Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Nature, Theology, Law, Prophets and Fulfillment

Kenneth W. Billings

February 25, 2026

CHAPTER I

Church Hierarchy

Persons of eternity:

God created the heavens and the earth (Gn.1:1, KJV). Colossians 1:13-17 (KJV) reveal to us that Jesus Christ performed the creation. He is also noted as our chief shepherd (I Peter 5, KJV). Gn. 1:2 tells us that the “ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים” (BHS/WHM 4.2, Gn. 1:2) “ruach elohim'”, my transliteration reading right to left in Hebrew, of course, “Spirit of God”, was hovering over the face of the waters. Within the first two verses of the Bible taken as a whole as to creating, all three of the holy persons of God are united in the work.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gn. 1:1-2, KJV)

Also, see the Nicene Creed as to former thought on the deity of Christ. The Holy Scriptures:  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1, KJV)

All believers are subject to the authority of God and his written word. They must worship him in spirit and truth. (Jn. 4:24, KJV) There is no cleric above the written word of God. We are subject to the apostles and prophets of the early church as written in the Scriptures, and their testimonies, not later followers and ministers that were merely taught (1 Cor. 14:36, KJV) and formed denominations and many times erring doctrines, especially from Rome and centuries later.

Servants of God: elders, bishops, deacons, and gifted believers as kings and priests

Elders consist of wise men of God, text translators dividing the truth rightfully (2 Ti. 2:15, KJV), and others of Godly, profound intellect and effort throughout the world; some ordained in the local church: I Pet 5:1-5, Acts 15; 1 Ti. 5:1, 17, Titus 1:5.

They are men who acknowledge true repentance, including the change of bad habits of repentant men who have fell and come back to the Lord, obeying God and walking in truth. Not all elders today are qualified to be chosen as leaders in a church due their past sins. They may have lost their quality of life so as to not be able to live as officials of the church because their reputations are stained and they are no longer without reproach (1 Ti. 5:7, KJV), but have learned how to discern between clean and unclean and have been restored from sins and impurity through repentance. They are restored men who seek a pure relationship with God and have a desire to bless God and his people.

However, old mockers, self-made authorities, Orthodox, Protestants and others, and their associates and followers of irreligious and social schizophrenia as Roman Catholicism have not truly repented and ceded to the authority of the written word. The house of God must at least be instituted with the will of obedience to the higher authority of God and his written word, which is easily accessible to anyone who has a bible and a desire to study it.

Local church and holy ministry

Men who understand the law (1 Ti. 1:8-11, KJV) and are able to judge and weed the lawless: We must remember the public church is to be a pure setting with Godly ministers. God chose “… before the foundation of the world... ” (Eph. 1:4, KJV) that we Christians, his chosen, live holy and blameless before him in love, how much also our local church ministers. We relate to marriage and purity with the mystery of Christ and the church. God loved and provided for his people, and our ministers must have purity and nothing significant the church may rebuke or the public may slander upon. They must be like Timothy, who was trained under the Apostle Paul (Philippians 4:9, KJV).

Repentant failed ministers and satellite ministries under local church supervision

Nevertheless, this would not prevent blatant offenders repentance and restoration (Ps. 23:3, KJV) if they discontinue and manifest their previous contradictions to Scriptures and hidden darkness to the church. However, due to previous, public stain, it would disallow their official capacity in the local church. Perhaps, if such repented and were restored, they could participate with the others and they could also still have public ministries outside of the local church if their deeds did not contradict the doctrine of the local church.

God gives gifts; however, proper standing with the public and doctrine of God must be learned and maintained to qualify as an official

A believer of God does not lose his gifts if he falls into a sin, but he can lose his opportunity as an official of the local church. In this case, he must be under supervision after repentance to be considered a follower of Christ and member of the church. However, as we see in our apostasy today, there are some, even as misplaced ministers in a local church, who have not shown repentance and have not been open about their marital and sexual relationships. Some have philosophically and openly promoted defiled marriage to others. Without holy, personal and intellectual transparency, I don't see how such a one could be either a qualified church official or have a qualified public ministry outside and other than the local church. Repentance, holiness and transparency is a necessity.

