TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 19


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20201219-100Proofs-19.mp3 — Downloaded 2531 times

 

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 19

This is our fourth discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. Once again, we have already explained that this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites. But understanding the true meanings of many Biblical terms does help to prove that word meanings were obfuscated by the churches so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

In our last presentation of this series, we discussed the various terms for man, which are adam and enosh, and we found that adam is a racial designation, describing a single race of man, but that enosh is the general term for man in the sense of a mortal hominid. Then we examined the words for bastard and found that bastard is also a racial designation, but describes someone who is not of an authentic race. Now we shall discuss another misunderstood term which is also a racial designation similar to bastard, but from a different perspective, and that is the term arab.

An Arab is also a bastard

The term “arab” in Strong’s Hebrew lexicon is found at #’s 6151 and 6154. Strong’s defines ereb, # 6154 as being: “… from 6148; the web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race)” and he goes on to describe how it was translated in the King James Version as Arabia, or mingled in phrases such as “mingled people” and mixed in “mixed multitude”, or of threads of cloth, as woof. Strong’s defines arab, # 6151 as: “… to commingle” and explains that the King James Version translated that word as mingle and mix. The root of this verb as it is given in Strong’s is a verb, arab, and it is listed at # 6150, which is defined as: “… a primitive root [rather identical with 6148 through the idea of covering with texture]: [meaning] to grow dusky at sundown”, and it is translated in the King James Version as to be darkened or to be evening, in the sense of the day becoming darkened.

In Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon under # 6154, one is directed to see the root (under #’s 6148-49) No. I. i., which in turn says… : “… (1) to mingle oneself … (2) … to intermingle ... to enter into marriage ... Ezra 9:2 ...” Then under # 6151, it says: “... to mix, to mingle ... Daniel 2:43.” This explanation I modified from an old paper by Clifton Emahiser which I critiqued a few years ago. Clifton may not have noticed it, but where Gesenius defines the verb ‘ereb in part as “to enter into marriage”, citing Ezra 9:2, he was being deceptive, whether or not his deception was purposeful. The only time this word ‘ereb is used in relation to marriage is where it is used in relation to a mingled marriage, to the marriage of Israelites with those of other races, which is the very context of Ezra 9:2. This and related words are also translated as mingled in Scripture, referring to people of diverse tribes, in Psalm 106:35, Jeremiah 25:20, 24, 50:37, Ezekiel 30:5 and Daniel 2:43. Most notably, it is also the “mixed multitude” of Exodus 12:38 and Nehemiah 13:3 which states “Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.”

The New Brown, Driver, Briggs version of the Gesenius Hebrew And English Lexicon defines # 6154, ereb, as: “... mixture, mixed company; – heterogeneous body [meaning from people of different races - WRF] attached to a people; to Israel Exod. 12:38 ... Neh. 13:3 ... Jer. 25:20 ... Jer. 50:37 ... Jer. 25:24 ... 1 Ki. 10:15 ... 2 Chr. 9:14 ... Ezek. 30:5 ...” In Ezra 9:2 we read: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.” So ‘ereb in that context doesn’t mean to marry, as Gesenius claimed, but to race-mix.

The word Arabia first appears in Scripture in 1 Kings 10:15 where we read: “Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.” There the word for Arabia is Strong’s # 6153 or ereb. Because the word can mean to grow dark, people imagine that arab has that meaning because the sun set in the west so the east grew dark first, but that is not true. Babylon was directly east of Jerusalem, but it was not said to be in Arabia, and most of the lands identified in Scripture as being in Arabia were to the south of Judah rather than to the east. Furthermore, if that were true, then perhaps the phrase mixed multitude in Exodus 12:38 or Nehemiah 13:3, for examples, should have been interpreted as dark horde or dark multitude.

For other examples, in Isaiah chapter 21 we read: “13 The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. 14 The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.” Then in Ezekiel chapter 27: “21 Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats: in these were they thy merchants.” Yet Dedan, Tema and Kedar were all far south of Jerusalem, and perhaps only slightly east. They were not in the land of the sunset. Rather, Jeremiah helps us understand the meaning of the term for Arabia where we read in the King James Version of Jeremiah chapter 25 a warning uttered in part to: “23 Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners, 24 And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert….” These are parallelisms: the people addressed in these places are the mingled people of the deserts to the south and east. Since the word for Arabia is Strong’s # 6152, arab and the word for mingled is #6153 ereb, they are both actually forms of the same word and therefore have the same meaning.

