PDA

View Full Version : Willie Martin's Bible Studies



Gabriel
03-27-2010, 10:38 PM
God's Law
Willie Martin

We hear much about the "Law" today in the national and local media. They are constantly saying "it is the law." But you will notice that it is never God's Law which is to be observed, it is mans law and it is quickly putting shackles on us, our children and our grandchildren. This is not to say that law is not important, for law is essential to an orderly way of life. But it is to bring safety and peace not hostility and slavery.

It has been the continued and uninterrupted operation of God's Laws of Life that has made possible the existence of the human race. In fact, law is so essential to our very existence that life itself came into being as the result of the operation of God's Law (Which has not been done away with, the cries of the Judeo-Christian clergy to the contrary). The operation of law is not confined to our physical existence alone. Our very health and prosperity with every act and need of man, individually, socially and governmentally, are all governed bylaw; and if we keep and observe these laws all their benefits will accrue to us while, if we violate them, there will follow inevitable retribution and suffering.

When men come to a full realization of these facts, they will willingly apply themselves to understanding God's Laws so that in the knowledge of their operation and in obedience to them they may secure a blessing instead of a curse. Then the many and varied problems of administration which have so troubled and perplexed mankind will find a solution in their observance.

Chaos is the physical, spiritual or economic life of man is evidence that there has been a failure to observe and keep the orderly laws of peace. A perusal of both past and present conditions with mankind afflicted with crime, violence and war; while revolution, famine and disease have taken their toll of life. Such evil conditions can only exist where there has been a violation of the perfect laws of life, the keeping of which will bring results far from chaotic.

Creation is an orderly process, while chaos results form the failure of man to observe and keep God's Law which is the law of life and the way of peace, health and happiness. Life at its best, with all the blessings of peace, results from keeping the positive commands of God and refraining from violating the negative injunctions.

The Laws of the Lord were made known to man from the very beginning of our peoples history. "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5) So God's "Commandments," "Statutes," and "laws" were known to Abraham hundreds of years before Moses. We know this from scripture and because man would have had no guide to prosperity and peace. All the evidence of history and every factor of life continually demonstrate that the keeping of perfect laws is the very essence of a happy and enduring existence. And so it behooves us, if we would have perfection in living, to know them!

The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A study of that creation reveals order and perfection with a minuteness of balance in accord with the so-called immutable laws of nature. The physical creation of the earth was followed by the creation of life; and finally, man. The same law operating in the physical is seen to operate in the instincts and habits so in evidence in the animal kingdom. Is it unreasonable to assume that "man," a higher order of creation, is also subject to law, and to laws higher than those governing the instincts and habits of animal life?

God took man, whom He had "formed," and placed him in the garden, "And the Lord God 'Commanded' the man." Thus the command of God became the law of life to man. From the very beginning man became subject to the commands of God and this was a law unto him, for God had placed man high above the rest of creation in that man was made responsible for his acts, having been given the right of choice and the power to choose.

It would be impossible to give a full and accurate account of the entire history of law as it applies to man, for to do so would necessitate the writing of the entire record of the human race involving the manifold phases of social activity, national affairs and international relationships. History, however, records the fact that the happiness, prosperity and contentment of a people is in a large measure the direct result of the type of law administered and the method of administration: a blessing for the people when the commands of God (which is the Divine Law) are kept and administered; and a curse when that law is violated and its administration ignored.

While the command of God became law to men yet, in the violation of that command, men became subject to the disasters and troubles which have afflicted the human race from the day of man's disobedience until now. The antediluvian civilization which arose after man was driven from the garden was no exception. During the years following the expulsion of man from the paradise of God, there arose a civilization apart form God. Men were a law unto themselves and bound only by their goodwill to keep the commandments of God. The result was a complete failure to abide by the requirements of the law, which is clearly in evidence in the condemnation of that civilization: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

The deluge brought to an end this civilization of violence and crime. With the beginning of the new order human government was established, and to that government God issued the command: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Genesis 9:6)

Here we have the first evidence of the introduction of human government for, though man may know the law of the Lord, that law will not enforce itself! Therefore, it became necessary to delegate to human society the right of administration and judgment. Men were now enjoined to organize society and government and to curb violence. Under this command every earthly government has a right, nay it is a duty and "command" to bring to justice the murderer and subject him to the death penalty.

Men have failed to recognize that from the very beginning of human history God's Law has operated in the life of man. Because of this failure they have assumed that the law was first given to man at Mount Sinai. Nothing is further from the truth. God-fearing men have lived in accord with the principles of the law of the Lord centuries before the Mount Sinai experience of Israel and it is erroneous to attribute the knowledge of that law as coming to man through Moses. The revelation of God's Law is from antiquity. Wherever we find men, there also for man's guidance was a knowledge of the commandments, statutes and laws of God. True men ignored and forgot them but, nevertheless, God saw to it that in the beginning His laws were known to men.

