esau. Yet, we will thoroughly and carefully examine the facts and clues to see if this is true. The magnitude of this revelation is enormous, for it would reveal a conspiracy of deliberate and purposeful mistaken identity fraud. The ramifications of which are immeasurable in themselves, yet would lead astonishingly, to the most pressing and urgent question one could formulate within all identity material: If the Jews are the biblical Edomites, descended from Esau, and not the tribe of Judah as claimed… then, who pray tell, is the tribe of Judah, the fourth son of both the Patriarch Jacob and the first of his two wives, Leah?
Esau’s father, Isaac, born in 1877 BCE is sandwiched between two enormous presences in the Biblical account: Abraham and Jacob. So it is easy to lessen or neglect Isaac’s role. Isaac though, like his father Abraham is a laid back, phlegmatic character with normal human failings, though also possessing an unflinching faith in the Almighty and His promises. Evidenced in his willingness to be sacrificed at age thirty, if it meant the promises to his father Abraham were to be fulfilled by another person or in some other, unforeseen way such as through the miracle of resurrection.
One can’t help think Isaac had a laconic nature and sense of humour which was epitomised by his name which means: ‘Laughter’ or ‘He Will Laugh’ from the sahaq verbs, ‘to laugh’ and ‘make fun.’
We read about his meeting and marrying Rebekah when he was age forty, some three years after his mother Sarah’s death, in 1840 BCE. It is a true love story and provides encouragement for all hopeless romantics. Rebekah’s name means: ‘Tied up, secured’ from the verb rbq, ‘to tie firmly.’ It also means, ‘bind, trap’ and ‘snare.’ Rebekah is one of the most prominent women in the Bible, in terms of her active role in steering events of far-reaching consequence.
Genesis 24:1-67
English Standard Version
Now Abraham was old… [and] said to his servant [Eliezer], the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had… swear by the Lord… that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell, 4 but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac.” 5 The servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman may not be willing to follow me to this land. Must I then take your son back to the land from which you came?” 6 Abraham said to him, “See to it that you do not take my son back there.
10 Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor [refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans]. 11 And he made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at the time of evening, the time when women go out to draw water. 12 And he said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham.
15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah… came out with her water jar on her shoulder. 16 The young woman was very [H3966, greatly, exceedingly] attractive [H2896, good, goodly]in appearance [H4758, to look upon, favoured], a maiden whom no man had known. 17 Then the servant ran to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water to drink from your jar.” 18 She said, “Drink, my lord.” And she quickly let down her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink. 19 When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.” 20 So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw water, and she drew for all his camels. 21 The man gazed at her in silenceto learn whether the Lord had prospered his journey or not.
22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, 23 and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”
24 She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.”25 She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.”
28 Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things. 29 Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring. 30 As soon as he saw the ring and the bracelets on his sister’s arms, and heard the words of Rebekah his sister, “Thus the man spoke to me,” he went to the man… 31 He said, “Come in, O blessed of the Lord. Why do you stand outside? For I have prepared the house and a place for the camels.”
34 So he said, “I am Abraham’s servant. 50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, “The thing has come from the Lord; we cannot speak to you bad or good. 51 Behold, Rebekah is before you; take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken.” 52 When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the Lord. 53 And the servant brought out jewelry of silver and of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah. He also gave to her brother and to her mother costly ornaments… 59 So they sent away Rebekah their sister and her nurse [Genesis 35:8, ESV: ‘And Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried [by Jacob] under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon-bacuth (‘oak of weeping’)], and Abraham’s servant and his men. 60 And they blessed Rebekah and said to her,
“Our sister, may you become thousands of ten thousands, and may your offspring possess the gate of those who hate him!”
63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field toward evening. And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, there were camels coming. 64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel 65and said to the servant, “Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself. 66 And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. 67 Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Rebekah’s brother Laban displays the traits which we observe later, when Jacob goes to live with him. He is bedazzled by the jewels and gifts more than being convinced of the demand of kinship or the will of the Almighty. Even so, it is Rebekah’s choice whether to leave with Abraham’s servant and marry Isaac. He must have been convincing. Rebekah by her actions, reveals her outgoing personality and that she was a woman of action. In contrast to the laid-backness of Isaac. Rebekah is also shown to be kind, generous and competent.
Her family’s blessing, meant simply that her descendants would have the upper hand and mastery over their enemies. History shows that sometimes this was dependant on their obedience and how much or how little they pleased the Creator.
Other times it had no bearing and they were blessed regardless and yet again, it sometimes meant battles would be lost, even for decades, but ultimately, not the war. What is especially curious, is that Esau’s descendants appear to be included in this prophetic blessing.
Recall, Abraham had married his niece on his brother’s Haran, side of the family. Ethnically, she was similar to a Swiss or French woman. Though Abraham’s servant had travelled to Abraham’s other brother, Nahor the father of the Chaldeans. Today along with with Aram’s son Uz, equating as the Northern and Central Italians. Nahor’s eighth and youngest son with his wife Milcah, was Bethuel, one of the original Italian paternal ancestors. Therefore, Rebekah was from this same line of people.
Genesis 25:20-34
English Standard Version
20 and Isaac was forty years old [in 1837 BCE] when he took Rebekah [who was 20 years old], the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren [like his mother, Sarah]. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” [or ‘why do I live’] So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her…
This was not the usual moving of arms and legs inside the womb that a mother feels when a foetus changes position or stretches. These two souls were at each other from the beginning. An inherent mistrust and misunderstanding of the other which would only deepen and grow worse. These were very painful kicks and thrusts inside Rebekah. It is said that Rebekah, while suffering from her pregnancy, went from neighbour to neighbour asking the women whether they had ever experienced the same. The answer she received is said to have come directly from the Almighty, speaking through an angel. It is also said that she should have borne twelve sons, the fathers of the future twelve tribes; but after the birth of Esau, she became barren once more.
“Two nations [H1471 – gowy] are in your womb, andtwo peoples[H3816 – l’owm] from within you [or ‘from birth’] shall be divided [CJB: they will be two rival peoples]; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”
What is deeply significant in this verse and overlooked by many is that two separate and distinct sons were fashioned in the womb. They were not only to be non-identical twins who just were not going to get on; they were to be different peoples in nature, mind set, objectives, procedures and ideals. So that on one hand, one would wonder if they were really related at all. This makes their identification both clear and complex at one and the same time.
24 When her days to give birth were completed [in 1817 BCE], behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak [or garment], so they called his name Esau.
The Midrash states that during Rebekah’s pregnancy, whenever ‘she would pass a house of Torah study, Jacob would struggle to come out; whenever she would pass a house of idolatry, Esau would agitate to come out.’
26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob [‘he takes by the heel’ or ‘he cheats’]. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.
The meaning of the exact word Esau is disputed and is connected to a variety of definitions. It could be related to the Arabic* root gsw, meaning ‘to cover.’ Others have noted the similarity to the Arabic ‘athaa meaning ‘hirsute.’ The ‘sau’ of Esau’s name in Hebrew means hairy. In Hebrew, the word ‘hairy’ [Hebrew: se’ir] is a wordplay on Seir, the region in which he later settled. Esau became known as Edom, meaning ‘red’ [Hebrew: admoni]; the same colour used to describe Esau’s skin tone. Other traditional sources connect the word with the Hebrew sav’ meaning ‘worthless.’
Abarim Publications define Esau – reflective of Rebekah’s nature – as ‘Doer, Maker, Worker.’ From the verb ‘asa, ‘to do’ or ‘make.’
‘The two nicknames of Esau, Edom and Seir, are both obvious in meaning and have to do with Esau’s looks (red and hairy). His proper name however is not as easily derived. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reports that there once was a root (‘asa) that meant to be hairy, and refers to an existing Arabic* verb that means just that. Hence Jones translates with Covered With Hair…’
One commentator states the root of the name in Hebrew is derived from the word asuy denoting ‘completion’, thus made and complete, ‘since Esau was born hairy and very strong, being “completed” and not infantile.’
It is possible that Esau was brown and hairy as some researchers do not think red, means red. Though a red headed person with red body hair to match, is always associated with pale, fair or freckly skin. Granted, redheads vary from flaming red tresses to strawberry blond and also brownish auburn, as it is a quantitative trait. Regardless if Esau did have Red Hair, Jacob was Esau’s twin brother, so it shouldn’t be surprising if both their descendants carry common genetic traits and thus exhibit red hair. We have learned that red hair is indicative of the R1b Y-DNA Haplogroup which largely distinguishes Western Europeans from the rest of the world [Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla]. Red hair, like blue eyes is a recessive gene. Jacob would have carried the red hair gene which Esau inherited, even if he didn’t have red hair himself.
What is significant is that Esau is the first person to be described emphatically as red – unlike Adam, who’s redness was the lifeblood within him that was a combination of the godly and earthly [Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla].
Cornerstone Publications adds concerning Esau’s hairiness: ‘The reference to Esau having been hairy all over… can be related to the hair on his head as well, for he and many of his descendants became well-known for wearing long hair, long red hair…’
We are now searching for peoples on the earth with a higher proportion of red hair as this is a sign for Esau’s and Jacob’s descendants. Interestingly, the same word used to describe Esau as red is also used of David in 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:42. David is a descendant of Jacob, rather tantalisingly through his son Judah.
Hair colour is the result of the balance between eumelanin and phaeomelanin – types of melanin. Red hair derives from a genetic variant which causes the cell to produce phaeomelanin. It causes the melanocortin 1 receptor [MC1R] – on chromosomes four and sixteen – to function differently on melanocytes, which leads to less eumelanin – the pigment that results in brown skin, hair and tanning of the skin – and more of the red pigment pheomelanin, present in our lips and nipples.