Virgin and chaste marriage transparency of officials necessary

Christians everywhere and local church members have a duty to require sexual transparency and to know whether the ones speaking to them have true repentance and qualification in their lives. Chastity testimonies should be something a righteous man would want and desire to clarify to his audience so as to verbally reveal his virginity and eligibility for marriage, but hardly ever do you hear men give such testimonies of themselves in the heretical churches. Their absence of a pure testimony is a sign of their lacking character or they are covering a scandal. Their sin will find them out. (Nu. 32:23, KJV)

Know the background and reputation of purity of the woman you plan to date

Our whole evangelism system needs to be revised and restored. No one can be personally edified as to purity by a man living in fornication or adultery or condoning such acts. Second marriages can only be tolerated when the first wife was ineligible as in Mt. 19:9 (KJV) and the church gives a document of annulment. Nevertheless, men who have participated in such fornication, cannot qualify for the office of deacon because of their reproach, even though they may later still be husbands of one wife. (1 Ti. 3:12, KJV)

Avoid fornication: a minister must have a testimony of purity

He must prove he is not living in fornication or remarriage. After a couple have sex and complete the physical part of the marriage bond (Ex. 22 and Dt. 22, KJV) but the female is not accepted by the male or vice versa, then, when the female departs and has sex with another man than the first, it is an act of fornication. So, to avoid (1 Cor. 7:2, KJV) this condemned (Gal. 5:19, KJV) predicament, a man should take a female virgin he has either chosen, seduced or raped for his wife. If he doesn't marry her, he leaves her in a condition that she can't legitimately marry anyone else.

Adultery is different than fornication, but still condemned

A Christian minister must prove he is not living in fornication or remarriage

Understanding the Bible today requires knowledge of how Jesus the Christ fulfilled—changed, repealed and reproved the second law of Moses, which redacted the first law. It requires experiencing revelation of new things and “fulfillment” even beyond the first law of Moses. There are basically three different eras to be compared: the first law of Moses, the second, and the fulfillment era of the new covenant (New Testament). The fulfillment era is the active one we have available to us today.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mt. 5:18, AKJV)

The Old Testament law gave direction to the people of God. People progressed and were given refinements as the law and time advanced. Although the OT law was not perfect. If it had been, Moses during the second law (Deuteronomy) would not have said,

Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16 according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.  (Dt. 18:15-18, AKJV)

Spiritual progression: changes, spiritual growth and fulfillment of the law

Eventually, his commandments concerning remarriage were perfected through the “prophet”, the Lord Jesus Christ. Malachi foretold of his coming and moral reproof of infidelity: see Malachi 3:1-5 (KJV). Fulfillment of the ten commandments and spiritual progress can be seen today through New Testament studies. Contrarily, beware, there are also false replacement teachings such as Islamic promotions, works of legalisms and anti-Christian doctrines instead of fulfillment replacement.

The Torah is a broad study. It can be considered the five books of the Old Testament law, and generally, the other writings and the fulfillment books of the New Testament. A safe comprehensive view may be obtained through the sixty-six books. The Jewish people have revived the Hebrew language although they are not Hebrew people. They have also molested and distorted Hebrew laws, especially concerning the Israelite prescription for race and demographics: intra-tribal marital, inheritance and anti-genocide law (Numbers 36:5-13). The made-up, Herzl matrilineal law and custom  (a form of Hebrew genocide) of the “Jewish” is not from the Torah; they have no required, continuous, Hebrew patrilineal, genealogical register and gene pool.

According to modern Israeli law and definition: “For the purpose of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” (Law of Return, 5710-1950, § 4B)

We Christians should make original bible language study one of our goals, especially Greek and Hebrew. Both languages were used by bible students before the coming of Jesus Christ. Deeper study would help us strengthen our witness for Jesus the Christ. One reason we have lost hegemony and influence is due to frauds, rejects and impostors gaining prestige through misrepresentation and the glory of the Hebrew language. Another is through the large number of atheists and anti-Christian media that support Herzl Zionism either through active support or passive distortion. Herzl himself was a reported atheist.