The oldest record in Scripture, in which we have the account of the experiences of Job (who lived a few hundred years after the Deluge) makes mention of the laws of the Lord which were being kept by Job. Abraham was keeping these same laws four hundred and thirty years before the organization of the Israel Kingdom at Mount Sinai. This is borne out in the information given to Isaac to whom the Lord said He was performing His oath which He had sworn to Abraham, giving as one of the reasons: "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)

Thus Abraham observed the law long before Moses was born! Moses, however, had a task to perform and codified the laws of the Lord for Israel to administer at the time His people were organized into a Kingdom at Mount Sinai.

Inasmuch as Abraham kept the commandments, statutes and law, then of what law is Paul speaking when he refers to the promises made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law? (Galatians 3:17) The passage is translated by Ferrar Fenton: "And I assert this -- the rituals, beginning four hundred and thirty years after, could not cancel a Settlement previously established by God, so as to abolish the promise." The King James Version renders this verse as follows: "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

It was not the commandments, statutes and laws of Almighty God which Abraham was keeping that Paul refers to as coming four hundred and thirty years after the promise but it was the ritual or religious service which was established or added at Mount Sinai because of sin (Galatians 3:19). Here Israel received their system of national worship, which had to do with the ordinances by which atonement was made for sin.

Establishment of this distinction between the law contained in commandments, statutes and judgments and the ordinances may not seem important. However, due to the erroneous teaching of multitudes of Judeo-Christian Church leaders regarding the law and their acceptance of the false doctrine that Christians do not have to keep the law, it is necessary to define this distinction between the ritual (abolished in Christ) and the laws of administration which are still in operation.

God's Law is the very essence of life for, in the observance of the perfect Laws of God, life is worthwhile. The keeping of these laws is essential to orderly conduct and their administration is necessary in bringing justice and establishing equity and peace. Without law, anarchy would reign and society would be in a state of lawlessness and political disorder under which no government could function.

Judeo-Christians who advocate doing away with the law and who refuse to accept the operation of the principles of the commandments, statutes, and judgments of the Lord as the law of life in the conduct of man individually, socially, economically and in the administration of national affairs, are no different from the anarchist; for he also advocates the abolition of law. Judeo-Christians holding such doctrines believe that they are above the need of keeping the law. Anarchism at its best stands for society made orderly by good manners, but where there is no law there is no standard of conduct or good manners and the end of such a society is but confusion and disorder.

Anarchists are in rebellion against human government, but the Judeo-Christians who refuse to observe and keep the laws of God are in rebellion against Divine rule and government. It is a serious charge but, nevertheless, true. Peter declared that those who despise government are presumptuous and self-willed. (2 Peter 2:10) If God did establish a government and law upon the earth, it behooves every man, and certainly all true Christians, to conform with the requirements or come under the condemnation of being presumptuous.

What is the sin of presumption? Under the kingdom laws of administration, it is deliberately doing that which is known to be forbidden and are found in Numbers 15:29-31: "Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance...But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously... the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him."

Lest there be those who refuse to respect God's Commands and Government in their daily living and life, by making the excuse that the New Testament doctrine has set them free from law observance, it is well to listen to the words of Christ in Matthew 5:19-20: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Here we have an interesting promise made to Christians, for only those who are called by God, and accept Christ are eligible to position and power in the Kingdom. Greatness in the Kingdom will come to those who have kept, and taught others to keep, even the least of the laws. Condemnation and a place of obscurity is promised to those who are presumptuous and refuse to keep even the least of them.

Many passages in the Scriptures confirm all this, so let us not be anarchists and, above all, Christian anarchists, for the essence of an orderly and happy existence is to observe all the rules and regulations as contained in the commandments, statutes and judgments of Almighty God.

Once the fact is established that law observance is essential to orderly social relationships, it become necessary to make known to men the laws that must be kept. But along with a knowledge of that law is the need of an effective instrument or organization through which the law may be administered for the benefit of all men. God recognized this need and, though His laws were known for centuries before Abraham's day, God called Abraham and in this call chose a family through whom He proposed to work, making the descendants of this man a servant nation to become the administrators of Kingdom laws. Through them He would demonstrate to all nations the righteousness and perfection of His government and Kingdom. Moses had this in mind when he instructed Israel to keep the statutes and judgments of God in Deuteronomy 4:6: "Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."

No matter how just and perfect a law may be, the mere knowledge of its existence does not bring it into operation, nor will that knowledge alone compel men to observe and obey its precepts. It is necessary that a nation adopt that law as the law of the land and through the acts of administration demonstrate the perfection of that law in operation. In the call of Abraham a race was chosen by God to whom was to be given the perfect laws and through whose administration He would demonstrate to the world the perfection of that law.