Approximately two percent of the world’s population has naturally red hair, with the vast majority of red haired individuals having northwestern European ancestry. Western Europe, mainly comprising Abraham’s descendants has more red haired people than any other part of the world. Approximately six to ten percent and up to thirty percent, of the Scottish population has red hair, with an additional forty percent of the population with other hair colourings carrying the gene responsible for red hair; while about ten to thirty percent of the Irish population, specifically Northern Ireland, have red hair, making it the most red haired country in the world with Scotland. Red hair prevalence in England is around four percent. Ashkenazi Jews also have red hair. About 3.6% of Jewish women have red hair, while 10% of Jewish men have red beards. In the Americas, the emigration of Europeans has influenced the red haired population. Approximately two to six percent of the American population is redheaded; meaning the United States has the largest redhead population in the world at some seven to twenty million people.
Red Head Day in the Netherlands
There are some who equate red hair with descending from the Neanderthal, such as the American anthropologist, Carleton Coon in the 1930s and there are some people who link red hair, freckles and pale skin with the Nephilim, which is probably more believable of the two hypothesis. Red hair, with blond hair, fair skin and blue eyes have all been genes carried by Noah and or, his son Shem and possibly their wives Emzara and Sedeqetelebab. The blue eyes and fair skin genes – as exhibited in Y-DNA Haplogroups I1 and R1[a] – were passed to Asshur, Aram and Arphaxad and are features of people throughout Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Red hair associated with R1b on the other hand, appears more specific to Arphaxad’s descendant, Abraham.
There is one location with a high incidence of red hair outside northwestern Europe and they are the Udmurts of the Urmurtia Republic in Russia. Is this a residue of the Khazar nation? The Romanov royal family of Russia – Nicolas II, Alexandra and their four daughters and one son – have been described as having red or red-gold [strawberry blond] hair and colour photos show this to be the case [Chapter XX Will the Real Assyria Stand Up: Asshur & Russia]. Udmurts say ‘a person with red hair is the sun’s child’ and ‘a redheaded person is closest to the gods. The gods love them.’
Approximately seventeen percent of people on the earth have blues eyes and when combined with the one to two percent of people with red hair, the odds of having both traits diminish to 0.17%. For instance, of a world population of 7.9 billion, that would be only thirteen million people.
There are numerous references to red haired and fair skinned individuals in the bible in reference to both lines descending from Isaac and Rebekah. We will look at them as we encounter each personality, though it may be of interest to look at three people we have already discussed.
Sarah and Rebekah were described as being ‘fair’ – notice: “And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that [Abram] said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon…” [Genesis 12:11]. “And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman [Sarah] that she was very fair.” [Genesis 12:14, KJV]. “And the damsel [Rebekah] was very fair to look upon…” [Genesis 24:16]. “And the men of the place asked him [Isaac] of his wife; and he said, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.” [Genesis 26:7, KJV].
As we have touched upon, Esther who became Queen of the Persian Empire, was a light or fair-skinned person. She was of the tribe of Benjamin [Esther 2:5]: “He [Mordecai] brought up… Esther… and the maid was fair and beautiful.” [Esther 2:7]. This word ‘fair’ is the same word which was used when speaking about Sarah. It means ‘to be bright’ and is the only place in all of the book of Esther where this word is used. We read that Vashti, the former haughty queen, was also ‘fair.’
But the Hebrew word used here is a different word; it does not mean to be bright, but it means to be beautiful. We read also of ‘fair young virgins.’ Yet the Hebrew word yawfeh, is not used in regard to any of these women. It is used only in chapter two, verse seven in connection with Queen Esther. She had a bright or light skin. Esther was not only fair but she was also beautiful. The Hebrew word translated as ‘beautiful’ in verse seven is toar and means to ‘delineate, outline’ that is, the ‘figure’ or ‘appearance’ – Strongs, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Not only was Esther a fair or light skinned person; she was also a woman with a beautiful figure.
27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter [like Nimrod], a man of the field [like Ishmael], while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. 28 Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.
Esau had rougherqualities which distinguished him from his twin brother. Jacob was a plainer or simpler man, depending on the translation of the Hebrew word tam which can also mean a ‘relatively perfect’ man. Esau was a strong, savvy hunter and like an animal he was on the move. Esau bore some resemblance with Cain, a man of the field and Nimrod, the mighty hunter; who stood in front or against the Eternal. Jonathan ben Uzziel – Targums of Onkelos – says: ‘Esau was a man of idleness to catch birds and beasts, a man going forth into the field to kill lives, as Nimrod had killed, and Hanok his son.’ Esau is also described as being cunning. The Book of Jasher 28:19-20 reveals that Esau was a ‘designing and deceitful man, one who hunted after the hearts of men and inveigled them.’ A footnote says Esau stole the minds of people, an insightful interpretation when measured against the deceptive qualities being employed by the Edomites today.
Additional information is provided in the Book of Jubilees 19:12-19:
12 … Rebecca bare to Isaac two sons, Jacob and Esau, and 13 Jacob was a smooth and upright man, and Esau was fierce, a man of the field, and hairy, and Jacob dwelt in tents. 14 And the youths grew, and Jacob learned to write; but Esau did not learn, for he was a man of the field and a hunter, and he learnt war, and all his deeds were fierce. 15 And Abraham loved Jacob, but Isaac loved Esau. 16 And Abraham saw the deeds of Esau, and he knew that in Jacob should his name and seed be called; and he called Rebecca and gave commandment regarding Jacob, for he knew that she (too) loved Jacob much more than Esau. 17 And he said to her: My daughter, watch over my [grand]son Jacob, For he shall be in my stead on the earth, And for a blessing in the midst of the children of men [through his great grandson Joseph],And for the splendor of the whole seed of Shem.18 For I know that Yahweh will choose him to be a people for possession unto Himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. 19 And behold, Isaac my son loves Esau more than Jacob, but I see that you truly love Jacob.
29 Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. 30 And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom [red]). 31 Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” 32 Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” 33 Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil [red pottage] stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
Esau was not just tired or hungry, he was absolutely shattered and that way when you are so famished, you just need to eat immediately. It does not appear to be a typical situation of Esau returning from a normal hunt. Possibly, Esau had narrowly escaped with his life from a more serious situation. It is in this moment that Jacob chanced his arm and went for Esau while he was at his most vulnerable. Jacob would have been well aware of Esau’s personality and character weaknesses and vice-versa. The opportunity presented itself and he struck.
In fact, the whole conversation and scenario only really makes sense if we appreciate the age of Esau and Jacob, as being much younger than usually assumed. Their abrupt language and petulant manner, is reflected by their level of maturity and is recognisable as teenage behaviour. The Talmud teaches that the sale of the birthright occurred straight after Abraham died in 1802 BCE, when Esau and Jacob were fifteen years of age. Jewish sources say Esau was considered a rebellious son; living a double life until he sold his birthright.
Apparently, the lentil stew Jacob was cooking was intended for his father Isaac, as lentils became the traditional mourner’s meal for Jews. The tradition is that on the day before returning home, in a wrathful rage over the death of Abraham, Esau committed five transgressions – he raped a betrothed young woman, he committed murder [Nimrod, according to Jewish sources], he denied God, he denied the resurrection of the dead [Job 14:14], and he spurned his birthright.
Whether Esau committed the first two is not known definitively. The last three are possible if he was angry and grief stricken. Nimrod would have been somewhere between nine thousand to six thousand years old according to an unconventionalchronology. His age not so much the issue as a direct, first generation Nephil, but rather if he were still alive, would he not have been still ruling Babylon and this does not seem to be the case, as we learned when studying Abraham [refer Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer & the war of Nine Kings and Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah – Benelux & Scandinavia].
Rob Skiba remains convinced that Esau is linked with Nimrod:
‘In the context of the Jasher account, that story makes a whole lot more… sense… doesn’t it? I mean think about it. Without Jasher, the story in Genesis 25 makes no sense at all… After reading Jasher, you now completely understand what is going on and why.
Esau had just killed the king of the world! By the way, the “valuable garments” that Nimrod had, “with which he prevailed over the whole land” were the original garments God made for Adam and Eve back in the garden… so here Esau has chopped off Nimrod’s head and stolen his “magic garments.” The rest of Nimrod’s “mighty men” were after him now. Esau came home famished from a very busy day! So, when Jacob says he wants his birthright, Esau basically said, “Look. What do I care about my birthright? I just killed King Nimrod! I’m a dead man. His warriors are probably coming for me as we speak. Just give me something to eat!” Esau was extremely vulnerable here and Jacob totally took advantage of the situation for his own selfish gain…’
Did Esau commit rape and murder? If so, he would have been on edge to say the least and very much of the rationale that his life was over, so why not sell a birthright he was not going to live to receive. The last three acts somewhat bundle together and committing the fifth, could well have meant him being guilty of the other two. A profound irony would be in place if Esau denied the resurrection, as it would be a prominent sect descended from Edom at the time of Christ, who also denied the resurrection.
The meal Jacob gave Esau was pottage, a thick soup made of vegetables. This can contain meat, though as emphasis is given to it being red from lentils, this is unlikely, particularly with no mention of animal flesh. Some claim red or ruddy can mean a brownish colour, but again the colour red is emphasised, indicating vegetables and not meat that would begin red and turn brown.
Calling a spade a spade is required here and the sad fact of the matter, is that Esau – though undeniably charismatic – was an unsavoury character. As with Canaan and his descendants, because Canaan sinned, doesn’t mean every black person is an evil person [refer Chapter XI Ham Aequator & Chapter XII Canaan & Africa]. It just means that Canaan was bad. Similarly, it would be unfair to tar every descendant of Esau with the same brush. Esau and Jacob were opposites in every way. Vitally, Esau was physically oriented and lacked true spiritual depth. He was a rugged, masculine, man of the moment, filled with passion. He did not perceive the end game or past today.