America's professors have been desensitized through opposition propaganda. Our educational and failed theological leaders, who are expected to be exact, precise and articulate, falsely portray the “Jewish” as Hebrews/Jews even in a presumed, genetically and theologically blurred manner. Christians should be able to detect their genealogical error. There are no Jews or Hebrew tribes in modern Israel. Matrilineal law of the Herzlists is evidence of that statement, it is in direct opposition to Hebrew patrilineal law. (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV)

King David, Dahveed hamelek (a true Hebrew), is famous among Christians. Let us be like him and develop our bible studies. He loved the law (Ps. 1, KJV). Let us not be misdirected in our theology or any other studies. May we learn through our own research. May we Christians regain our theological knowledge renown and become the prominent lights in the dark world we live in through our revival of ancient language study and correct theology.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11, KJV)

First of all, purity must be restored. Students of the Bible must gain Hebrew and Greek language skills. They must learn how to give precedence, without rebellion, to a biblical principle or law according to comparing the authority and righteousness of the eras. A new and more safe and spiritual rule of wedding ceremony is needed to prevent fornication and adultery. You can learn about this in chapter IV.

Prophets keep the people in line with sexual morality

The mainstream churches are following the minus the sexual morality commandments gospel proponents, those who tolerate and even promote sexual immorality. I would love to praise faithful men who lead. It is nice not to have to mention names many times and relate them to heresy, but sometimes it has to be done. Exposure and recognition of the “generals of immorality”—Hagin, Copeland, Oral Roberts—and those in similar adultery and fornication error must be made. Separation and shunning of such types is also expected. They took in big money and stood in the way of restoration. They led many astray. With such a vast, perverted and anti-Christian, so-called Christian media, it would take a miracle for many just to recover from the myth and immorality damage. Samuel was not so (1 Samuel 12:3-5, KJV). Prophets keep the people in line with sexual morality and God's written word. John the Baptist was faithful, even unto death.

Christian pro-active work

A reformation and restoration of the church is necessary. Modern pagan and anti-Christian (including erring churches) media has almost silenced good Christian teaching and preaching. However, we can still have a voice. Setting your vision to the task can make change. The Manhattan Project changed the military status in the US. It became a world power. It required recruiting skilled people to think, design, build, test, and change former technology.

The true church has to be pro-active also. We must reach those who can hear so they join us, only without paid salaries as those of the Manhattan Project and the false and erring church. Working for God is not a salary career, it is not a denominational effort (1 Cor. 1:13, KJV), it is bringing light to the world. The apostles did not sell their spiritual material. The Apostle Paul was a tent maker (Acts 18:2-3, KJV). Early Christians didn't follow modern commercial/business gain schemes to increase their outreach.

Sadly, many American adulterous, so-called evangelists or preachers would seemingly be insulted or ashamed to work for their living without high-end financial gain. We see this as a deterioration of society. Remember how well Samuel faithfully restored Israel by looking and submitting unto God, and afterward his sons became judges and changed the spiritual environment from good to bad by taking bribes (1 Samuel 8.3, KJV). We must avoid such corruption and covetousness diversions. May God bless us, amen.

Cults influencing institutions, preachers and teachers

We must understand that theology, history (eschatology—future history) and science work together. Genealogy and genetics progress has been hindered by the UN and its influenced subsidiaries, including public schools. A big error that Christians make today is believing Zion Revisionist Theory and that the modern “Jewish” are the same people as the ancient Hebrews. False. The people occupying Israel and living in various other countries and claiming to be heirs of the land (Israel) are telling you a lie. Actually, the “Jewish” man who claims he is a genealogical Jew is a fraud. He hi-jacks the fame and continuous, patrilineal-genealogical integrity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the lineage (Nu. 36:5-13) of the patriarchs. He overlooks his crime, seemingly always circumventing the law (Torah). All of the fraudulent, “revizyonistim” (revisionists), people militarizing and wanting to be Hebrews/Jews but with less genealogical and genetic credentials than the non-violent rejects whom were put away from the Hebrew people in Ezra 10 (KJV), were unable to become or make themselves biologically Hebrew.

Remember, there are no Jewish with registry today (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV). Therefore, they are genealogically polluted as to Hebrew law, unclean, and not Hebrews/Jews. They have been against race and racial nationalism because they cannot biblically present themselves as a Hebrew race, but rather, and just the opposite, as a race-mixing cult. To agree with Japhethic, Semitic or Hamitic nations seeking like-race demographics and dominant-race racial purity is not to their advantage. They have gathered anti-Christian political support in large numbers from their deceived audiences, some even white-skinned self-haters and hating their race out of existence, including many Christians. So, to give light and to be definitive about the Hebrew race and its sub-races (tribes), it is necessary to understand the criterion of patrilineal continuity of Hebrew descendancy. All Hebrew tribes have become extinct.