The Bible records the history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel and the Egyptian sojourn of Jacob's twelve sons. Then came the deliverance from Egyptian bondage under the leadership of Moses. Following the trek across the wilderness they arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai where they received a national charter from God and were enjoined to administer His commandments, statutes and judgments.

Following the Mount Sinai experience of this people there emerged from the wilderness a nation with a perfect system of administration and law, which left so deep an impression upon this nation that it materially influenced all its acts and deeds for thousands of years.

So don't let anyone tell you God's Laws have been done away with, for he/she is a liar, a deceiver, a false teacher and no prophet of God.

Solomon
05-12-2010, 08:59 PM
The Genealogy of Yahshua The Messiah
by Willie Martin

In the first chapter of Matthew, the first 17 verses, we have what is called, in the KJV, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” It starts with Abraham and continues naming all the descendants of Judah through David down to a Jacob who begat Joseph, the husband of Mary.

The first impression one gets from this is: What does Joseph, the husband of Mary, have to do with Yahshua the Messiah as He was supposed to be born of a Virgin birth. If Joseph is not the bloodline father of Yahshua, why even take up the space to mention his genealogical data? This is a very long and complicated story which we hope to explain before the end of this study. In order to save space, we will first present an abbreviated chart of this genealogy as presented in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3-23-38:

Matthew 1:1-16:

Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Judah > Pharez > Ezrom > Aram > Aminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse > David* > Solomon* > Rehobom* > Abijam* > Asa* > Jehoshaphat* > Jehoram* > Ahaziah* > Jotham* > Ahaz* > Hezekiah* > Manasseh* > Amon* > Josiah* > Jehoiachin* > Salathiel_ > Zorobabel_ > Abiud > Eliakim > Azor > Sador > Achim > Elias > Eleazor > Matthan > Jacob > Joseph, the husband of Mary. (* indicates 15 kings; _ not the same as Salathiel or Zorobabel, son and grandson of Neri as below in Luke’s genealogy)

A footnote from the “Emphatic Diaglott” says this on page 11 concerning the above genealogy:

“By reference to 2 Chronicles 22, and following chapters, it will be sen that the names of Ahazia, Joash, and Amaziah, the immediate descendants of Jehoram, are omitted in the text...Some manuscripts read, ‘Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah,’ probably inserted to make up fourteen generations, as mentioned in verse 17.”

Luke 3:23-38:

Yahweh > Adam > Seth > Enosh > Cainan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methusalah > Lamech > Noah > Shem > Arphaxad > Cainan > Shalah > Eber> Peleg > Reu > Serug > Nahor > Terah > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Judah > Pharez > Ezrom > Aram > Aminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse> “David* > Nathan > Mattatha > Menan > Melea > Eliakim > Jonan > Joseph > Juda > Simeon> Levi > Matthat > Jorim > Eliezer > Jose > Joseph > Semei > Mattathias > Joseph > Janna > Melhi > Levi> Matthat > Heli > Mary (espoused of Joseph) > Yahshua the Messiah. (* indicates 1 king only, being David; and as stated above this Salathiel or “Zorobabel, son and grandson of Jehoiachin as in Matthew’s genealogy second paragraph above. The name Zerubbabel is shown by actual inscriptions from the time of Darius to have been a very common one in Babylon)

To this last genealogy of Mary the “Pictorial Bible Dictionary,” by The S0uthwestern Company makes the following comment on page 514:

“She (Mary) lived into the apostolic period, whereas Joseph seems to have died before the crucifixion of Yahshua, for there is no mention of him after the incident of Yahshua in the temple when He was twelve, and she could very well have told the story to the early leaders of the church, including Luke. She was the ‘kinswoman’ of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Luke 1:36), but the exact nature of this relationship is uncertain. Luke tells the story of Yahshua’s birth from Mary’s standpoint, describing her maidenly fears (Luke 1:26-35), her paean (song) of praise to Yahweh for the favor accorded her in being the mother of the Messiah. (Luke 1:39-55) Matthew on the other hand tells the story from the standpoint of Joseph, describing his reaction when he found she was with child, his determination to protect her from shame and contumely (rudeness) as much as possible, his obedience to Yahweh’s command that he marry Mary, his taking her and Yahshua to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. The two stories harmonize and dovetail perfectly.”

The Betrothal of Mary to Joseph

The “Wycliffe Bible Commentary,” has the following to say about this on page 932:

“Among the Judeans, marriage vows were said at the betrothal, and required divorce to end them. Custom decreed an interval, usually a year, before the bride should take residence in her husband’s house and physical union being consummated. During this interval Mary was found with child, and circumstance usually punishable by death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) Apparently Mary did not explain he situation to Joseph but chose to leave this delicate matter in the hands of Yahweh. She could hardly have expected Joseph to accept her story without some divine authentication.”