We will find in bitter irony, that the influential of Esau’s descendants are visionary masters of the end game and have also perfected the guise of spirituality. Esau displayed his violent nature in impulsively and impetuously bargaining away his birthright for a pot of red lentil stew. His actions are hard to fathom in that he grossly under valued the birthright, deeming it as almost worthless, beneath him and as if he did not need it. It really only leaves immense pride on Esau’s behalf, so much so that his pride either blinded him to really see the birthright’s worth, or worse, he really felt above it and did not need the birthright.
Dr Herman Hoeh’s comments on Esau – capitalisation his, emphasis & bold mine:
‘Abraham had another son, Isaac. Isaac had two sons, twins, named Esau and Jacob. Jacob was the younger and the stronger. These two brothers gave rise to two different nationalities. “… And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle” (Gen.25:23-25).Esau, the elder, was not properly developed.The lanugo or hair that covers a foetus through the sixth, seventh and eighth months failed to drop off Esau as it does with all normal children. Esau was weaker, not fully developed. His children, of course, did NOT inherit this peculiar characteristic. Esau did not give rise to a different race, but to a different nationality. Esau’s children are white, as history proves. Esau’s descendants play a vital part in world affairs today! Where are his descendants?
Notice some of the sons of Esau: Teman, Omar, Amalek (Genesis 25:11). These are not Jewish names! Yet some claim that the Jews are the children of Esau. Nothing could be further from the truth – as we shall presently see. Esau, or Edom, as he is also called, lived southeast of Palestine near Petra. Arab Bedouins live there now. Then where have Esau’s children gone? From the days of Nebuchadnezzar, who carried them captive, they disappear for 1000 years from history. Then suddenly we find Amalek the name of a city in Turkestan in Central Asia (from Paul Herrmann’s SIEBEN VORBEI UND ACHT VERWEHT, page 451). The Egyptians used to call the Amalekites Amu. In Turkestan is the River Amu today! In Bible times the Edomites inhabited Mt. Seir (Genesis 32:4). In Turkestan is the Syr Darya – the River of Syr or Seir. The leading Turkish tribe is the Ottoman.
The prophecies referring to Edom or Esau mention Teman as the leading tribe in these latter days (Obadiah 9). The conclusion is inescapable. TheOtto-man Turks are the sons of Te-man. Merely the vowels in spelling have been changed over these past millenniums. From Central Asia the Turks or Edomites moved into Asia Minor. That is where Esau’s children live today! Turkey controls the “crossway” of the nations – the Dardanelles (Obadiah 14). How clear, ESAU OR EDOM IS TURKEYtoday!’
Hoeh confidently claims a Turkish identity for Esau, though we have addressed the convincing evidence of an Elamite identity for Turkey [refer Chapter XVIII Elam & Turkey & Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer the War of Nine Kings]. Additionally, the Turks are not renowned for their red hair and fair skin. Nor does their history or Haplogroups share a closeness with the northwestern European peoples. Paradoxically, it seems likewise, with the people who call themselves Jewish – particularly the Ashkenazi Jew. With regard to the ‘crossroads’, there is a modern nation which dramatically stands to fulfil this prophecy. It is not turkey.
Genesis 26:1-35
English Standard Version
Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2 And the Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you.
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
6 So Isaac settled in Gerar. 7 When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he feared to say, “My wife,” thinking, “lest the men of the place should kill me because of Rebekah,” because she was attractive in appearance. 8 When he had been there a long time, Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw Isaac laughing with Rebekah his wife [suggesting an intimate relationship].9 So Abimelech called Isaac and said, “Behold, she is your wife. How then could you say, ‘She is my sister’?” Isaac said to him, “Because I thought, ‘Lest I die because of her.’” 10 Abimelech said, “What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us.” 11 So Abimelech warned all the people, saying, “Whoever touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.”
The King of the Philistines, Abimelech is not the Pharaoh of Egypt and nor is he likely the same Abimelech who Abraham and Sarah met in 1878 BCE. For Isaac and Rebekah meet Abimelech circa 1790 BCE. He was either very young with Sarah and very old with Rebekah; or the alternative explanation is that the word Abimelech is a title and not a personal, first name. We learn that Isaac and Rebekah are close and happy, with Isaac living up to his name of laughter. Isaac though, passes Rebekah off as his sister, just as his father Abraham did with his mother Sarah. The narratives appear similar yet highlight an important difference, in differentiating Rebekah from Sarah.
In at least one of the two wife/sister episodes in which she figures, Sarah seems to have had a sexual relationship with Pharaoh [Genesis 12:13-14,19] thus ensuring the safety of her husband and their household. Rebekah’s marital fidelity in contrast, is not compromised [Genesis 26:10]. Her relationship with Isaac is ‘consistently monogamous, unlike that of Sarah, who not only has extramarital sex, but also provides her husband with [her servant or handmaiden] Hagar, and [that] of Rachel and Leah, who are co-wives and also provide [servant] wives to Jacob.’
12 And Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The Lord blessed him,13 and the man became rich, and gained more and more until he became very wealthy. 14 He had possessions of flocks and herds and many servants, so that the Philistines envied him. 15 (Now the Philistines had stopped and filled with earth all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father.) 16 And Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we.”
We have learned how the Almighty blessed Abraham with great wealth, which was partly passed to his six sons with Keturah and also a substantial portion to his son, Ishmael. The primary birthright blessing had been received by Isaac. Isaac now in his own right was being blessed immensely and adding substantial wealth to his inheritance. All this was destined for Esau as the birthright holder. Jacob would have benefited from gifts similar to that which Midian and his five brothers received. Only Esau could ever answer the question as to how he could flippantly give this away. We will learn though as we continue, that Esau regretted his decision and reneged on the deal struck with his younger twin.
17 So Isaac departed from there and encamped in the Valley of Gerar and settled there. 18 And Isaac dug again the wells of water that had been dug in the days of Abraham his father, which the Philistines had stopped after the death of Abraham. And he gave them the names that his father had given them. 19 But when Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of spring water, 20 the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, “The water is ours.” So he called the name of the well Esek [contention], because they contended with him. 21 Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that also, so he called its name Sitnah [enmity]. 22 And he moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it. So he called its name Rehoboth [broad places or room], saying, “For now the Lord has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” 23 From there he went up to Beersheba. 24 And the Lord appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of Abraham your father. Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for my servant Abraham’s sake.” 25 So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the Lord and pitched his tent there. And there Isaac’s servants dug a well.
Isaac in his casual manner, chose to avoid conflict with the Philistines over the original wells Abraham had dug. The Eternal told him not to be afraid. Isaac had made a habit of accepting what befell him in his life… ‘being used as the potential object of sacrifice; waiting for the selection of a bride; walking away from the strife over the first two wells; being heartsick over Esau’s foreign wives’ and allowing himself to be deceived by Rebekah and Jacob over Esau’s inheritance.
26 When Abimelech went to him from Gerar with Ahuzzath his adviser and Phicol the commander of his army, 27 Isaac said to them, “Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?” 28 They said, “We see plainly that the Lord has been with you. So we said, let there be a sworn pact between us, between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you, 29 that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace.You are now the blessed of the Lord.” 30 So he made them a feast, and they ate and drank. 31 In the morning they rose early and exchanged oaths. And Isaac sent them on their way, and they departed from him in peace. 32 That same day Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well that they had dug and said to him, “We have found water.” 33 He called it Shibah [oath]; therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day.
Peace between the family of Isaac and the Philistines was relatively short-lived and had become full on aggression a few centuries later when the family of Jacob, now grown large returned.
34 When Esau was forty years old, he took Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite to be his wife,and Basemath the daughter of Elonthe Hittite, 35 and they made life bitter [they were bitterness of spirit, a grief of mind]for Isaac and Rebekah.
Esau was forty years old in 1777 BCE – as was Jacob. There are two matters which arise from Esau’s marriages. The first is that they are recorded in separate accounts with the wives having different names and thus a reconciling of scripture and the number of wives is required. The second matter is the ethnic identity of the wives and their fathers and the ramifications that entails.
Genesis 27:1-46
English Standard Version
When Isaac was old [117 years of age in 1760 BCE] and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau [who was 57 years of age] his older son and said to him, “My son”; and he answered, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Behold, I am old; I do not know the day of my death. 3 Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me, 4 and prepare for me delicious food, such as I love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die.”
Rightly or wrongly, Isaac and Rebekah had their favourites. It is interesting that the phlegmatic yet light hearted Isaac did not favour the quieter and more serious son Jacob, but rather the robust, athletic and outgoing Esau, who was much like his uncle – Isaac’s older half-brother – Ishmael.
5 Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt for game and bring it, 6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, “I heard your father speak to your brother Esau… 8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice as I command you. 9 Go to the flock and bring me two good young goats, so that I may prepare… them… 10 And you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies.” 11 But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. 12 Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing.” 13 His mother said to him, “Let your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, bring them to me.”
Rebekah is again a woman of action in contrast with Isaac and as it was Jacob’s idea to take Esau’s birthright, it was actually his mother’s plan to fait accompli the blessing too. Esau was obviously not willing to relinquish this to Jacob, even though he had promised the birthright to him, some forty-two years previously. A possible factor in both Jacob’s and Rebekah’s actions, were the sentiments of Abraham before he died, in choosing Jacob to be the beneficiary of the Creator’s promises to Abraham.