Dumitru Duduman lack of genealogical knowledge: extinction of the Hebrews and Jews

Therefore, the Jewish are as a mere Gentile, no more a legitimate Hebrew as the Apostle Paul than the most distant Gentile. Either you have continuous, Hebrew patrilineal pedigree or you don’t. I personally believe Dumitru Duduman erred when he stated, “The angel of the Lord also told me, 'I have blessed this country because of the Jewish people who are in this country.'” (Duduman, “The Message For America”) The Jewish are a cult just as the Mormons. The former err as to lack of required pedigree and patrilineal-genealogy credentials (which Jesus Christ/yeshua hamashiach possessed) and promote made-up Herzl Matrilinealism but nevertheless falsely claim they are Hebrews (fraud), which does not warrant a legitimate right to the land of Israel, and of course, they promote many other sins; the latter err as to heeding to Joseph Smith false writings, polygamy and other things relating to his teachings.

Regardless, God does not have a special cult he wants to save; he wants to save sinners. He blesses those who obey him, demonstrating their faith; he punishes those that promote heresy. Anti-Christian Zionist revisionism is myth, and heresy, as well as polygamy and adultery. Similarly, Kenneth Copeland attempted to make it look like his remarriage was in agreement with God through a conversation with Him, but it wasn't! (Copeland, “Delight in the Good Life”) Should you believe every prophet? Every pastor? Every man that mentions God or claims He or one of his angels spoke with him? Absolutely not! Did Pat Robertson deceive Benny Hinn? Benny said, "I trust God's voice". (“Is Pat Robertson a false prophet?”, 00:01:20-21)

144,000: past return of the Hebrew tribes after the time of Christ’s resurrection

We must let the Bible give us direction. If a prophet says to the contrary, it is not of God. Gordon Robertson, Pat's son recently, distinctly did not say that the ten tribes had already returned and misled his viewers about the timing of the past return of the Hebrew tribes as if they had not returned at the time of Christ and James 1:1. He falsely, impliedly suggested a future pre-millenial coming, “There is a world-wide call… ” (“The 10 Lost Tribes Of Israel Explained” 00:01:37-39), even though all the Hebrew tribes eventually became extinct. Nevertheless, the ten tribes (part of the firstfruits) were found after the resurrection of Christ through the gospel. Since there is no Hebrew gene pool left, there is no possibility of a Hebrew tribal member today. We live in the day of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24, KJV) and post-firstfruits era.

It is impossible for the Jooish, a better term than “Jewish” because modern Judaism does not regard the genealogical law of Numbers 36:5-13 and Hebrew, ancient Judaism. They are unable to sacrifice as the ancient Hebrews, who are now extinct. They do not have a genetic gene pool to produce a Jew, let alone a Levite or Cohen/priest, who were necessary for sacrifices. They are not a pure people and never can be unless they repent of their unbelief and present faith in Jesus Christ. Even that could not make them Hebrew nor take them back to the time of the believing Hebrews, twelve tribes scattered and specifically addressed to by James the elder, who were God's chosen people (Galatians 6:15-16, KJV). They are a misled Gentile (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV) cult and have deceived many Christians. Gordon seems to be totally deceived as to not understanding the Hebrew requirement of patrilineal law, which the Jooish can never produce a patrilineal, Levite. The gospels point toward a time of Jerusalem being populated by Gentiles. To me, that concept includes partial-Hebrew descendants failing patrilineal pedigree so as not able to fulfill inheritance law (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV) and to be heirs of Israel. Remember the rejects of Ezra 10, who were put away. See Luke 21:24. Nevertheless, the impostors do have an anti-Christian platform and the potential to offer an AntiChrist.

Myth and delusion

Many docile people and unlearned Christians may have accepted overt, anti-Christians as a people they should honor, support or protect—horrible conclusion. The deceived have accepted Talmudist, erring prophecy rather than Christian prophecy. Our famous theologian and reformer Martin Luther warned of them. These people are no more special than the Watchtower people, who also deny the deity of Christ. The Joos, as I call them, have an artificial, genealogical and genetic history. They cannot produce a patrilineal Hebrew (Jew) from a Herzlist matrilineal non-Hebrew gene pool. Even though they are a mixed-race Talmudic culture, not a Hebrew race. Notice the genealogical deterioration since the dispersion of Titus. Nevertheless, they are the same people who have slurred other nations for holding race sacred (Joshua 23:12-13, KJV).