We are told in “The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten books of Eden,” The Protevangelion 10:1‑10:

"And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned form his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face ca I look up to the Lord my God? Or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! And have not preserved her such! Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? IS NOT THE HISTORY OF ADAM EXACTLY ACCOMPLISHED IN ME? FOR IN THE VERY INSTANT OF HIS GLORY, THE SERPENT CAME AND FOUND EVE ALONE, AND SEDUCED HER. JUST AFTER THE SAME MANNER IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME. Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this. Why hast thou debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man."

The “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible,” abridged by Ralph Earle, comments thusy on page 766:

“Espoused to Joseph. The word refers to the previous marriage agreement to which the parties mutually bound themselves to each other, without which no woman was ever married among the Judeans. Before they came together: The woman was espoused at her own or her father’s house, and generally some time elapsed before she was taken home to the house of her husband. (Deuteronomy 22:7; Judges 14:7-8)

Among the Judean Israelites the espousal, though the marriage had not ben consummated, was considered as perfectly legal and binding on both sides; hence a breach of this contract was considered as a case of adultery, and punished in exactly the same way. (Deuteronomy 22:25-28) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD. Her situation was the most distressing and humiliating that can be conceived. Nothing but the fullest consciousness of her own integrity and the strongest confidence in Yahweh could have supported her in such a trying circumstance, where her reputation, her honor, and her life was at stake. What conversation passed between her, and Joseph on this discovery we are not informed (unless the above out of the Books of Eden is true); but the issue proves that it was not satisfactory to him, nor could he resolve to consider her as his wife till Yahweh had sent His angel to bear the most unequivocal testimony to the Virgin’s innocence. (The Protevangelion 10:1-10, which as stated above records Joseph’s reaction to this discovery)...He might at once have taken the advantage of the law, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and had her stoned to death.”

Back to “The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,” page 932:

“Joseph ended the period of betrothal by taking Mary to live in his home so that Yahshua at His birth WOULD BE HIS LEGITIMATE SON AND HEIR TO THE THRONE. However, he knew her not, sexually, prior to the birth. Neither ‘till’ nor ‘firstborn’ (Matthew 1:25) necessarily indicates what happened afterward. However, one would naturally infer that the normal relationship of marriage would follow, unless one is committed to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. Matthew betrays no such inclination.”

The Curse of Jeconiah

To understand what the curse of Jeconiah was and is all about, we are going to quote from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1204:

“Of interest, too, is the mention of a king named ‘Jeconiah.’ In Jeremiah 22:30 Yahweh pronounced a curse on this man:

Thus says Yahweh:

‘Write this man down as childless,

A man who shall not prosper in his days;

For none of his (male) descendants shall prosper,

Sitting on the throne of David,

And ruling anymore in Judah.’

If Yahshua had been the REAL son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights of the throne of David. The problem was solved by the miracle of the virgin birth: Yahshua was the LEGAL heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the REAL Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her child since she did not descend from Jeconiah.”

For another reference from Jeremiah 22:24-30, concerning Jeconiah’s curse, we will now quote from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1011:

“Prophecy against King Jehoiachin...Coniah (also called Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), the fourth (son of) king (Josiah), would be taken captive by the Babylonians and would die in Babylon. None of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David. No offspring of Jeconiah succeeded him to the throne. His replacement, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was his uncle. Charles H. Dyer comments: This prophecy also helps explain the genealogies of Yahshua in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew presented the legal line of Yahshua through his stepfather, Joseph. However, Joseph’s line came through Shealthel who was a son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Matthew 1:12; cf. 1 Chronicles 3:17) Had Yahshua been a physical descendant of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified as Israel’s King. Luke presented the physical line of Yahshua through Mary, who was descended from David through the line of his son Nathan (Luke 3:31) In that way Yahshua was not under the ‘curse’ of Jehoiachin.

At this point, it is important to notice the curse of Jeconiah didn’t fall on Zedekiah or his daughters who eventually went to Ireland. Being Jeconiah’s uncle, Zedekiah would be a generation order. To amplify on the above two passages, we will quote from “The International Bible Commentary,” by F.F. Bruce, page 1122:

“Humanly speaking Yahshua’s claim to the Davidic throne depended on the willingness of Joseph, the legal heir, to accept Him as his son. Hence Matthew gives only Joseph’s version of the story...Here let us note that apart from the divine activity in conception, Yahshua’s birth was completely normal. He was not conceived until Mary was married; betrothal was legally marriage.”