14 So he went and took them and brought them to his mother, and his mother prepared delicious food, such as his father loved. 15 Then Rebekah took the best garments of Esau her older son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob her younger son. 16 And the skins of the young goats she put on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck. 17 And she put the delicious food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
This clearly shows that not only was Esau hairy at birth but had grown into a hairy man. Regarding Nimrod and the account of Adam and Eve’s original skins of clothing being in Noah’s possession and subsequently stolen by Ham, given to Cush and finally to Nimrod; there are some inconsistencies in that Cush was not Nimrod’s forefather, a chronology including Nimrod still being alive, yet not ruling Babylon for Esau to then steal from him seems strongly untenable. Even though it makes for a good story in explaining why Esau was exhausted; flippantly selling his birthright [refer Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod and Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans]. It also raises the question as previously discussed, were the ‘magic garments’ really clothes? If Adam and Eve as spiritual creatures, now turned physical as punishment for their taking the path offered by the Serpent – the tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, symbolism for the mother goddess Asherah – then could these skins be their physicalness or literal skin and something that could be passed on? [Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega]. Alternatively, would garments survive twenty-five thousand years?
Various Jewish sources state the garments were animal skins passed down from Adam, finally to Esau and it was these which Rebekah took and had Jacob dress in before going to his father Isaac. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: ‘Rebekah took the pleasant vestments of Esau her elder son which had formerly been Adam’s; but which that day Esau had not worn, but they remained with her in the house, and (with them) she dressed Jacob her younger son. And the skins of the kids she laid upon his hands and the smooth parts of his neck.’ Louis Ginzberg in Legends of the Jews, says: ‘[Rebekah] dressed [Jacob] in them, for those garments were the garb of the priesthood, and the Holy One… and prior to the construction of the Tabernacle, sacrificial worship was performed by firstborns. Since Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob, Rebekah considered that henceforth it was proper for Jacob to wear these garments, because he now had the status of firstborn.’
Though this version of events is more credible than the Nimrod legend, the clothes of Esau seem to be just his clothes and no more than that. It was the goat skin and hair – very much like human hair – on Jacob’s hands and neck that clinched the deception. The Book of Jubilees 26:11 says: ‘Rebecca took the goodly raiment of Esau, her elder son, which was with her in the house, and she clothed Jacob, her younger son, (with them)…’ The Ellicott Commentary on Genesis 27:15: ‘Evidently the clothing was something special, and such as was peculiar to Esau. For ordinary raiment, however handsome, would not have been kept in the mother’s tent.’
The Cambridge Bible says: “Goodly,’ literally ‘choice, desirable.’ [H2532 – chemdaw: it also means: precious, valuable, beloved. The root term is H2530 chamad, ‘desire or covet’]. By this is meant the clothes worn by Esau on festivals and solemn occasions.” The Poole Commentary says: ‘Either the sacerdotal garments which the eldest son wore in the administration of that office [of Priest] which belonged to him; or rather some other suit better than ordinary.’ Esau’s clothes at the least were ceremonial and more that his best suit so-to-speak. Whether they were Adam’s garments is conjecture and not as believable. In Genesis we read the following regarding Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:21
English Standard Version
And the Lord Godmade [H6213 – asah] for Adam and for his wife garments [H3801 – kthoneth] of skins [H5785 – owr] and clothed them.
Commentators authoritatively state, that these skins were made from animal hides, yet the original Hebrew does not state this at all. Similar to the gopher wood of Noah’s Ark, which was not wood from a tree [Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla]. The word for skin is translated as skin [96 times] in the KJV Bible, far more than any other word. Hide [2] and leather [1]. The word for garment is translated as coat [23], garment [5] and robe [1]. It has the connotation of a long undergarment of linen. The words used for make are do [1333], make [653] and wrought [52], having the connotation of, to ‘fashion, appoint, ordain’ or ‘institute.’ It can also mean, ‘to press’ or ‘to squeeze.’
The garment as a coat or robe was long, covering the whole body – like a full body suit or integument. The fact that the word skin is used over hide, shows that it is not an animal skin being used. Thus, either literal new skin for a new physical body which covered all the body and that was fashioned by the Eternal and required squeezing into is an option, or it is about a one piece suit of clothing and an unknown material which fully clothed Adam and Eve. Either are plausible as it was designed to cover Adam and Eve’s ‘nakedness.’ It is universally assumed that their modesty was being covered, though it could just as much be referring to covering their exposure as new physical beings.
18 So he went in to his father and said, “My father.” And he said, “Here I am. Who are you, my son?” 19 Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn[1]. I have done as you told me [2]; now sit up and eat of my game, that your soul may bless me.” 20 But Isaac said to his son, “How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?” He answered, “Because the Lord your God granted me success [3].”
21 Then Isaac said to Jacob, “Please come near, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are really my son Esau or not.” 22 So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau [4].”23And he did not recognize him, because his hands were hairy like his brother Esau’s hands. So he blessed him.
24 He said, “Are you really my son Esau?” He answered, “I am [5].” 25 Then he said, “Bring it near to me, that I may eat of my son’s game and bless you.” So he brought it near to him, and he ate; and he brought him wine, and he drank. 26 Then his father Isaac said to him, “Come near and kiss me, my son.” 27 So he came near and kissed him. And Isaac smelled the smell of his garments [6] and blessed him and said,
It is easy to focus on the six lying deceptions of Isaac and the cheating and stealing by Jacob against Esau. The fact that Esau later plans to kill his brother is wholly understandable. The deception perpetrated by Jacob and Rebekah, towards Isaac was also a severe wound in family loyalty. We know from the Biblical account that Jacob and his father had little interaction between this event and Isaac’s death. Similarly, how did this affect an apparently great marriage and what was the true impact on Isaac’s and Rebekah’s relationship from then on. Did Isaac laugh as much as his name entails and his personality hints? Rebekah lived up or down to her name of binding, snaring and trapping and Jacob certainly fulfilled his own name by supplanting and cheating. Abarim publications says: ‘The name Jacob [means] ‘he who closely follows, supplanter’ From the verb ‘abaq, ‘to follow at the heel’ or ‘supplant.’
‘BDB Theological Dictionary and NOBSE Study Bible Name List both read Supplanter. BDB adds Heel, Overreach, One Closely Following. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads He Will Supplant, A Heeler, One Who Trips Up or Takes Hold By The Heel. Besides in Genesis 27:36, the word occurs twice as regular word in the text: in Job 37:4 it’s used in the sense of ‘he holds back [thunderings]’ and in Jeremiah 9:4 as meaning ‘deal craftily’ (NAS) or ‘will supplant’ (KJV).’
“See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed!
The Rabbi Rashi, states that when blessing Jacob, Isaac smelled the ‘heavenly scent of Gan Eden (Paradise) when Jacob entered his room and, in contrast, perceived Gehenna opening beneath Esau when the latter entered the room, showing him that he had been deceived all along by Esau’s show of piety.’
28 May God give you of the dew of heaven and of thefatness of the earth and plenty of grain and wine. 29 Let peoples serve you,and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, andmay your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”
It is not clear why the plural use of brothers and sons is used, when Jacob only had the one brother, Esau… that we know about?
30 As soon as Isaac had finished blessing Jacob, when Jacob had scarcely gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, Esau his brother came in from his hunting. 31 He also prepared delicious food and brought it to his father. And he said to his father, “Let my father arise and eat of his son’s game, that you may bless me.”
32 His father Isaac said to him, “Who are you?” He answered, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.” 33 Then Isaac trembled very violently and said, “Who was it then that hunted game and brought it to me, and I ate it all before you came, and I have blessed him? Yes, and he shall be blessed.”
34 As soon as Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry and said to his father, “Bless me, even me also, O my father!” 35 But he said, “Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing.” 36 Esau said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me these two times. He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.” Then he said, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” 37 Isaac answered and said to Esau, “Behold, I have made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?” 38 Esau said to his father, “Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.” And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. 39 Then Isaac his father answered and said to him:
Hebrews 12:14-17
English Standard Version
14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy likeEsau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.
Hebrews 12:16-17
Amplified Bible
16 and [see to it] that no one is immoral [‘wicked’, The Voice]or godless [‘vile’, The Voice] like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that later on, when he wanted (to regain title to) his inheritance of the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no opportunity for repentance (there was no way to repair what he had done, no chance to recall the choice he had made), even though he sought for it with (bitter) tears.
Hebrews 12:16-17
New Century Version
16 Be careful that no one takes part in sexual sin or is like Esau and never thinks about God.As the oldest son, Esau would have received everything from his father, but he sold all that for a single meal. 17 You remember that after Esau did this, he wanted to get his father’s blessing, but his father refused.
Esau could find no way to change what he had done, even though he wanted the blessing so much that he cried.
Hebrews 12:16-17
The Message
Watch out for the Esau syndrome:trading away God’s lifelong gift in order to satisfy a short-term appetite. You well know how Esau later regretted that impulsive act and wanted God’s blessing – but by then it was too late, tears or no tears.
“Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. 40 By your sword you shall live [violence, danger],and you shall serve your brother; but when you grow restless [when thou shalt have the ‘dominion’ – KJV] you shall break his yoke from your neck.”
Many translations of verse thirty-nine state, as the ESV does, that Esau would live away from the fatness of the earth which Jacob’s sons would inherit. This gives the impression that Esau either doesn’t receive a blessing and or that he would not be near to Jacob geographically. The NCV a case in point. Yet other translations, including the KJV, choose to say the opposite.
New Century Version
Isaac said to him, “You will live far away from the best land, far from the rain.
Young’s Literal Translation
And Isaac his father answereth and saith unto him, `Lo, of the fatness of the earth isthy dwelling, and of the dew of the heavens from above…
King James Version
And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shallbethe fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
The Interlinear translates word for word verse thirty-nine and forty as follows. I have added punctuation.