Numbers 36:5-13: After the scattering of Babel, nations formed with their own languages. Abraham left Babel and a wicked family. God made him a father of many nations (Gn. 17:4-6, KJV). So, we see by the time that Numbers 36 had been written, God had established many nations and a Hebrew people that had descended from Abraham. They were a patrilineal race, which their patrilineal, genealogy is recorded in the Old and New Testament. In this chapter (36, KJV), God established the heirs of the land of Israel intra-racially, not just by race but by distinct tribes (sub-races) within the patrilineal Hebrew race. In Acts 2:11 (KJV) we see the Jews and their proselytes still existed. So, the races through Shem, Japheth and Ham continued through sub-races. However, the Hebrew tribes (patrilineal, intra-racial groups) are no longer found (became extinct) sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 AD). There is no patrilineal, Hebrew gene pool today, so there can't be any Jews. God will still take ownership of his land eventually, but it is occupied by fraudulent, “Jewish” Gentiles (Luke 21:24, KJV) at the present.

Bishops

Overseers (1 Ti. 3:1-7, KJV) of the local church building officials must be blameless, men of good reputation among society within and without the local church. As chief, local church officials, they are responsible to on-target elders throughout the world (wise and approved men of God, the early ones were formerly mentioned at Jerusalem and directed the apostles—Acts 15, KJV). The bishop foremost must be very knowledgeable and subject to the Scriptures; not a man as a novice (1. Ti. 3:7, KJV) or someone publicly exposing his shame as one who condones uncleanness and defiled marriage, fornication (1 Ti. 1:10, KJV) and adultery/remarriage. I will go into this more later.

Mockery and distortion

Actually, the Roman Catholic Pope, who has been erringly been acclaimed by misled followers as the leader of the church, cannot be biblically categorized higher than a mere bishop. As to his doctrines and actions, he should be considered no more than a schizophrenic (1 Ti. 2:5, KJV) and erring official of his local church at the Vatican.

The sacraments-theology does not agree with the teachings of the original disciples. How many of his followers realize an infant can't make a theological decision! Will the baptized infant, who was not able to understand the ritual of baptism he was put through, accumulate the faith and courage to make a public confession of baptism as he grows older while he is discouraged to accept adult baptism and a cognizant ritual as John the Baptist and even Jesus Christ himself, who fulfilled all righteousness?

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. (Mt. 3, AKJV)

There is only one church and the Scriptures must be its authority. As to all failing denominations and religious organizations, many have explicitly denied church order (chapter V) and the concept of female submission. Through usurping and assuming positions designated for only men, women of the mainstream heresy have mocked God, the holy, local church, the idea and biblical requirement of submission, and the analogy of the mystery of Christ and the church as to marriage (Eph. 5:22-32, KJV).

Deacons (1 Ti. 3:8-13, KJV)

A deacon must be proven (1 Ti. 3:10, KJV), blameless, a man of good reputation among society and the church. A pure marriage is essential, local church officials must not be stained with promiscuity or remarriage: "husbands of one wife" (I Timothy 3:12, KJV).

Believers in Jesus Christ (our high priest) makes us as kings and priests

The messiah, having proven register and finite genealogy, the Son of God

We are a body called-out and have become transformed as kings and priests (Rev. 1:6, Ex. 19.6 and 1 Peter 2:9, KJV), under our high priest, Jesus Christ. We are holy and saints (Ephesians 1:1, KJV), chosen by God (Eph. 1:4, KJV): bearing fruit of the Spirit: even the radiance upon a follower and submitter's face reveals God has given him peace and joy and it ministers to people. We are a people and a work of Jesus. Let us live in faith and reverence of our maker, implementing decency and order.

                                      Works Cited: Chapter I

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Ge 1:2.

Copeland, Kenneth, “Delight in the Good Life”, Kenneth Copeland Ministries, kcm.org,

Accessed on Jan. 18, 2013, https://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/delight-good-life

Duduman, Dumitru. “The Message For America”, Dreams and Visions From God , Hand of Help, Inc.,

1996 (First edition listed as 1994) Michael Boldea, Hand of Help Ministries

handofhelp.com, https://handofhelp.com/vision_1.php

Accessed Apr., 12, 2026

“Is Pat Robertson a false prophet? 'Mitt Romney will win the presidential election!'”, YouTube,

uploaded by, Larry Robinson, Nov. 9, 2012,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6xBo9EijIQ&t=73s. 1:30

Israel. Knesset. "Law of Return, 5710-1950." Refworld, 5 July 1950,

https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1950/en/34127.