Returning now to quote again from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1204:

“This (Matthew’s) genealogy traces the ‘legal’ descent of Yahshua as King of Israel; the genealogy in Luke’s Gospel traces His ‘lineal’ descent as Son of David. Matthew’s genealogy follows his ‘royal’ line form David through his son, Solomon, the next king; Luke’s genealogy follows the ‘blood’ line from David through another son, Nathan. This genealogy concludes with Joseph, of whom Yahshua was the ‘adopted’ Son, the genealogy in Luke 3 probably traces the ancestry of Mary, of whom Yahshua was the ‘real’ son. A millennium earlier, YAHWEH HAD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID, PROMISING HIM A KINGDOM THAT WOULD LAST FOREVER AND A PERPETUALLY RULING LINE (Psalm 89:4, 36, 37)...Yahshua united in His Person the only two basis for claims to the throne of Israel (the legal and the lineal)...”

Quoting now from the “Commentary On The While Bible,” by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, page 881:

“And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Master. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; BUT THE ACKNOWLEDGED DESCENT OF HIS LEGAL FATHER FORM DAVID SECURED THAT THE DESCENT OF HIS LEGAL FATHER FROM DAVID SECURED THAT THE DESCENT OF YAHSHUA HIMSELF FROM DAVID SHOULD NEVER BE QUESTIONED.”

If you will return to the genealogy charts in the first column, you will notice there are 15 kings in Joseph’s line and only one in Mary’s line, and that being David himself.

Further Information on Mary’s Line

In the “Lost Books of the bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden,” in “The Gospel of the Birth Of Mary,” starting with page 17 and continuing through page 24, there is more information of the lineage of Mary. In chapter 1, verse 2, it names Coachim as Mary’s father and Anna as Mary’s mother. Actually Mary’s father was called by four different names, Heli, Eli, Heliachim and Joachim. You can find this information in the “Adam Clarke’s Commentary,” abridged by Ralph Earle, on pages 863 and 864. But at this point, we want to give you additional information about Mary’s mother, Anna.

Mary’s Mother Anna (Ann)

We will be taking this information from the book St. Joseph of Arimathea At Glastonbury, appendix 3, pages 155-157:

“Kinship Of The Holy Family.”“It will surprise most people to know that in the English College of Arms, the Heralds’ Office, there is a pedigree of Christ (Yahshua) and His relatives from Adam downwards. It is both a chart and narrative form. The pedigree of Our Master’s immediate family is startling. It is strange to find it there. It is Roll 33, Box 26. Interest centres in St. Ann and her sister Bianca. Ann had three husbands: first Joachim, by whom she had the Blessed Virgin Mary; second Cleophas, by whom she had another Mary who married Alphaeus and who was the mother of St. James the Less. Symeon (St. Simon), St. Jude or Thaddaeus, and Joseph Barsaba, who are generally called ‘the Brethren of our Messiah,’ thus making them cousins of the half-blood. It is very startling that the third husband attributed to St. An is Salome (usually the name of a woman). By him she had a third Mary, and it is equally startling that she is said to have married Zebedee and was the mother of St. John the Divine and St. James the Great, thus making them also cousins of the half-blood of our Messiah. Bianca, St. Ann’s sister, had a daughter Halsbert (our Elizabeth) who married Zacharias and who was the mother of St. John the Baptist, thus making him second cousin to Our Messiah, as in the Bible. There was evidently some tradition...that St. John and St. James were half-cousins of Our Messiah, as in the Bible. There was evidently some tradition...that St. John and St. James were half-cousins of Our Messiah, and that his ‘brethren’ were really half-cousins...

“But one must record that the narrative of that same Roll shows a somewhat different pedigree. It makes ‘the brethren’ of Our Messiah half brothers, St. Mary (not St. Ann) marrying Cleophas after St. Joseph’s death. St. Ann is only given two Marys as daughters, she marrying only Joachim and Salome, but St. John and St. James, the sons of Zebedee and Mary, are still half-cousins of Our Messiah...

“In the Harl. MMS. In the British Museum, 38-59, f. 193b, there is a descent of both the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph from David, making Heli, the father of the Blessed Virgin, and Jacob, father of St. Joseph, to be brothers, thus making St. Mary and St. Joseph first cousins. (Note: We know that Matthan was the father of Jacob, Joseph’s father; and Matthat was the father of Heli, Mary’s father; so they could have been only cousins through a common mother of Jacob and Heli, thus not passing on the curse of Jeconiah to Yahshua)...But besides this attempt to reconcile the Biblical genealogies by making the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph first cousins, it makes St. Joseph of Arimathea uncle of them both, and his daughter Anna Consobrina or cousin of the Blessed Virgin...

“Another MS. In Jesus College, MS. 20, makes Anna mother of Penardin (a somewhat Cornish name) who married King Lear, and so was mother of Bran the Blessed and grandmother of caractacus, thus linking the Holy Family with the ancient British Royal Family...

