Commentaries and Podcasts

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 6: The Churches at Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea

In our last presentation, having concluded our commentary on Revelation chapter 2 we discussed the messages to the assemblies at Pergamos and Thyatira. In those messages, each of these assemblies were criticized by Yahshua Christ for having accepted men and women who were advocating the same sin, but in a somewhat different manner. The assembly at Pergamos had evidently had at least several unnamed members who upheld what Christ had described as the “teaching of Balaam, who had taught Balak to put a trap before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.”

Consulting the Old Testament Scriptures in order to find what the teaching of Balaam had been, in Numbers chapter 25 we find that the Moabites had instructed their women to seduce the men of Israel into engaging in illicit acts of sexual intercourse. There we read, in part, “1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” Then a little further on: “3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.” But it is not until this incident is mentioned again later, in Numbers chapter 31, that we find that it was indeed Balaam who had taught this, where we read that it was done “through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.” So Balaam, who was hired to curse Israel, could not curse them as Yahweh had caused only blessings to emanate from his mouth. Therefore, perceiving that if the men of Israel could be coaxed into such a sin that they would lose the favor of their God, he instructed Balak to do that very thing.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 5: The Churches at Pergamos and Thyatira

Presenting the first part of Revelation chapter 2 and the messages to the assemblies at Ephesus and Smyrna, we had encountered and discussed several concepts that are contained in those messages which we believe are necessary to understand not only in relation to the Revelation, but also to the entire Bible as well as to our lives as Christians today. First, although we are not told what sin it was that they had been committing, because the Ephesians had left their first love, as it was described, they then began to accept or to commit some sin from which they were commanded to repent. Then Christ had threatened that if they did not repent, they would be punished. So it is evident that even Christians who profess Christ and endure in His Name, who reject false apostles and Nicolaitans, which we interpret as those professional priests who with pretense would rule over the people, and who are also even commended for not bearing evil, must nevertheless seek to maintain complete obedience to the Gospel of Christ or face the consequences of punishment from God. This is absolutely contrary to the general belief of most Christians today, who basically claim that all one has to do is to believe in Jesus and perform some rituals in order to be saved. Having rejected false apostles, the Ephesians clearly believed the Gospel as it was taught them by true apostles, so they must have believed in Jesus, as today’s denominational Christians would also claim to do. Yet Christ Himself had warned them that they would be punished if they did not repent of their sin, that their lampstand would be removed from its place.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 4: The Churches at Ephesus and Smyrna

In our last presentation we took a long digression in order to elucidate the mistakes which the early Christian writers had made where they attempted to explain the references which Yahshua Christ had made in Revelation chapter 2 to a certain group, or class, of men whom He had called Nicolaitans. The earliest of those writers, Ignatius of Antioch, had acknowledged the existence of a group called Nicolaitans, but without explanation he referred to them as being “falsely so-called” Nicolaitans, and if they did not deserve the label then even if an actual sect existed which called themselves by that name, it could not have been the same as those to whom Christ had referred here.

Later so-called Church Fathers attributed to the Nicolaitans certain sins for which Christ had explicitly condemned Balaam and a woman whom He called Jezebel in this chapter, but Christ Himself never attributed those sins to the Nicolaitans, so the attribution cannot stand. Several others went so far as to connect these Nicolaitans to the Nicolaus of Antioch mentioned in Acts chapter 6, which is basically a slander of that particular Nicolaus. The events of Acts chapter 6 date to as early as 34 AD, and certainly happened long before 41 AD where the death of Herod Agrippa I is recorded in Acts chapter 12. We may think that if a man who was described by Luke as having been one of the early saints and leaders of the church in Judaea had broken away and began some heretical sect supposedly known to all of those early Christian writers, that Luke, as well as Peter, James and Paul along with him, most of whom must have known Nicolaus personally, would have mentioned his heresy somewhere in their writings, as they all lived and wrote for at least another 28 years. James and Paul each died about 62 AD, in different places and under different circumstances, and that is when Luke ended the records of the Book of Acts. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the Nicolaus of Acts chapter 6 had founded any heresy worthy enough to be mentioned, and even hated, by Christ here in Revelation chapter 2. Yahshua Christ must have been referring to something else.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 3: What is a Nicolaitan?