“The 10 Lost Tribes Of Israel Explained”, YouTube,

uploaded by, The 700 Club, Apr. 5, 2024,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dGBs6g8GrU&t=2s. 2:25

CHAPTER II

Bible Era Comparison

First law era: Genesis through Numbers

The modern “Jewish” are cult proselytes and do not recognize the mandate of God in Nu. 36:5-13. Those that trust God’s word and Christians that follow him do. The frauds circumvent and twist/molest the written Scriptures. Myth, deception and defilement will eventually bring great judgment upon the Earth. (Isaiah 24, KJV)

Second law era: Deuteronomy through Malachi

Evidently, the Hebrew translators of the Greek edition must have realized there were two dispensations of Moses' law. They did not refer to the book merely from the first two words as is used in the modern, Hebrew title, "אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים" (BHS/WHM 4.2, Dt. 1:1), which I transliterate as, “aylleh haddevarim'”, meaning “these are the words”, but the book was seemingly given a title denoting its subsequent content, a copy of the law. (I discussed that in the former paragraph.) Greek texts are revealing of many things: therefore, relatively speaking, there must have been a first giving of a set of laws by Moses. We will take a look into how we can decipher the first giving of the law from the second through a study of a reproof and repeal of divorce and remarriage by Jesus Christ the Lord.

OT. remarriage is considered adultery in the fulfillment era, New Testament: Mt. 19:9 and Mt. 5:32 (KJV)

The modern “Jewish” recognize the second law era remarriage law of Dt. 24:1-3 because they don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God not the NT, whereas Christians recognize the New Testament era reproof and rejection of remarriage by the Lord Jesus Christ. The latter hold remarriage as adultery (Mt. 5:32, KJV). It seems the NWO and anti-Christian elite have promoted the ill sexual effect of the modern “Jewish” upon civilization, and even many Christians have been deceived by not understanding the eras and eschatology, as I mentioned in chapter I, as well.

Third era: New Testament

The modern “Jewish” do not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ as the future prophet mentioned by Moses in the second law era: Dt. 18:15-19. Therefore, all of their study including the Talmud is in disbelief and not of faith. Some of their studies may seem very beautiful using great tools of language: Hebrew and Aramaic, but if you leave Jesus Christ out of the Bible, you cannot follow God. Remember, the modern Jewish are not the same genealogical and genetic people as the Old Testament Hebrews, and their cultist, Jewish Gentile (Luke 21:24, KJV) lack of Hebrew genealogical (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV) and racial values are evident.

The relative first dispensation of Old Testament law, marital purity and continuity

Genesis gives us a history of God's creation. Through it and other books of the bible we are given a chronological, ideological glimpse of the past, present and future. God's written word tells us what (and whom!) we need to know according to all time. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Psalm 90:2, KJV) We know history, and future expectations, even future history according to events that have not already passed but shall pass at a time in the future.

One event that passed was the coming of the expected prophet of God's people

The book of Exodus, separate from the book of Deuteronomy, relatively can be respected as a book of the first giving of the law. It explains the dowry responsibility of a man who takes the virginity of a girl (Ex. 22:16, KJV). Even if her father disallows the man to marry her, the man is still required to pay the dowry price (Ex. 22:17, KJV). The second giving of the law supplements the concept of the prerequisite of female virginity and sexual chastity for marriage (Dt. 22:13-21 and 28, 29, KJV). However, as you will see later, it made some changes to the first law. Even later on, Jesus Christ made a greater difference upon both law eras.

Jesus clarified his changes and improvements of the way people were to live. He made it clear that the law would be fulfilled: “18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mt. 5:18, AKJV)

Now, let's look at the correcting and repeal of the divorce and remarriage law in the “second” giving of the law—Deuteronomy 24:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.  (Dt. 24:1-2, AKJV)

The Pharisees, tempting the Lord Jesus, referred to the divorce law. Jesus answering, implied that particular giving of the law was not fulfilling God's intention of marital purity and continuity, referring to the previous and historical times written in Genesis: “… from the beginning… ”. (Mt. 19:8, AKJV)

Mt. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:7-8, AKJV)

Fornication is different concept than adultery

Now, let’s go to Mt. 19:9 (KJV). A defiled woman of immorality, for instance, Rahab the harlot, who became a woman of faith (Hebrews 11:31, KJV), wife of Salmon (Luke 3:32, KJV), and progenitor of Boaz (Mt. 1:5, KJV), patrilineal Hebrew and great grandfather of King David and ancestor of the lineage of Joseph: Mt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23 (KJV), husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, seemingly was tolerated in the Old Testament in some cases as well as divorcees (Dt. 24:1-3, KJV) except if the husband decided it was not a clean relationship (Dt. 23:14, KJV). Nevertheless, a whore and woman of fornication was a valid reason for divorce according to Matthew 19:9, (KJV).