“To sum up, the Heralds’ College MS. Throws light on the relationship of that little band of Yahshua’s followers that changed the history of the world. The Harleian MS. Supports the claim that Joseph of Arimathea was uncle of the Blessed Virgin, and making St. Joseph and St. Mary first cousins makes him uncle of them both. It also claims that he had a daughter Anna, calling her consobrina, or cousin, or the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

For additional information and another segment in the story of Anna, the mother of Mary, we will go to page 63 of this same book:

“Anna was born in Comouaille of royal blood. Brutally treated by a jealous husband, when with child, she fled toward the sea; an angel caused her to enter a vessel, and took her to Asia to Jaffa, where she landed, and whence she reached Nazareth. There she gave birth to a little girl, whom she named Mary. When she (Mary) was fifteen years old, she was married to a carpenter, named Joseph, and Anna then prayed to Yahweh to take her back to Comouaille. The same angel again took her over the waves. Anna found that her husband was dead, divided her property among his vassals...”

With this genealogy, you can clearly see that Mary was Elizabeth’s 1st or 2nd cousin, that Mary, on her mother’s side was of the tribe of Levi. This is important, for not only was Yahshua the “natural” and “legal” son of David, he was also the natural son of Levi. This is what qualified Him to be both priest and king. Never before did such a combination of events bring about such a unique unparalleled individual. Though He was born to be king, He has yet to be crowned as such, It is recorded however, that He took the office of priest at about thirty years of age, Luke 3:23.

Yahshua Born To Be King

of An Everlasting Kingdom

When David took the throne, his throne was to last forever and always be occupied by one of his descendants. There are hundreds of references in Scripture to verify this. According to Bible history, there was no Davidic throne or anyone to occupy it for a period of approximately 600 years in Palestine. Throughout this period, Judah was continually a vassal state under other powers and never once did a descendant of David that that throne as such. It is evident we must look elsewhere for David’s throne. If there is no longer a Throne of David for Yahshua to occupy, all His genealogy of birth, ministry, death and resurrection are in vain.

The Covenant of Salt

2 Chronicles 13:5 likens Yahweh’s promise to David as a “covenant of salt:”

“Ought ye not to know that Yahweh El of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, ‘even’ to him and his sons BY A COVENANT OF SALT?”

The International Bible Commentary,” by F.F. Bruce, page 468:

“A COVENANT OF SALT WAS A PERPETUAL COVENANT THAT COULD NOT BE BROKEN. (Numbers 18:19; Leviticus 2:13) This reference to an eternal dominion for the Davidic dynasty is independent of (the books of) Samuel and (the) Kings.”

The (abridged) “Adam Clarke’s Commentary,” pages 154 and 191 say the following concerning a salt covenant:

“It is a covenant of salt.’ That is, an incorruptible everlasting covenant. As ‘salt’ was added to different kinds of viands (pieces of food), not only to give them relish, but to preserve them from putrefaction and decay, it became the emblem of incorruptibility and permanence. Hence, ‘a covenant of salt’ signified AN EVERLASTING CONVENT...SALT WAS THE OPPOSITE TO LEAVEN for it preserved from putrefaction and corruption, and signified the purity and persevering fidelity...It was called the ‘salt of the covenant of thy EL,’ BECAUSE AS SALT IS INCORRUPTIBLE, SO WAS THE COVENANT made with Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs relative to the redemption of the (Israel) world by the incarnation and death of Yahshua.”

“Commentary On The Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown,” pages 86 and 126:

“...NO INJUNCTION IN THE WHOLE LAW WAS MORE SACREDLY OBSERVED than this application of salt...It is a common phrase among Oriental people, who consider the taking of salt a pledge of fidelity, BINDING THEM IN A COVENANT of friendship.”

Yahweh Has Preserved David’s Throne

through the Throne of David was non-existent for nearly 600 years in Palestine, during the inter-testament period, it was alive and well in Ireland, and Yahweh was true to His covenant of salt with David. The curse of Jeconiah was not on Zedekiah and his descendants, though Nebuchadnezzar killed all his sons who were eligible for the throne. But in Israel, the daughters can inherit the throne if there remain no living male heir (Numbers 27:6-11) Jeremiah took the two daughters of Zedekiah to a new land. Isaiah 37:31 prophesied that:

“And the remnant that is escaped, of the house of Judah, shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.”

The Restoration of David’s

Throne in The Isles

Purposely written in the riddle form of a parable so that few would understand it, the Throne of David was relocated in Ireland (Ezekiel 17:22-24):

“Thus saith Yahweh, I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar (royal family) and will set ‘it:’ I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one (a daughter), and will plant it upon a high mountain (the isles) and eminent: in the mountain (the isles) of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs (family branches), and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar (strong family tree): and under it shall dwell all foul of every wing (‘Jews’ and other races); in the shadow of the branches (of government) thereof they shall dwell (infiltrate). And all the trees of the field (all people) shall know that I the Almighty have brought down the high tree (Pharez royal line), and have exalted the low tree (Zerah royal line), have dried up the green tree (Pharez royal line), and have made the dry tree (Zerah royal line) to flourish: I Yahweh have spoken and have done it.”