And Isaac his father answered, said unto him behold thy dwelling shall (bethe) fatness earth – dew heaven – and thy sword live; shalt serve thy brother, shall come pass when shalt have dominion that shalt break his yoke.
The New English Translation helpfully translates the verse to give a more accurate geographic context.
Genesis 27:39
New English Translation
So his father Isaac said to him, “See here, your home will bebythe richness of the earth, and by the dew of the sky above.
‘Footnotes: The particle (hinneh) calls for someone’s attention. Or “next to.” The preposition (min) generally indicates the source of something or separation from something, and so is often rendered “from.” Older translations (KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, Young’s, JPS) took the preposition as indicating source: “of the fatness of the earth.” More recent translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NLV) take it as separative: “away from the fatness.” In Jacob’s blessing the preposition works with the verb “give” and indicates source.
In Esau’s blessing the preposition functions in a nominal clause and modifies “your dwelling.” HALOT says that [the preposition] can point “to the place… where something can be found” and thus means “in” in [Genesis 2:8, Leviticus 14:41, 2 Samuel 5:13, Ezra 1:4, Job 30:30, Isaiah 5:26, 23:7] (HALOT 597, s.v.).
In combination with the verb “to dwell,” the preposition means “by,” “next to,” or “across from” [Ruth 2:14, 1 Samuel 20:25, Ezekiel 16:46, Jonah 4:5] The closest parallel for the noun “dwelling” is [Genesis 10:30] where [the preposition] as “away from” is not possible (rather “at” or “beginning at.”) In contrast to Jacob, to whom God will give some of earth’s fatness and heaven’s dew, Esau will dwell next to these. Esau himself continues to dwell with Isaac in Canaan, so perhaps he dwells “at” or “in” the richness of the land. But the land of his descendants, Edom, is more arid and might be considered “next to” or “across from” Canaan. The main contrast seems to be that God will give Jacob something, while Esau will have access to two of the same things. “Grain” and “wine” are not repeated for Esau, which may also reflect different conditions in Edom and Canaan.’
Most translations, lean towards Esau not receiving the fertility of the earth and dew of heaven. Others that he would, whereas the answer lies between the two, in that Esau would receive less than Jacob even though their people were adjacent to each other for many centuries and this makes sense, given that Esau’s blessing is meant to be inferior to Jacob’s birthright promises. Esau, was given choice land amongst their immediate relatives. Esau was a twin and we would have reason to find him connected to his brother, Jacob. Esau was like Ishmael, who was also an outdoors man, a huntsman, militaristic, a proficient soldier, ‘setting his hand against others [of his family]’. A militaristic state and a history of waging war is in part, an identifying sign for a significant proportion of Esau’s descendants today.
The word dominion in the interlinear is a crux word in verse forty. It comes from the Hebrew word ruwd [H7300], which is translated as ‘dominion, lords, mourn and ruleth’. It means literally ‘to wander restlessly’ and ‘to roam, to be restless’ and ‘show restlessness.’ It derives from a primitive root, ‘to tramp about, ramble (free or disconsolate), have the dominion, be lord’ and ‘rule’. In english, it derives from the latin, dominium or ‘ownership’ and dominus, ‘master.’ Interestingly, the word dominion was used as a name formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire. For example, the former Dominions of Canada and New Zealand.
Therefore, we are seeking a people which has a unique identity and yet struggles with Jacob – possessing a mix of emotions towards their sibling’s descendants. We would expect to find a ‘nation’ or people somewhere matching Esau, who is both connected to the sons of Jacob yet a distinct national and or ethnic group. As one Bible researcher astutely commented: “[Edom] have not broken loose from Israel and are in fact part of Israel. Their lands… form part of Israel…”
A people by virtue of their assimilation, are recipients of the same fatness of the earth and blessings which was given to Jacob and specifically to his son Joseph. Wherever Jacob is today, that is where we will find Esau. Wherever Jospeh is today, that is where we will locate the greatest number of Esau’s descendants. We are also looking to identify a people who have come out from underneath Jacob’s shadow and are identifiable as a nation obtaining statehood relatively recently in history, finally achieving ‘dominion’ and appeasing ‘restlessness.’
41 Now Esau hated [H7852 – satam: ‘oppose, bear a grudge, retain (cherish) animosity against’ from root ‘to lurk for, persecute’] Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, “The days of mourning for my father are approaching;then I will kill my brother Jacob.” 42 But the words of Esau her older son were told to Rebekah. So she sent and called Jacob her younger son and said to him, “Behold, your brother Esau comforts himself about you by planning to kill you.
43 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice. Arise, flee to Laban my brother in Haran 44and stay with him a while, until your brother’s fury turns away – 45 until your brother’s anger turns away from you, and he forgets what you have done to him. Then I will send and bring you from there. Why should I be bereft [deprived] of you both in one day?” 46 Then Rebekah said to Isaac, “I loathe my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women like these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?”
It may be that Rebekah had to be firm in saying obey my voice – more than once – in that Jacob, like Esau is headstrong and stubborn, or it may be that Rebekah felt moved and inspired to advise Jacob. It is recorded that Rebekah was a prophetess and therefore, she knew that Esau intended to slay Jacob after Isaac’s death and the words “Why should I be bereft of you both in one day” are ‘interpreted as being her prophecy to this effect.’
Jacob is displaying some of the laid back, casual approach to life that Isaac and Abraham exhibited. On the surface, it would seem that Rebekah’s issue with the Hittite women is that they are a different race, descendants of Heth, the son of Canaan. Though we will learn that it may be more serious and involve the old nemeses, the Nephilim.
Genesis 28:1-22
English Standard Version
Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and directed him, “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father, and take as your wife from there one of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother. 3 God Almighty [El Shaddai] bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples [a plurality of nations, not singular]. 4 May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings that God gave to Abraham!” 5 Thus Isaac sent Jacob away. And he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban, the son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.
Isaac must have spoken with Jacob relatively quickly after his deception, as it follows on the heels of Rebekah’s urgent advice to flee. The Book of Jubilees records just how concerned Rebekah was for Jacob’s life later in the story.
Book of Jubilees chapter thirty-five:
35:9 And [Rebekah] went in to Isaac and said to him: ‘One petition I make unto you:make Esau swearthat he will not injure Jacob,nor pursue him with enmity;for you know Esau’s thoughts that they are perverse from his youth, and there is no goodness in him; for he desires after your death to kill him.10 And you know all that he has done since the day Jacob his brother went to Haran until this day: how he has forsaken us with his whole heart, and has done evil to us; your flocks he has taken to himself, and carried off all your possessions from before your face.
It appears Esau may have helped himself to more than his inheritance early. He obviously felt betrayed by his champion of the past, his father Isaac and released his anger by taking what he wanted from his parents. This may explain why Jacob after he returns from Haran, is described as ‘taking care of his parents.’
11 And when we implored and besought him for what was our own, he did as a man who was taking pity on us.
12 And he is bitter against you because you did bless Jacob your perfect and upright son; for there is no evil but only goodness in him, and since he came from Haran unto this day he has not robbed us of aught, for he brings us everything in its season always, and rejoices with all his heart when we take at his hands and he blesses us, and has not departed from us since he came from Haran until this day, and he remains with us continually at home honoring us.’
13 And Isaac said to her: ‘I, too, know and see the deeds of Jacob who is with us, how that with all his heart he honors us; but I loved Esau formerly more than Jacob, because he was the firstborn; but now I love Jacob more than Esau, for [Esau] has done manifold evil deeds, and there is no righteousness in him, for all his ways are unrighteousness and violence, and there is no righteousness around him. 14 And now my heart is troubled because of all his deeds, and neither he nor his seed is to be saved, for they are those who will be destroyed from the earth and who will be rooted out from under heaven, for he has forsaken Yahweh the Almighty of Abraham and gone after his wives and after their uncleanness [genetically]and after their error [spiritually], he and his children.
These are heavy words indeed from Isaac, but show the level of Esau’s disobedient and rebellious attitude and actions. King Solomon would later, also exasperate and disappoint the Eternal in similar fashion [refer Chapter XIII India & Pakistan: Cush & Phut].
15 And you do bid me make him swear that he will not slay Jacob his brother; even if he swear he will not abide by his oath, and he will not do good but evil only. 18 And Rebecca sent and called Esau and he came to her, and she said to him: ‘I have a petition, my son, to make to you, and do you promise to do it, my son.’ 19 And he said: ‘I will do everything that you say to me, and I will not refuse your petition.’ 20 And she said to him: [1] ‘I ask you that the day I die, you will take me in and bury me near Sarah, your father’s mother, and [2] that you and Jacob will love each other and that neither will desire evil against the other, but mutual love only, and (so) you will prosper, my sons, and be honored in the midst of the land, and no enemy will rejoice over you, and you will be a blessing and a mercy in the eyes of all those that love you.’
21 And he said:’I will do all that you have told me, and I shall bury you on the day you die near Sarah, my father’s mother, as you have desired that her bones may be near your bones. 22 And Jacob, my brother, also, I shall love above all flesh; for I have not a brother in all the earth but him only: and this is no great merit for me if I love him; for he is my brother, and we were sown together in your body, and together came we forth from your womb, and if I do not love my brother, whom shall I love?
23 And I, myself, beg you to exhort Jacob concerning me and concerning my sons, for I know that he will assuredly be king over me and my sons, for on the day my father blessed him he made him the higher and me the lower. 24 And I swear unto you that I shall love him, and not desire evil against him all the days of my life but good only.’ 25And he swore unto her regarding all this matter.