In our last presentation we discussed Revelation chapter 1 and the nature of Yahshua Christ as He revealed it through the apostle John. While there are numerous indications in the words of the ancient prophets that Christ is Yahweh God incarnate, and while Christ Himself had made similar professions in several different ways in the accounts in the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of John, here in Revelation chapter 1 He made several explicit statements as well as several allegories which reveal that He is God. This is found in the underlying meaning of epithets such as “He who is and who was and who is coming” and “First Born from the dead”, but it is explicit in verses 7 and 8 where we read: “7 Behold! He comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, even whoever had pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn before Him. Yeah, truly! 8 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, says Yahweh God, He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.’”

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 2: The Revelation of Christ as God

In our opening presentation in this series, we offered a description of the antiquity of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Revelation, and also sought to establish the approximate time and place of the authorship of the work, including the fact that it was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, who also wrote the Gospel bearing his name, and the epistles which have been attributed to him from the earliest times. Doing that, we cited Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Victorinus of Pettau, and the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John. Our purpose was to exhibit the fact that from these eight ancient second and third-century Christian sources, a rather consistent narrative is presented in which it may be determined that the apostle John wrote his Gospel account, was imprisoned in exile on Patmos at an undetermined time in the reign of the emperor Domitian, and upon the death of Domitian he returned to Ephesus, where he penned the Revelation of Yahshua Christ. It is not certain when he may have written his three surviving epistles.

While doing that we also presented and discussed the arguments of one of the earliest skeptics of John’s authorship of the Revelation, Dionysius of Alexandria. So we hope to have also convincingly explained how the arguments of Dionysius are all faulty or without merit, and after the faults are elucidated he really has no arguments remaining to provide a substantial basis for his doubt.

On the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, Part 1: An Introduction

Here, after eleven years, we shall revisit our commentary on the Revelation of Yahshua Christ with a new presentation, and of course it shall be based on the text as it is presented in the Christogenea New Testament. Our first version of this commentary was originally presented in fourteen podcasts from December of 2010 through April of 2011. While there are several reasons for wanting to replace our old commentary, here I will only state that I hope to expand some portions of the original while also offering some clarifications, rewriting or further expounding on some of our explanations. I also hope to more thoroughly cross-reference portions of parallel prophecies which are found in the books of the prophets, especially in Ezekiel, Daniel, Obadiah, Zechariah and Malachi.

Later that same year I first published Christreich, which is the title of a book which had encapsulated the original podcast commentary. While we hope this new commentary will be more comprehensive, I do not foresee adding much to the interpretations themselves. But while I cannot yet rule that out completely, I do not think that this new version will invalidate anything I had written there, except for one note which must be corrected at Revelation chapter 20, verse 5, which I shall discuss further below. This commentary, and even this introduction, shall be founded on the edited text of Christreich rather than the notes for the original podcasts. For that reason, I was tempted to title this series “Christreich 2.0” or something similar, but I decided to stay with our more traditional scheme. That title may be appropriate if Yahweh God permits me to publish a second edition of the book, something which I certainly hope to achieve.

On the Song of Songs: Part 5, Reflections (Solomon as Prophet)

This evening I am going to do something different. Having completed our presentation of the Song of Songs, there are still further observations which we can make, and which we should make, regarding the Song in general, and especially the impact of its interpretation on various other Scriptures from Genesis through the New Testament. While we have explained or alluded to some of these aspects of the Song throughout our commentary, it may be useful to have them all in summary, and also so that we may expand on some of them to a much greater degree, further probing the depths of their meanings.

The wisdom of Solomon is evidently far greater than many men may even have the ability to perceive. The Song of Songs is not a mere love song, although it is often dismissed as such. Both Jews and Churches have offered allegorical explanations of the Song which suit themsleves, and they all fail. In opposition to them all, but similarly to the claims of some, we would assert that the Song is an allegory representing the love which Yahweh God has for the children of Israel, and the love which the children of Israel, both individually and collectively, should have for Yahweh their God, as they are His Bride, and He Himself has promised to betroth them both once again and forever. I refer primarily to Hosea chapter 2: “19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.” That promise being made to Israel in the Assyrian captivities, the betrothal is certainly fulfilled in Christ. So at the same time, the Song offers some prophecy concerning Christ, which only Christians, and not Jews, can even begin to understand.