In the days before Solomon, the people of the countries of Arabia and the lands south of Judah were called by their tribal identification, whether they were Amorites or Midianites or Ishmaelites or Edomites or Nabataeans or Sabaens or any of the other people who had inhabited that region. But in the days of Solomon they started to become known simply as Arabs, as mingled peoples, ostensibly because over the centuries they all became mingled with one another, regardless of whether they were also mingled with Canaanites or even with other races, such as Nubians. So an Arab is someone who is mixed.

Then much later, 300 years after Solomon, we read in another context where Ezekiel is speaking of mixed tribes and in chapter 30 we read of “5 Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.” The word for mingled there is also ereb, or arab, but it speaks of mixed people in Africa rather than in Arabia. About a century before Ezekiel wrote these words, Nubians had overrun Ethiopia and Egypt, and had ruled over Egypt for several decades, hence the reference to “all the mingled people”.

Later in the prophets, perhaps 70 or 80 years later, in Zechariah chapter 9 we read a punishment which was announced against the Philistines: “6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.” So who has dwelt at Ashdod, for at least the last 1500 years, if not Arab bastards, Arabs, who are called by that name because their race was mixed?

There is another word in Hebrew that can refer to people who are mixed, and that is belial. First, where belial appears in the Old Testament it is usually capitalized and left untranslated. The Hebrew definition is found at Strong’s # 1100, beliya’al, and it is defined in part as “from 1097 and 3276; without profit, worthlessness; by extension destruction, wickedness…” The word found at 1097, beliy, is “properly failure, i.e. nothing or destruction…” But another related word, beliyl, is found at # 1098 in Strong’s Hebrew lexicon and it is defined as: “... from 1101, mixed, i.e. (specifically) feed (for cattle)….”

So I would contend that while belial is generally worthless, it can also refer to something mixed because something which was mixed was considered worthless. It says in the law in Leviticus that “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed” and these were prohibitions against the mixing of both cattle and plants. Since mingled seed could not be used in planting, it was worthless. Therefore we see in the definition for Babel in the Brown, Driver Briggs lexicon “Babel or Babylon = ‘confusion (by mixing)’”. It is no mistake that as races are being mixed all around us today, the Bible warns us that in the time of the end “Mystery Babylon” would ultimately fall. The mixing we are seeing in society is confusion, it is Mystery Babylon. It is a mystery because people are too blind to understand their Bibles.

Now I will repeat some of the entries which Clifton cited from Collier’s Encyclopedia for his paper on the meaning of the terms Arab and Arabia:

From the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 2, page 398, under the topic “Arabs”, we read the following: “The people of the Arab world have no single origin. Although Arab culture was associated in early times with the Arabian Peninsula, over the centuries many different peoples have become Arabized through adoption of the Arabic language and other features of Arab culture. For nearly all Arabization was through Islam, the major religion of the Arab world. The Arabs are as diverse physically as they are in ethnic origin. There is no Arab ‘racial type.’ Some Arabs do fit the stereotyped picture, lean and ‘hawk-nosed,’ with darkish skin and black hair, but these features are in no sense typical. Negroid Arabs are similar in appearance to sub-Saharan Africans, and light-skinned Arabs are physically indistinguishable from most Europeans.”

Here it must be noted, that most of the Arab world was originally White, as two thousand years ago even the Canaanites and Edomites were apparently white. But through Islam and the slave trade, which has been ongoing for centuries longer than most people in the West may ever perceive, Arabs freely interbred with Negros or other races, and over time that has produced many Negroid Arabs and many others who are one variety of dark or another. Now Clifton cites another article from the same source:

Again from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 13, page 310, under the topic “Islam”, we read the following:

“... The term Islam refers not only to the religion but also to the entire body of believers and the countries they live in. Among the predominantly Muslim nations of the modern world are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Chad, Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Arabian peninsula, Turkey, Albania, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Large Muslim communities exist in Lebanon, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, China, India, and the Philippines. There is hardly a region that does not have a Muslim community.