And she called Jacob before the eyes of Esau, and gave him commandment according to the words which she had spoken to Esau. 26 And he said: ‘I shall do your pleasure; believe me that no evil will proceed from me or from my sons against Esau, and I shall be first in naught save in love only.’ 27 And they eat and drank, she and her sons that night, and she died, three jubilees [147] and one week [7] and one year [1] old [155 years old], on that night, and her two sons, Esau and Jacob, buried her in the double cave near Sarah, their father’s mother.
Esau was as good as his word, in that he did not kill Jacob while he lived. Jacob had fled to Laban in 1760 BCE when he was fifty-seven. It would be forty years before Esau and Jacob would set eyes on each other again.
6 Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he directed him, “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women,” 7 and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and gone to Paddan-aram. 8 So when Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please Isaac his father, 9 Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son,the sister of Nebaioth.
Esau married his ‘third’ wife seventeen years after his first two wives. Nebaioth was the eldest son of Ishmael, hence why his name is mentioned as the brother of Mahalath, even though she had twelve brothers. Nebaioth equates with the Prussian and Low German speaking peoples of the state of Brandenburg and Berlin the capital of Germany [refer Chapter XXVIII The True Identity & Origin of Germany & Austria – Ishmael & Hagar]. Mahalath is also called Basemath in the Book of Genesis. One commentator has discussed that Ishmael’s wife was also called Mahalath; hand picked by his mother Hagar from Egyptian royalty. Hagar and Ishmael were banished by Abraham circa 1874 BCE, when Ishmael was about seventeen.
The Pharaoh ruling at the time was the third Pharaoh of the First Dynasty, Djer who ruled from 1922 to 1875 BCE. Mahalath could have been a daughter of Djer, the same Pharaoh who Abraham and Sarah met in 1902 BCE. Hagar was a gift from Djer to Sarah and it is believed she was a daughter, of the Pharaoh. If so, then Mahalath would conceivably be the younger sister of Hagar. The daughter of Ishmael may have had the same name as her mother, Mahalath.
When she married Esau, her name could have changed to Basemath as it was traditional for wives to accept new names upon marriage.
This would account for the two different names for Ishmael’s daughter, who became Esau’s wife. In the previous chapter, we learned of Ishmael’s identity today as the modern nation of Germany. The association between Esau and Germany in modern times will prove to be profoundly disturbing. Esau hoped this marriage would appease his parents, though they were not swayed by Esau’s late and half-hearted attempt to procure their favour. It would seem by this stage that even Isaac had seen through Esau, and their relationship was inevitably not the same as before that fateful day of the debacle surrounding the birthright blessing.
10 Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. 11 And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. 12 And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder [flight of steps] set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! 13 And behold, the Lord stood above it [or beside him] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” 16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.” 17 And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate ofheaven.”
Jacob had a lucid dream or vision of a portal from Earth to Heaven, the spirit realm and the dimensions in between. We will discover that Jacob’s descendants have indeed ‘spread abroad’ to the west, east, north and south, the furthest reaches of the earth.
18 So early in the morning Jacob took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. 19 He called the name of that place Bethel [the house of God], but the name of the city was Luz at the first. 20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21 so that I come again to my father’s [Isaac] house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, 22 and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.”
Jacob is a bit of a wheeler-dealer: a person who makes deals in business or politics, in a skilful and sometimes less than honest way. First Esau, now the Eternal. Jacob was seeking a peaceful resolution with his brother and his father, and so can be excused to a degree, for bargaining with the Creator.
We will study Jacob in detail in the following chapter and so for now we will skip a portion of his life – forty years to be precise – and rejoin him on his flight from his father-in-law Laban and his decision to reconcile with his brother Esau in 1720 BCE.
Genesis 32:1-32
English Standard Version
Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. 2 And when Jacob saw them he said, “This is God’s camp!” So he called the name of that place Mahanaim [two camps]. 3 And Jacob sent [had sent] messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom, 4 instructing them, “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now. 5 I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight.’”
The angels of God may have been the same three, including the Son of Man [Genesis 18:1, 31] who visited Abraham with two companions – possibly Michael and Gabriel – whom rescued Lot and his family [Genesis 18:2; 19:1-2] from Sodom [refer Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon & Haran]. It was both a brave and highly risky decision to reach out to Esau, even after forty years had passed. Jacob had just fled from his father-in-law, Laban; putting himself between a rock and a hard place, so-to-speak. Esau had left home circa 1737 BCE and dwelt in an area known as Mount Seir. We will address the permutations of this move in detail, as well as the forty years of Jacob’s sojourn.
The inhabitants of Seir were known as Horites. The head of the Horites had been an individual called Seir. We have encountered the Horites previously, in Genesis chapter fourteen and the Battle of the Valley of Siddim [refer Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer & the War of Nine Kings & Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon & Haran]. They were one of the Nephilim descended, Elioud giants axis states in league against Chedorlaomer and his allies from southern Mesopotamia. It appears that Esau’s descendants may have eventually driven out the Horites or even killed them. Though at the time of Esau, he chose to dwell in Seir with the Horites. This amalgamation of Esau and the Horites produced a new nation called hence forth in the Bible: Edom. Edom means ‘red’ from the verb adom, ‘to produce or be red.’ We will learn that the colour red is also heavily associated with Jacob’s son, Judah. The potential for mistaken identity and identity misplacement, magnifies considerably as we proceed.
6 And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and he is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.” 7 Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed. He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, 8 thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, then the camp that is left will escape.”
Jacob had just cause in being afraid. Esau had promised to kill Jacob. The possible annihilation of every single one of Jacob’s family was a frightening reality.
Jacob was right to prepare and pray. Recall, that Abraham was able to muster an able fighting force comprising three hundred and eighteen men from his household. Here, Esau had four hundred men. Later, Jacob had sixty-six family members who travelled to Egypt – not including servants. Jacob was certainly ill-equipped to do battle with Esau, who overwhelmingly had the upper hand numerically. Esau had also married in 1777 BCE, twenty-four years before Jacob in 1753 BCE and two wives at that. Esau would have had grown up sons and grandsons who could have even already had teenagers aged fifteen to seventeen years of age as great grandsons by 1720 BCE. Additionally, Esau would have men from the Horites at his disposal if required.
9 And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,’ 10 I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. 11 Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and attack me, the mothers with the children. 12 But you said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’”
Jacob had fled, with the clothes on his back and his staff. The almighty had blessed Jacob, yet he had not received his inheritance from Isaac, while his father lived. It was certainly going to require a miracle from the Eternal, as Esau’s mind needed to be veered from possible vengeance to reconciliation.
13 So he stayed there that night, and from what he had with him he took a present for his brother Esau, 14 two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams, 15 thirty milking camels and their calves, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys. 16 These he handed over to his servants, every drove by itself, and said to his servants, “Pass on ahead of me and put a space between drove and drove.” 17 He instructed the first, “When Esau my brother meets you and asks you, ‘To whom do you belong? Where are you going? And whose are these ahead of you?’ 18 then you shall say, ‘They belong to your servant Jacob. They are a present sent to my lord Esau. And moreover, he is behind us.’” 19 He likewise instructed the second and the third and all who followed the droves, “You shall say the same thing to Esau when you find him, 20 and you shall say, ‘Moreover, your servant Jacob is behind us.’” For he thought, “I may appease him [appease his face] with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me.”[he will lift my face] 21 So the present passed on ahead of him, and he himself stayed that night in the camp.
Not only was Jacob splitting up his entourage into many small groupings for safety, he was also softening any potential confrontation as well as playing up to his brother’s ego and going above and beyond on the honour being bestowed.
22 The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children[or sons, as Dinah had been born, but not Benjamin], and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. 24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man [in the form of a man] wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel [‘He strives with God’ or God strives], for you have striven [to struggle vigorously] with God and with men, and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [H6439: the face of God*], saying, “For I have seen God [one like God] face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” 31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel [H6439 – Pnuw’el: facing God], limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip on the sinew of the thigh.
Jacob’s name is changed at age ninety-seven and the focus of his life shifts from his supplanting his brother Esau and a physical direction, to his wrestling with one representing the Creator and a spiritual orientation. The passage is deliberately vague as to the identity of the mysterious man who wrestles with Jacob, yet has the authority to grant a blessing.
Who Was the Angel Who Wrestled With Jacob? Whitney Hopler, 2019 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘… in the Book of Hosea, the Bible… mention[s] Jacob’s wrestling again. However, the way Hosea 12:3-4 refers to the event is just as unclear, because in verse 3 it says that Jacob “struggled with God” and in verse 4 it says that Jacob “struggled with the angel.”
Some people identify Archangel Phanuel as the man who wrestles with Jacob because of the connection between Phanuel’s name and the name “Peniel.” In his book “Of Scribes And Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation And Transmission Of Scripture, Volume 2,” Craig A. Evans writes: “In Gen. 32:31, Jacob names the place of his wrestling with God as ‘Peniel’ – the Face of God. Scholars believe that the angelic name ‘Phanuel’ and the place ‘Peniel’ are etymologically connected.”
Morton Smith writes in his book “Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults” that the earliest existing manuscripts indicate that Jacob was wrestling with God in angelic form. Later versions say that Jacob wrestled with an archangel. “According to this Biblical text… Jacob’s wrestle with a mysterious opponent… Point[ed] initially to his divine adversary, the name was in time attached to an angelic substitute.”
Some people say that the man who wrestles with Jacob is the Angel of the Lord. “So who is the ‘man’ who wrestles with Jacob on the riverbank and finally blesses him with a new name? God… the Angel of the Lord Himself,” writes Larry L. Lichtenwalter in his book “Wrestling with Angels: In the Grip of Jacob’s God.” In her book “The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis,” Camilla Hélena von Heijne writes: “Jacob’s naming of the place and the word ‘face’ in verse 30 is a key word. It denotes personal presence, in this case, divine presence. To seek God’s face is to seek His presence.”’