On the Song of Songs: Part 4, the Consequences (White is Beautiful, and White is Godly)

We titled our presentation of chapters 5 and 6 of the Song of Songs as The Conclusion, adding the assertion in the parenthetical subtitle that Two Seedline is Biblical Truth. The statement may be puzzling to some who may not be fully acquainted with all of the ideological differences among Identity Christians, but it is meant to indicate that the Song supports, and even corroborates, our interpretations of the idioms of Genesis chapter 3, which we have often explained portrays an account of sexual seduction and resulting fornication. However while that is one conclusion we made from our study of the text of the Song it is not the conclusion of the Song itself. Now, as we do present the final two chapters of the Song, we will see even further corroboration for the veracity of our interpretation.

Throughout our presentation of the Song, we were also able to make conclusions which are important to a proper understanding of Biblical anthropology, that the subjects of the Song must have been of the White or Caucasian race. We will also see further evidence of that here in chapter 7. Properly, only White people can be described as being ruddy, or as having skin like ivory, or legs like pillars of marble, as we saw in the Bride’s description of the Husband in Song chapter 5 in reference to his belly and his legs. These same descriptions also further reinforce the assertion that the Song contains allegories describing sexual relations, where the Husband speaks of eating fruit from a garden, the garden being the Bride herself, or where the Bride celebrated the eating of fruit from an apple tree, which in turn was a reference to the Husband. That is evident where in the the physical descriptions the lovers are portrayed as comparing parts of one another’s nude bodies to those various natural elements, such as ivory or marble.

On the Song of Songs: Part 3, the Conclusion (Two Seedline is Biblical Truth)

Throughout the last few chapters of this Song of Songs, we have seen several allegories which describe sexual activity between lovers as the eating of fruit from trees, and also from a garden. In Song chapter 2, the bride described her husband as an apple tree and professed eating of his fruit, where it was explicit that the couple had been in the act of embracing one another in a bed, the husband having fallen asleep. Then, in a subsequent encounter in Song chapter 4, the husband described the bride as his garden, he described the wonder of her fruits, and the bride explicitly invited him to eat of them. Here, at the beginning of Song chapter 5, that encounter is not yet finished.

With that, we made assertions that the identification of these similes and metaphors as euphemisms for romantic sexual activity is irrefutable. Therefore, further comparing the similar metaphors which are found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a work which is approximately contemporary to the time of Abraham and which was still known to Judaeans at the time of Christ, and which also explicitly employs such metaphors in reference to sexual activity, and then also comparing the account of the temptation in Genesis chapter 3, it clearly becomes manifest that Genesis chapter 3 is describing an illicit act of sex in the garden of Eden as having been the cause of the fall of man. So we may conclude that here in this romantic and even erotic love poem, the wisdom of Solomon gives us the understanding by which we may honestly interpret the otherwise enigmatic allegories of trees and fruit in Genesis chapter 3, as Solomon had also done in different ways in his other writings, in Wisdom and in Proverbs. There has long been debate in Christian Identity circles over the language and allegories of Genesis chapter 3, and in the Song of Songs, the debate is settled.

On the Song of Songs: Part 2, the Metaphor (Sex in the Garden)

In our opening commentary on the Song of Songs of Solomon, titled The Allegory, we made the assertion that the poem itself is an allegory which represents the love which Yahweh God has for the children of Israel as a nation, His bride, and which the bride is portrayed as having for her husband, which is Yahweh her God. We shall see further evidence of that allegory as the poem commences. However in spite of that underlying meaning, the work is also a love poem between an actual husband and wife, Solomon and his bride, and its metaphors represent their love and desire for one another as well as their describing acts of love-making. So here we shall assert that the metaphors employed in the description of those acts shall also give us greater insight into the meanings of similar metaphors and allegories which are found in other portions of the Biblical literature.

Up to this point, the dialogue between the husband and the bride grows in intensity as it progresses from its beginning in verse 7 of chapter 1. After the husband begins to extol the beauty of the bride, she in turn describes him as sitting at his table, as the King James Version has it, as her own bodily scent fills the air and she confesses that his odor is appealing to her. Then she exclaims that “he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts”, whereupon we should realize that the table is a metaphor, and not a literal table, and she compares her lover to something which can burn intensely, which is camphire or asphalt, in the vineyards, a place where one may not expect to find camphire. So then she once again declares her lover’s appeal and begins to speak of their bed and its surroundings before she describes herself with flowery metaphors.