“The youngest of the world’s great religions, Islam developed in Arabia, in an area that was one of the most significant melting-pots revealed by history, and the great religious enthusiasm of the peoples living there was thereby diffused and given a universal character ...” [emphasis mine]

Clifton only wants to stress the fact that ancient Arabia was a “melting pot”, and that this is commonly acknowledged even by mainstream academic sources such as Collier’s Encyclopedia. So he continues:

Again from the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 13, under the topic “Islam”, and the sub-topic “Central Beliefs”, of which there are five that are termed “affirmations”, central to basic Moslem doctrine. The “fifth affirmation” is of utmost interest to us here and reads as follows on page 311:

“Fifth, the community of believers includes all who reverence Allah, His Prophet, Book, and the Day of Judgment. This is the celebrated brotherhood of Islam in which all barriers of race, color, tongue, and status are broken.” [emphasis mine]

So once we realize that all of the Arabs are mixed, and that is why they are called Arabs, and once we realize that they are all mixed with the ancient Edomites and Canaanites, we can understand why all of these people are so despised in the Scriptures, and why the apostles never attempted to bring them the Gospel of Christ, in spite of the fact that even Paul of Tarsus went into Arabia for a time after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

With all of the surrounding nations becoming mingled in this manner, even by the time of Solomon, we must also realize why it was so important for the children of Israel to remain separate from them, and that is the essence of the demands by God that they be holy. That is the point of the next portion of our discussion:

Holy is Separated, and Saint refers to someone who is Separated, but the separating is from God and not from men.

Here we are going to discuss the actual meaning of the words translated in the Old Testament as holy, saint, sacred, sanctified, etc. In reality something which is holy is something that has been sanctified by God according to His will, but not necessarily according to the will of man, and we have already illustrated that difference in the meanings of the Greek words ὅσιος and δίκαιος. As we have said, what is ὅσιος is what has been decreed by God to be just or righteous, and what is δίκαιος is what is decreed, or acknowledged, by man to be just or righteous. The two words have similar meanings, but they are not mere synonyms as Paul had used them both consecutively in Titus 1:8, in reference to two different concepts. While in the King James Version of the New Testament δίκαιος is usually just or righteous and ὅσιος is often holy, here we will discuss another term which is often translated as holy, which is ἅγιος.

But first we will discuss these terms in the Old Testament. One Hebrew word often translated as holy or sacred is qodesh (Strong's Hebrew # 6944), which is defined in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon as “1) apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness 1a) apartness, sacredness, holiness 1a1) of God 1a2) of places 1a3) of things 1b) set-apartness, separateness”. A related word which is used to refer to people is qadosh (Strong's Hebrew # 6918) which is defined as “sacred, holy, Holy One, saint, set apart”. But qodesh is also translated as saints, for example in Deuteronomy 33:2.

The related verb, qadash (Strong’s # 6942) is defined as "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to be set apart, be consecrated 1a2) to be hallowed 1a3) consecrated, tabooed 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to show oneself sacred or majestic 1b2) to be honoured, be treated as sacred 1b3) to be holy 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate 1c2) to observe as holy, keep sacred 1c3) to honour as sacred, hallow 1c4) to consecrate 1d) (Pual) 1d1) to be consecrated 1d2) consecrated, dedicated 1e) (Hiphil) 1e1) to set apart, devote, consecrate 1e2) to regard or treat as sacred or hallow 1e3) to consecrate 1f) (Hithpael) 1f1) to keep oneself apart or separate 1f2) to cause Himself to be hallowed (of God) 1f3) to be observed as holy 1f4) to consecrate oneself”. Strong considered this verb to be the primitive root word, and the other words in this group, #’s 6918 and 6944 to have been derived from this verb.

That last definition in the verb, “to consecrate oneself”, does not necessarily mean that simply anyone can claim to be devoting themselves to God and expect to be accepted by Him. Rather, Yahweh God chose the children of Israel, but they did not choose God. What is holy to Yahweh is not what men determine to be holy, but what the Word of Yahweh informs us is holy. What is important to God is what is expressed in the concept of ὅσιος, which is what is righteous in the eyes of God. But what is merely δίκαιος, which is what is righteous in the eyes of men, we cannot necessarily expect God to accept, unless of course men conform themselves to God.