The case for the Angel of the Lord is tentative, as the Angel of the Lord is always delineated as such in scripture, never hinted at. In the Book of Enoch, Phanuel is listed with Michael, Gabriel and Raphael as one of the four chief messengers for the Eternal of Hosts. Yet, the case for Phanuel is based solely on word association and definition. As Phanuel is not mentioned directly in the Bible, his identity here is unlikely. The clues to this being’s identity are possibly found earlier in the same chapter of Genesis thirty-two. Recall in verse one that the ‘angels of God met’ with Jacob and the consideration that these angels were the same three who met with Abraham and Lot [Genesis 18:1-2, 31; 19:1-2].
What is very interesting is that all three beings in Genesis eighteen are called men, including the one who was the Lord [H136 ‘Adonay] and in Genesis nineteen, the two angels are also called lords [H113 ‘adon]. In Genesis eighteen, Abraham ‘stood before the Lord’ and ‘spoke to the Lord’ [Genesis 18:22, 31]. In a real sense, Abraham verbally sparred or wrestled with the one who was the Word in his presenting a case for sparing the city of Sodom. Was it this same man, who now met with Jacob?
A further clue is the fact that the being with Jacob when his identity was questioned, rather acerbically answered, ‘why are you asking my name’ for Jacob already knew it was the Word.
Matthew 16:13-17
Living Bible
13 … Jesus… asked his disciples, “Who are the people saying I am?” 14 “Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; some, Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”
15 Then he asked them, “Who do you think I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “The Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 “God has blessed you, Simon, son of Jonah,” Jesus said, “for my Father in heaven has personally revealed this to you – this is not from any human source.
Only the Word could have represented God so that Jacob could say, ‘I have seen God face to face’ as Moses would do some three hundred years later, also facing the Word’s directness in response when asked a similar question: ‘I am [who] I am’ [Exodus 3:14; 33:11].
Only the Word could say that Jacob had ‘striven with God and prevailed’ changing his name to Israel. Lastly, only the Word representing the Eternal would divinely ‘bless him.’ Angels perform many functions in the scriptures, though I am unaware of any instances where they directly confer a blessing.
The word or name Israel, has become synonymous with the state of Israel and the word Israelites with the people known as Jews and the Jewish people; yet, it does not convey the original identities. For the purpose of this work, the name Jacob is more reflective of the patriarch himself, as well as that of the sons and tribes which descended from him. In 1720 BCE, Jacob had twelve children, including Dinah, for Benjamin was not yet born. Thus it should be translated sons and not children in verse twenty-two. At the time of their encounter with Uncle Esau, Jacob’s eldest child Reuben, was thirty-two and his youngest Joseph, was only five years old.
Genesis 33:1-20
English Standard Version
And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two female servants. 2 And he put the servants [Bilhah and Zilpah] with their children [Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher] in front, then Leah with her children [Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulon (with Dinah)],and Rachel and Joseph last of all. 3 He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
4 But Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.5 And when Esau lifted up his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” 6 Then the servants drew near, they and their children, and bowed down. 7 Leah likewise and her children drew near and bowed down. And last Joseph and Rachel drew near, and they bowed down. 8 Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” Jacob answered, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.”
9 But Esau said, “I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.” 10 Jacob said, “No, please, if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand. For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me. 11 Please accept my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him, and he took it.
Esau could not have been more accepting, or put Jacob more at ease. A heart warming encounter, with Esau running, to his younger brother – though Jacob’s heart may have skipped a beat in realising whether Esau’s urgency was benign or not. At this moment of time, it is difficult to see any harbouring of revenge or hatred on Esau’s part towards his estranged twin brother. And that is the key factor.
Esau and Jacob were not just brothers, they were twins. The separation for forty years may have weighed heavily on Esau, as the protectively eldest twin.
12 Then Esau said, “Let us journey on our way, and I will go ahead of you.” 13 But Jacob said to him, “My lord knows that the children are frail [tender], and that the nursing flocks and herds are a care to me. If they are driven hard for one day, all the flocks will die. 14 Let my lord pass on ahead of his servant, and I will lead on slowly, at the pace of the livestock that are ahead of me and at the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir.”
Esau shows he is genuine, by wanting to travel together. Jacob being reticent as he wished to travel separately to be able to give thanks to the Creator for the miracle in Esau’s attitude and actions. It is worth remembering that both men were ninety-seven years old – Jacob lived to one hundred and forty-seven. It would appear that Esau died not long after Jacob, at a similar age.
15 So Esau said, “Let me leave with you some of the people who are with me.” But he said, “What need is there? Let me find favor in the sight of my lord.” 16 So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir. 17 But Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built himself a house and made booths for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth [booths]. 18 And Jacob came safely [peacefully] to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram, and he camped before the city. 19 And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent. 20 There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel [God, the God of Israel].
Genesis 35:27-29
English Standard Version
27 And Jacob came to his father Isaac at Mamre, or Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned. 28 Now the days of Isaac were 180 years. 29 And Isaac breathed his last, and he died [jn 1697 BCE] and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob [both 120 years old] buried him.
Rabbis generally concur that Rebekah died at the age of one hundred and thirty-three years and ‘that her death occurred while Jacob was on his way back to his parents’ home; and it was coincident with that of Deborah’ [Genesis 35:8]. Rebekah’s death is not mentioned and as Jacob does not arrive from Paddan-Aram, for another four years; it falls to Esau as the only son present to attend to her burial. The ceremony was supposedly ‘performed at night out of shame that her coffin should be followed by a son like Esau.’
Alternatively and accurately in my opinion – tying in with the Book of Jubilees 31:8-11, 48; 35:27 – Jacob found his mother alive when he returned home in 1720 BCE and she afterward accompanied him to Beth-el to accomplish his vow as per Genesis 28:19-20.
She would have died at the age of one hundred and fifty-five in 1702 BCE – coincidentally the same year that Joseph was propositioned by Potiphar’s wife in Egypt and – five years before Isaac’s death in 1697 BCE [Jubilees 35:1,41]. Thus determining her age when she married Isaac, who was forty at twenty years of age.
Ishmael and Isaac had little contact, though together buried their father Abraham in 1802 BCE; so too, did Esau and Jacob bury their father Isaac, a little over one hundred years later. Just prior to Isaac’s death, he speaks to his sons.
Book of Jubilees chapter thirty-six:
1 … Isaac called his two sons Esau and Jacob, and they came to him, and he said to them: ‘My sons, I am going the way of my fathers, to the eternal house where my fathers are. 2 Wherefore bury me near Abraham my father, in the double cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite, where Abraham purchased a sepulcher to bury in; in the sepulcher which I [dug] for myself… bury me [there]. 3 And this I command you, my sons, that you practice righteousness and uprightness on the earth,so that Yahweh may bring upon you all that Yahweh said that he would do to Abraham and to his seed. 4 And love one another, my sons, your brothers as a man who loves his own soul, and let each seek in what he may benefit his brother,and act together on the earth; and let them love each other as their own souls [Matthew 7:12; Ephesians 4:31-32].
These are powerful last words by Isaac to his sons Esau and Jacob. If only their respective descendants had lived according to this entente cordiale, though alas it was not to be. Notice Isaac included both sons together in jointly obeying the Eternal and being able to claim the blessings promised. His son Jacob and then his grandson Joseph did obey; serving the Eternal and thus the promise of blessings were made manifest. Whereas Esau, nor any of his sons, obeyed the Eternal and so the blessing given to Esau and his sons, though lesser than Jacob’s, was shrunken further due to their disobedience.
6 Remember you, my sons, Yahweh Almighty of Abraham your father, and how I too worshipped Him and served Him in righteousness and in joy, that He might multiply you and increase your seed as the stars of heaven in multitude, and establish you on the earth… 7 And now I shall make you swear a great oath… by [He] which created the heavens and the earth… that you will fear… and worship Him. 8 And that each will love his brother… and that neither will desire evil against his brother… so that you may prosper in all your deeds and not be destroyed.
12 And he divided all his possessions between the two on that day… 13 And he said: ‘This larger portion I will give to the firstborn.’14 And Esau said, ‘I have sold to Jacob and given my birthright to Jacob; to him let it be given, and I have not a single word to say regarding it, for it is his.’ 15 And Isaac said, May a blessing rest upon you, my sons, and upon your seed this day, for you have given me rest, and my heart is not pained concerning the birthright, lest you should work wickedness on account of it…
17 And he ended commanding them and blessing them, and they [ate] and drank together before him, and he rejoiced because there was one mind between them, and they went forth from him and rested that day and slept. 18 And Isaac slept on his bed that day rejoicing; and he slept the eternal sleep, and died one hundred and eighty years old… and his two sons Esau and Jacob buried him. 19 And Esau went to the land of Edom, to the mountains of Seir, and dwelt there. 20 And Jacob dwelt in themountains of Hebron [where Isaac had lived], in the tower of the land of the sojournings of his father Abraham, and he worshipped Yahweh with all his heart and according to the visible commands according as He had divided the days of his generations.
It was now a time to be concerned, for if Esau had stayed his hand in harming Jacob while his father lived, then Jacob was now fair game. Amazingly, there appears to have been peace between Esau and Jacob for the next twenty-seven years until Jacob’s death in 1670 BCE. Before we look at the events surrounding the conflict that eventually arose between Esau’s and Jacob’s families, we will look more closely at Esau’s family and his descendants. In so doing, we will attempt to explain the apparent contradiction in the records of Esau’s wives and more importantly, unravel the difficulty in identifying Esau’s ipseity today; which is made more challenging, due to his complicated family structure.