No sooner than Jeremiah arrived in Ireland with Tea Tephi (Zedekiah’s daughter of the Pharez royal family) than he arranged for her marriage to Eochaidh, the Heremonn, a prince of the Tuatha de Danaans on his mother’s side and a direct descendant of Fenesia Farsa, and thus of the line of Zerah, twin brother of Pharez of the Royal House of Judah, thus uniting the Royal House of Pharez and the Royal House of Zerah.

David to Rule Over All of Israel

Not Just Judah

Had Yahshua taken the Crown at His First Advent, He would have been King of only Judah. Had He taken the Crown over all of Israel, He would have had to make a journey to Britain to dethrone whoever was king there at that time for there could not be two kings holding the position at the same time. If He had become King, at that time, He would have to have dethroned Herod. Had He taken Herod’s place, He would have found Himself a vassal under Roman rule, and Yahshua is never going to be subservient to any earthly king! When asked by Pilate if He were King. He answered in John 18:36:

“My kingdom is not of this (#2889, present world order), if my kingdom were of this (present world order), then would my servants fight.”

We know this fighting did not happen at His First Advent, and hasn’t happened since. We know Yahshua didn’t receive the sceptre from the “Jewish” nation, as they were under Rome before He was born, and forty years after He was gone, they were still under Rome. If the first coming of Yahshua was His Shiloh coming, then He failed miserably; for the people did not gather to Him as prophesied in Genesis 49:10. It would have been impossible for the Israelites to gather to Him for they were scattered all over Europe from the Black Sea to the British Isles.

Yet the Jews were afraid that He would regather them to him because their high priest said:

“And ONE OF THEM, NAMED CAIAPHAS, BEING THE HIGH PRIEST that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole (Jewish) nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, BUT THAT ALSO HE SHOULD GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE THE CHILDREN OF GOD THAT WERE SCATTERED ABROAD.” (John 11:49-52)

So we see here, that is usually overlooked by most Judeo-Christians and especially the Judeo-Christian clergy (or they don’t want to see it), is proof positive that the Jews are not the Israelites, other wise the Jewish High Priest would not have made the statement “He should gather together in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad.” If the Jews were Yahweh’s people, he would not have said this at all. He would have said gather together our brothers and sisters. But he did not because he knew they, the Jews, were not Israelites.

Yahweh declared, “Judah is My Lawgiver.” According to accepted evidence, Judah as Lawgiver departed from the nation of Judea 588 years before the One acceptable to eventually become Shiloh in the future came, thus leaving an unbridged chasm of time like a gaping void which cannot be easily plastered over. All who claim that Yahshua has already come as Shiloh are compelled to resort to inexcusable distortions of Scripture to fill up this gaping breach of 588 years from the overthrow of Zedekiah until the time of Our Redeemer.

He Did Become Priest

But Not King At His First Advent

From the 18th verse above, it would appear that, somehow, if it were true, it would still be necessary to have a priesthood killing animals and offering sacrifices. While animal sacrifice has been discontinued, it is still very much in effect inasmuch as the priesthood was conferred upon Yahshua at His First Advent. Actually he became both the priest and the sacrifice inasmuch as He offered Himself to be the Lamb. Up until His Priesthood, the Levitical priesthood was kept intact.

For proof of this, we will quote Hebrews 7:15-17:

“And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of and endless life. For he testifieth, Thou ‘art’ a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:6; 5:10; 6:20; 7:17; 7:21)

There is a possibility that Yahshua inherited the priesthood legally at John the Baptist’s death through Zacharias. As we documented here before, Mary the mother of Yahshua was related to Elisabeth who was a Levite. If it were necessary for Yahshua to receive the legal kingship line through Joseph, it is only reasonable that He legally inherit the priesthood in some similar manner. (Taken, in part, from an article “The Genealogy of Yahshua The Messiah,” by Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries, 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44839, (419) 435-2836)

malachi83
05-26-2010, 08:13 PM
http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/
http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/outline.htm

Watchman Willie Martin
(Book, Study & Essay Archive)
Selected Topical Outline

East Tennessee
05-23-2014, 09:45 PM
Ruth Was An Israelite
Willie Martin

It is unfortunate that many preachers, in their ignorance, teach so much false doctrine. One such false doctrine is the statement that Jesus Christ was not of pure Israelite blood; they say that one of His Ancestors was Ruth, “ a Moabitess. ” From the use of this term, they believe that she was racially, not just geographically, Moabite. In this they are greatly mistaken.