The words saint or saints appears 100 times in the King James Bible. 39 of those are in the Old Testament, and 61 in the New Testament. Once in the Old testament it is inferred, and on 19 occasions it is translated from another word, chaciyd (Strong’s # 2623) which is “1) faithful, kind, godly, holy one, saint, pious 1a) kind 1b) pious, godly 1c) faithful ones (subst)”. On the other 19 occasions it is from qadosh, qadash or qodesh, or a presumably Aramaic variant spelling found in Daniel, which is qaddiysh (Strong’s # 6922). The verb qadash is “sanctified ones”, which is saints, in Isaiah 13:3, and it is translated in similar ways elsewhere. But it always refers to all or a portion of the children of Israel in every context where it is used.

The announcement that the children of Israel would be a qadosh goy or a holy nation is first found in Exodus chapter 19 where we read “5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (qadosh goy). These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” In Leviticus chapter 19 Yahweh God had demanded the children of Israel to be holy as He also is holy where we read: “1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.” Then again in Deuteronomy chapter 14 we read “1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God… 2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. ” The word holy in each of these examples is once again qadosh.

But the first establishment of the children of Israel as a holy people did not occur at Sinai. Rather, it occurred in Genesis when Yahweh God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac. The words qadosh or qadash mean sacred or set apart. The equivalent Greek word is ἅγιος (hagios), which explicitly means set apart for the purposes of a god (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Strong's Greek # 40) or which describes something devoted to a god (Liddell & Scott).

Something devoted in this sense is not simply a person who loves a god. Today we take the meanings of many terms too lightly. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the verb devote as “to commit by a solemn act” or “to give over or direct (time, money, effort, etc.) to a cause, enterprise, or activity”. When you choose of your own volition to devote time or money to an organization, the time or money are no longer yours, as they become the property of that organization. This is evident throughout Classical Greek and other ancient writings.

So when people are devoted to a god, properly they become the property of that god. This was common in the ancient world, where men seeking the favor of a particular god customarily devoted gifts to the temple of that god. When a man presented a priest with his gift and it was placed upon the altar, it became the property of the god of the temple. Such offerings were often in the form of gold or silver, but sometimes men would offer slaves or parents would devote their own children to the god at a temple, and the children became the property of the temple. In pagan temples, many of those children would end up as prostitutes earning money for the temple, although sometimes they served the temple in other ways. This was also the significance of the sacrifice by Jephtha of his daughter, who for that reason had lamented her virginity. But perhaps sacrificing his daughter to the tabernacle of Yahweh, the daughter merely became one of the Nethinim, which were the servants of the priests first mentioned within the context of the later temple of Yahweh.

The Israelites of the Old Covenant were not merely devoting some part of their lives or themselves to God. Rather, they themselves were devoted to God, so it is they themselves which became the property of God. The only people in all of history who were dedicated to the purposes of Yahweh at His command were those people in the loins of Isaac, and in that is the promise to Abraham, that “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Genesis 21:12). Paul cited this promise in his own definition of the seed of the promise in his epistle to the Romans in chapter 9. Of these were the children of Jacob to whom the promises fell, who are the “vessels of mercy” of Romans chapter 9, and also the children of Esau, who are the “vessels of destruction” of Paul's analogy in that chapter. That Esau forfeited his birthright because he was a race-mixer and took wives of the daughters of Canaan is evident in the opening verses of Genesis chapter 27, and in Paul’s description of Esau as a profane man and a fornicator in Hebrews 12:16. In Genesis chapters 27 and 28, Jacob was told that if he took a wife from the women of his own kinfolk that the promises to Abraham would fall upon him, so that is what he did. But both brothers were in the loins of Isaac when Abraham placed Isaac on the altar, thereby dedicating him to Yahweh, and therefore both brothers from that time forward would be dedicated to the service of God, whether for good or for evil.

So where we see the term saints in the New Testament, or in the prophecies of Daniel chapter 7 which refer to a period of time following the fall of Rome, we cannot imagine that it describes anyone but the children of Israel. These are the people whom Yahweh God demanded were dedicated to Him, for His purposes, and nobody else could be included in this relationship because Yahweh never insisted that any other people be ever dedicated to Him. So nobody else has a contextual standing in Scripture and history to assert any claim to be a saint except for the children of Israel.