Genesis 36:1-43
English Standard Version
These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom). 2 Esau took his wives from the Canaanites:
Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite,
Oholibamah** the daughter of Anah^^ the [grand?]daughter of Zibeon< the Hivite,
3 and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, the sister of Nebaioth.
Esau’s family genealogy is also listed in an abridged form in 1 Chronicles 1:35-54. Earlier in the Book of Genesis we are introduced to Esau’s wives and their fathers. In Genesis twenty-six, a few of the names differ.
Genesis 26:34: When Esau was forty years old, he took Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite to be his wife, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, 35 and they made life bitter [they were bitterness of spirit] for Isaac and Rebekah.
Genesis 28:9: Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth.
Basemath or Adah – daughter of Elon the Hittite
Judith or Oholibamah – daughter of Beeri the Hittite or Anah/Zibeon the Hivite
Mahalath or Basemath – daughter of Ishmael
As Genesis thirty-six follows the first two listings it is presumed by scholars that the latter is the more accurate. Basemath means: ‘sweet fragrance, pleasant smelling, precious’ and ‘pure’ while Adah means ‘ornamant.’ Judith means: ‘praised’ and ‘let him be praised’ and Oholibamah means ‘tent of the high place.’ Mount Seir was located on elevated terrain. Mahalath means: ‘dancing, sad song’ or ‘sickness.’
Some theologians have claimed that Esau actually had four, maybe five or even six wives. If such is the case, only three wives are listed as bearing children. This may have relevance, though nor does the Bible say the other one, two or three wives were barren. Beeri and Anah are possibly the same person as Be’er means ‘wellspring’, while Ayyin, phonetically similar to Anah means ‘spring.’ Likewise, the term Hittite is a hyponym [an inclusive term] for Hivite. Some records reveal that Anah was a bastard and so, Esau sought to conceal the illegitimacy of Oholibamah’s family by changing her father’s name to Beeri from Anah and hers to Judith. It has been proposed that ‘Beeri alludes to Beer-lahai-roi, the place where Hagar encountered an angel (Genesis 16:13-14).’ Thus, Esau wished to convey that Judith was from a ‘righteous’ family. The identity change from Hivite to Hittite may reflect the attempt to hide the Hivite’s proclivity to idolatry and their Talmudic link with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Anah is listed in verse twenty-four as a son, yet in verse two, the interlinear in Hebrew leaves it nebulous as to whether Anah is the daughter of Zibeon, not that Oholibamah is the grand daughter of Zibeon. If such is the case, then Anah is female. Rabbenu Tam states, this ‘disposes of the contradiction regarding Oholibamah/Judith’s parentage. Beeri the Hittite was her father and Anah the Hivite [or Horite*] daughter of Zibeon was her mother.’ As discussed previously, the reference to Hittites and Hivites could mean that the women Esau married first were original inhabitants of Canaan and therefore from the sons of Canaan, Heth and Hiv and therefore black women. Or, they could well be ‘Canaanites’ of an Elioud descent.
Remember, the Nephilim related giants preferred the higher ground to the plains [refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega]. In verse twenty, we see that Zibeon the ‘Hivite’ is in fact, a son of Seir the Horite.* It is likely that Esau was hiding the Horite origin of at least one wife and probably both. Even though Ishmael’s descendants were later known as Hittites, they were not so-called when Ishmael was alive and so the term Hittites is not referring to Ishmael’s descendants. In other words, the Bible isn’t saying Esau married two or three daughters of Ishmael, just the one daughter, Basemath formerly, Mahalath.
A case for a fourth wife is made by the Sefer ha-Yashur which notes that ‘during Jacob’s fifth year [1755 BCE] in Haran [Paddan-Aram], Esau’s wife Judith daughter of Beeri died; she had borne daughters (named Marzith and Puith) to Esau, but no sons. In the sixth year [1754 BCE] of Jacob’s stay… Esau married Oholibamah… Esau married off his eldest daughter, Marzith, to Anah [of verse twenty-four] son of Zibeon, who was his wife’s brother.’ This would be why Judith is not mentioned again as she had died, without giving Esau any sons. Thus Oholibamah is not mentioned in Genesis chapter twenty-six, because Esau had not married her yet. A number of commentators subscribe to Esau having four wives.
The case for fives wives is presented by Nahmanides Ramban, in that Basemath of Elon the Hittite also died like Judith, yet childless. Both Judith and Basemath may have died prematurely in punishment for vexing Isaac and Rebekah and making them suffer with their idolatrous sacrifices and incense as their names suggest. This would account for why neither are mentioned in Genesis chapter thirty-six. Esau then married another two wives, Oholibamah and Adah, also the daughter of Elon the Hittite and therefore the sister of Basemath. This might explain why Ishmael’s daughter Mahalath had her name changed by Esau, if he was especially fond of either Basemath or Mahalath, his cousin and the one acceptable wife to his parents. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan also supports the five wives hypothesis.
Rabbi Abraham Maimuni, 1186 to 1237 CE, adopts a six wife model, in which there are two daughters of Ishmael as well, hence the two different names. It would seem to this writer that six wives is one wife at least too many and that the answer is somewhere in the middle of three and six; either four or fives wives. Not withstanding Nahmanides conjecture, regarding Basemath and her supposed sister Adah, the Sefer ha-Yashur recording the death of Judith after bearing two daughters; would explain why there are two daughters names and especially, two fathers names for Esau’s second wife – because there are two separate women involved. The details on his first and third wives are less complicated – because there was only one woman each, with one father.
It would appear plausible that Esau may have changed Basemath’s name to Adah, so he could rename Mahalath, Basemath. There may be truth behind Esau liking that name and its sweet meaning. It would mean that Oholibamah is not only the grand daughter of Zibeon by inference, as she is the daughter of Anah, who is the son of Zibeon as per verse twenty-four; she is also a fourth wife married to Esau after his third wife Mahalath or Basemath and his second wife Judith’s death. A similarity occurs with his brother Jacob who had two wives and then the addition of their handmaids as wives, numbering four in total also.
In Genesis chapter fourteen we learned that the Horites were a Nephilim tribe who fought Chedorlaomer, the King of Elam [refer Chapter XIX Chedorlaomer & the War of Nine Kings and Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon & Haran].
This means that Oholibamah was a Nephilim descended woman and that her genes were passed to her three sons. Basemath, the daughter of Ishmael was for the want of a better word, Teuton and so her son would have been half Ishmaelite or Germanic and half Edomite. The ancestry of Adah is not explained, so she was either a Canaanite black woman or more likely, similar to Oholibamah, whether Hittite or Horite, a Nephilim Elioud too. I say more likely as mtDNA Haplogroups do not seem to support the first option. Either way, Isaac and Rebekah were vexed with both choices of Esau; due to either their Nephilim bloodlines or their idolatrous practices. The issue was not because Adah was Black – if she had been an original Canaanite.
4 And Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz;
Basemath bore Reuel;
5 and Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and Korah.
These are the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan. 6 Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, his livestock, all his beasts, and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan. He went into a land away from his brother Jacob. 7 For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together. The land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock [the same situation as had occurred previously between Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13:5-6].
8 So Esau settled in thehill country of Seir. (Esau is Edom.)
Jasher 10:28: And Seir the son of Hur, son of Hivi, son of Canaan, went and found a valley opposite to Mount Paran, and he built a city there, and he and his seven sons and his household dwelt there, and he called the city which he built Seir, according to his name; that is the land of Seir unto this day.
It is dubious that there would be only four generations from Noah to Seir after the flood, if merely human offspring. Not so, if Seir was an Elioud, and his father Hur had been a Nephil. Tradition does substantiate that Sier lived at the time of Abraham’s father Terah, who lived from 4077 to 1842 BCE and that his father Hor or Hur, was a contemporary of Reu – who had lived from 6827 to 4222 BCE according to an unconventional chronology – the son of Peleg.
Esau was already living in Seir by 1720 BCE when he meets with Jacob. Esau married Basemath in 1760 BCE and had a son with her called Reuel, who was born in Canaan. Esau’s move to Canaan would have been between 1760 BCE and 1720 BCE, approximately in 1737 BCE, yet Jacob had fled in 1760 BCE; thus their living together was not an issue.
Their flocks and herds by 1720 BCE would have been innumerable and therefore the statement in verse seven must therefore apply to this time frame and onwards as their respective wealth grew.
Notice that Basemath, the daughter of Ishmael names her son Reu-el, similar to Reu in the family genealogy of Peleg, the descendant of Arphaxad. Recall in Chapter XXVII, where Reuel was also the family name of Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law. Jacob’s first son is named Reu-ben [Genesis 29:31]. Oholibamah’s son Jeu-sh, bears an uncanny resemblance to the word Jew-i-sh and the name Korah is an infamous family name in the tribe of Levi, one of Jacob’s sons [Numbers 16:1-50, Genesis 29:34].
Deuteronomy 2:12
English Standard Version
The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the people of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them and settled in their place…
At first, this appears contradictory as Esau intermarries heavily with the Horites before settling in the area of Seir. Mount Seir is mentioned prophetically in the Bible in connection with Esau, so it appears they are still a racial entity associated within Edom, due to the intermarriage and mixing. Esau’s children though, did wage war with the remaining Horites at a later date, due to a falling out. It is thought that the marriage with Ishmael’s daughter may have been fortuitous in gaining the Ishmaelites assistance in driving out those Horites who were not related to Esau by blood or marriage.
9 These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.
10 These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Basemath the wife of Esau.
11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz>.
12 (Timna* was a concubine of Eliphaz, Esau’s son; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz.)
Timna was the daughter of Seir the Horite. Again, in Genesis chapter fourteen, we read about the Amalekites who were a leading Nephilim tribe similar with the Horites and importantly, already in existence before Amalek the grandson of Esau is born.