However, a formerly married woman could not remarry in the second law era without a writing of divorce (divorce papers: Dt. 24: 1-3, KJV) or it would be considered adultery, a death-penalty offense. Although later as to New Testament spiritual progression and fulfillment of the law, the reproof of Jesus Christ was more strict as to the concept of adultery and condemned remarriage (another marriage of a woman after leaving a legitimate husband). Perhaps this increased moral fulfillment pertaining to the correction of infidelity in sexual relationships of a future era (the new covenant) is hinted in Malachi 3:1-5 (KJV).

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19:9, AKJV)

We know that betrothal could be annulled due to female defilement, but the word “fornication” (Mt. 19:9, AKJV) or “immorality” generally is not limited to betrothal. Nevertheless, the first part of the compound predicate, whosoever “… shall put away…” (above in v. 9) or “divorces” his wife, only legally and spiritually stops the current relationship of marital uncleanliness due to the fornication phrase—“… except it be for fornication… ” or in other words, “except for immorality”—the offense (see Eph. 5:5, KJV), the lack of morality, divine and pure union structure and holiness (Eph.5:22-33, KJV); it is the second part of the compound predicate that reveals the committing of adultery—and “… whoso marrieth her which is put away… ” (Mt. 19:9, AKJV) or in my perception of the meaning of the earlier English language, “marries” a “divorced woman”.

Manuscript and text discernment

However, there is a great discrepancy here as to Mt. 19:9, KJV: some earlier Greek texts do not say a “divorced woman”, but say merely “another woman" (my translation)—“… καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται”.  (Black, p. Mt 19:9) Both texts, the AKJV and Black, p. Mt 19:9, due to the exception phrase imply a promiscuous woman can’t establish a legitimate and binding marriage. Besides that issue, it seems the AKJV text refers to a marriage with a divorcee, whereas the Black, p. Mt 19:9 text refers to “another” woman, a woman not necessarily a divorcee. See Mark 10:11 in the AKJV. Nevertheless, both texts are generally in agreement as to whoever should marry “a woman who has been put away commits adultery” (according to my translation): “... ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται”. (Black, Mt. 5:32)

A promiscuous woman cannot form a legitimate marriage: the man is not bound

 I suppose we can assume the first part of the compound predicate, "divorces" (AKJV), in one sense, implies that it is proper to put away a defiled woman of fornication even as Joseph was thinking about putting away Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mt. 1:19, AKJV). The one who puts away or divorces would not even be prevented from marrying another.

However, the remedy and exception phrase of a case of betrothal could not be the same as a case wherein a defiled dowry wife (which required female virginity and chastity) who committed lesbianism or other form of sexual defilement. Then, it seems the man who divorces would not be tolerated to marry another due to the expiration of polygamy. See 1 Cor. 7:27 (KJV) and Mark 10:11 (KJV).

On the other hand, however, if fornication were expanded to mean such immorality it would not negate or nullify Jesus' explanation of betrothal marriage concerning divorce and marriage. The former case would have involved the woman in an act of defilement before consummation with the man who put her away, whereas the latter would not have.

Era change: remarriage is not permitted in the New Testament/Covenant

Remarriage (divorcing and marrying another man while the first husband is still alive) was permitted in the Old Testament. However, the Lord Jesus Christ brought in the new covenant/testament and gave us better instruction concerning the way God wants people to live as individuals, communities and peoples. Christians are under grace, not under the law. The Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning the new covenant that God said he shall make with his people: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" (Je. 31:31, AKJV). Of course, this new covenant and change of the way how people were to live for God should have had an effect on the laws and customs of nations, which it did!