Where the apostle Peter informed his readers in chapter 2 of his first epistle “9 But ye are a chosen generation (race), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” he had used the term ἅγιος in reference to a nation that was already devoted to God, and then he repeated a prophecy from Hosea chapters 1 and 2 which described what was said to become of those same children of Israel: “10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Being a “saint” is not a matter of behavior. You cannot be a saint by being or doing “good”. Paul of Tarsus had written in Romans chapter 8 “20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Likewise, David wrote in the 143rd Psalm, addressing Yahweh God Himself, that “for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” Therefore it is impossible for a man to make himself a “saint” by his own behavior.

This we also see in Psalm 37, where it is apparent that men, even when they sin, are still considered to be saints. So David wrote in part: “23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. 24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.” So even if a man sins, or fails in some other way, if he is one of the saints then Yahweh God will uphold him, and this becomes apparent as we continue reading: “25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. 26 He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed.” So even the children of a righteous man when he fails will nevertheless be supported by God, and for that reason does David continue by making a plea for men to: “27 Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. 28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. 29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.” The righteous and their seed are upheld even when they sin, and the wicked and their seed – their children regardless of the behavior of the children – are ultimately cut off forever. The saints have no control over their destiny or that of their children, and the wicked have no control over their destiny or that of their children.

Many years later, in Ezekiel chapter 21, on account of the sins of Judah Yahweh spoke to the prophet and said: “2 Son of man, set thy face toward Jerusalem, and drop thy word toward the holy places, and prophesy against the land of Israel, 3 And say to the land of Israel, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I am against thee, and will draw forth my sword out of his sheath, and will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked. 4 Seeing then that I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of his sheath against all flesh from the south to the north: 5 That all flesh may know that I the LORD have drawn forth my sword out of his sheath: it shall not return any more.”

As a result of this very thing, the prophet Asaph later wrote in the 79th Psalm: “1 O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. 2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. 3 Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them. 4 We are become a reproach to our neighbours, a scorn and derision to them that are round about us.”

We see again that saints can sin in the 85th Psalm, which seems to have been written after the remnant had returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel: “4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease. 5 Wilt thou be angry with us for ever? wilt thou draw out thine anger to all generations? 6 Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee? 7 Shew us thy mercy, O LORD, and grant us thy salvation. 8 I will hear what God the LORD will speak: for he will speak peace unto his people, and to his saints: but let them not turn again to folly.” So we see that the saints are the children of Israel who had once turned to folly, yet they were still saints. The word “saint” refers to one of those people who were dedicated to Yahweh by Abraham while they were in the loins of Isaac, and nobody outside of that group could ever possibly be a saint in the eyes of God.

So we read of those who are saved in Revelation chapter 15: “2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. 3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. 4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.”

Christ is the King of Israel, and He was described here as the King of Saints. The term “all nations” in Greek has a definite article, and should have been translated as “all the nations”, in reference to definite nations and not to just any nations. In the Song of Moses found in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy, in chapter 32, we read – striking a word in verse 43 which was added by the King James translators: “40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. 41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. 42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. 43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.” So Moses described the nations whom Christ shall ultimately avenge as the nations of the twelve tribes of Israel. The entire purpose of the return of the Christ will be to do that very thing, as it is explained in the subsequent chapters of the Revelation.

There are further parallels between the Revelation, the description from Enoch found in the epistle of Jude where it speaks of the return of Christ for vengeance, and the Song of Moses where he speaks of the vengeance of the saints in Deuteronomy chapter 33. While Jude describes the return of Christ to avenge Himself and His people with “ten thousands of His saints”, Moses described the coming of Yahweh in that same manner and wrote: “and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. 3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.” So in Revelation chapter 19 Christ returns for vengeance and “the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses”. These saints of Jude and the Revelation are the same saints of Moses: the set-apart children of Israel, and that is why in the Revelation they are described as singing the song of Moses, and in that same place the Song of Moses is also the Song of the Lamb, which is Christ.. Christ and Moses each singing the same song, their objectives are also the same.

ChrSat20201219-100Proofs-19.odt — Downloaded 45 times