The territory of the Moabites was originally east and northeast of the Dead Sea, extending from the River Arnon on the south to the river Jabbok on the north, and from the Dead sea and Jordan River on the west across the plains and foothills into the mountains to the east. From the name of the people who lived there, it was call “ Moab, ” and it kept that name for many centuries AFTER ALL THE MOABITES WERE GONE FROM IT!

When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, after their 40 years wandering in the Exodus, the land of Moab was the first territory they conquered. God had commanded them to totally exterminate the former occupants of the lands they were to settle; and in Moab, they did just that. At that time, about 1450 B.C., Sihon, King of the Amorites, and conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab, and was its ruler when the Israelites came in.

In Numbers 21:26, 29, we read: “ For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, AND TAKEN ALL HIS LAND OUT OF HIS HAND, even unto Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! Thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites. ”

The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, killing all the people they found therein. We read in Deuteronomy 2:32-34:

“ Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. ”

From here, the Israelites advanced northward into the land of Ammon. Numbers 21:30-35:

“ We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. ”

This entire area, east of the River Jordan, was settled by the Tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the Tribe of Manasseh, after all the original inhabitants, Moabites and Ammonites, had been killed or driven out.

In Deuteronomy 3:12-16, Moses tells us:

“ And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan‑havothjair, unto this day. And I gave Gilead unto Machir. And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon. ”

All of this was accomplished about 1450 B.C. From that time on, this was purely Israelite territory; even more so than the land west of the River Jordan, because in the old lands of Moab and Ammon none were left alive. Today, Anglo-Saxon Americans who live in California are called “ Californians. ” But bearing this name and living in a former Mexican territory doesn ’ t make them Mexicans. Likewise, pure Israelites living in the old land of Moab were often called “ Moabites, ” just as those who lived in Galilee were called “ Galileans. ”

Three hundred years later, about 1143 B.C., we find evidence that the Israelite occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon was still unbroken, in Judges 11:12-26, which says:

“ And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon: And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon: But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red sea, and came to Kadesh; Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. So now the LORD God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it? Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? ”

So the Israelites had held unbroken possession of the land of Moab and Ammon all that time. Right in the middle of this period, about 1322 B.C., or 130 years after the Israelites of the Tribes of Reuben and Gad had occupied the land of Moab, ELIMELECH, A MAN OF JUDAH, WITH HIS WIFE NAOMI and his two sons was driven by famine out of Judah; and Ruth 1:1 says that he “ went to sojourn in the country of Moab. ”

“ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And A CERTAIN MAN OF BETHLEHEMJUDAH WENT TO SOJOURN IN THE COUNTRY OF MOAB, HE, AND HIS WIFE, AND HIS TWO SONS. And THE NAME OF THE MAN WAS ELIMELECH, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. ” (Ruth 1:1-4)

Note the accuracy of that expression: NOT AMONG THE PEOPLE OF MOAB, BUT IN THE COUNTRY OF MOAB, WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY ISRAELITES EXCLUSIVELY. His sons married women of that country; one of them being Ruth, became an ancestor of David, and through David an ancestor of Jesus Christ. SHE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OF ANY RACE OR NATION BUT ISRAEL, FOR NO OTHERS LIVED THERE.

Indeed, it could not have been otherwise. From the beginning God very strongly condemned the Moabites and Ammonites. In Deuteronomy 23:3 He commanded: “ An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of God; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of God Forever. ”

In the tenth generation there could be as little as one part in 1056 of Moabite blood: yet Forever a person with even on part in a thousand of Moabite blood could not enter into the congregation. And God was always consistent, in this as in other matters. In Sephaniah 2:9 we read: “ 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... ”

The whole 48th chapter of Jeremiah is a terrible condemnation of the people of Moab. In prophesying the triumphant return of Jesus Christ, Isaiah tells us: “ For in this mountain shall the hand of the Lord rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill. ” (Isaiah 25:10)

Certainly God would not take from a people whom He condemns like Sodom one to be an ancestor of Jesus Christ. So never let anyone tell you that Jesus Christ was only a mongrel, with the blood of other races flowing in His veins. God was so insistent that even the least peasant among His people Israel must keep the race line pure, under penalty of being cut off from His people for violation of this law; and Jesus Christ said, “ Think not that I am cone to destroy the law or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. ” (Matthew 5:17).

We have the clearest proof that, both as God the Father and as God the Son, He was consistently true to His own commandments: Ruth was a pure Israelite, from the land of Moab, but not from the race of Moab. But even if she were, the Moabites were descended from Lot, Abraham ’ s nephew, and as such were not racial aliens either. (Taken, in part, from a study by Bertrand L. Comparet, from “ Covenant Report, ” New Zealand)

John Beauclerc
11-13-2015, 05:35 PM
I read in Willie Martin's ''Christ was Not a Jew'' that Gypsies descend from the tribe of Judah. I have never seen this mentioned elsewhere, but found it interesting. What do others think of this?

42d3e78f26a4b20d412==