Notwithstanding, the apostasy has come about and perversion of the principles of the new covenant have been manifested in our decaying societies. Today in the USA, legalized adultery is manifest (Gal. 5:19, KJV) and the nation's negligence of sexual morality is just about equivalent to that of tolerating murder. We have suffered pseudo-philosophy from Machiavellian ethics to erring Protestant, Orthodox, or popish and anti-Christian, so-called morality. Nevertheless, Christians must strive to obey God even when government antagonizes against their good works.

Let's take a look at the old testament law:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Dt. 24:1, KJV)

Discerning between satisfaction and dissatisfaction: Note in verse 24:1 (KJV), the woman spoken of who has an uncleanness (ervah: explained below) is not one of the dowry brides, women who were accepted by the husband with a price as not defiled and not allowed to be divorced (Dt. 22:13-19, KJV ), which Christians should be like. The Lord expected holiness from his people. There was not supposed to be anything in the Hebrew camp/community that would displease God and cause him to turn away from the people instead of to bless them. Impliedly, from the context, one thing that could turn him away would be if he saw an “עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר” (BHS/WHM 4.2, Dt. 23:15), which I transliterate, “ervat davar'” (something showing a nakedness, uncleanness (Dt. 24:1, KJV) or an occurrence of something contrary to holiness).

The late centuries have brought in tolerances of evil that destroy family values and building blocks. Dowry-bride law was a part of establishing chastity among the women of Israel. Strict punishment (the death penalty) enforced it, “… so shalt thou put evil away from among you.” (Dt. 22:21, KJV) Israel was commanded and expected to establish communities of clean women. An alleged defiled woman that did not have proof of her innocence could not pass the test!

21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Dt. 22:21, AKJV)

Also, according to these verses, these alleged unclean (Dt. 24:1-3, AKJV) or dis-satisfactory women, different and not under as strict obligation of the dowry wives at the risk of capital punishment and who were expected to be clean and never divorced, could “remarry”, but divorce and remarriage was not permitted in the new covenant. Polygamy also expired.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Dt. 24:2, AKJV)

Now, look at the explanation concerning the divorce law and its reproof by the Lord Jesus Christ:

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (Mark 10:2-5, AKJV)

As you can see in Mark 10, v. 4, they were referring to the above law of Moses (Dt. 24:1-2, AKJV) and v. 3 below:

 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; (Dt. 24:3, AKJV).

The Pharisees and the Jews had a problem with their women at that time, but if we go back to the beginning, as Jesus refers to in Mark 10:6, we see that Adam and Eve did not have any problem with uncleanness. Marriage was designed a unity that should not be broken. Divorce was not intended:

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6, AKJV)

Adam and Eve experienced a new dimension of their physical usefulness through having sex. Adam's intellect was opened due to the experiment: “And Adam knew Eve his wife...” (Gn. 4:1, AKJV). Their union was honorable, clean and  not defiled: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (He. 13:4, AKJV) No one should break up a marital unity that is ordained of God. (However, note, later on after the law of Moses, there were refusals of marriage and inheritance due to miscegenation in Ezra 10. Hence, they were not considered legitimate marriages. The female ex-spouses and their children were even separated from the people. So, we’ve seen that miscegenation during the early Second Temple period and female promiscuity during the NT prevented legitimate marriage among the Hebrews as they endeavored to become Christians.)

Promiscuity threat: even Mary could not have married Joseph if the angel had not enlightened him

Notwithstanding, fornication (Mt. 19:9, KJV) gave reason to separate or divorce from the once unity. Impliedly Mary, the mother of Jesus, was untouched by a man until after the birth of Jesus. Did you ever wonder why the Bible says Joseph was "righteous" as to thinking about putting Mary away—divorcing? (Mt. 1.19, KJV) Even though Joseph was learned of the law, the angel of the Lord corrected (Mt. 1:20, KJV) his pre-meditative decision to separate from her. However, his intentions were based on marital purity and righteousness. It is righteous to divorce under the circumstances of a woman who has fornicated so as to prevent a whole family from being unclean, and it is wise to prevent such a circumstance.

You can learn principles of marital unity and separation law at the introduction of my paper "Illusion.". We should understand that fornication is unclean and corrupts a whole family that does not do anything about it, by not divorcing and putting away the uncleanness. America's families have suffered greatly because of devastation and neglectful consequent uncleanliness (failure of divorce proceedings) due to ignorance, deception and heresy!

Every married man has a responsibility to keep his wife under every circumstance, except one: if his wife is unchaste, that is, if his wife has partaken in a sexual act with someone else—this is sexual defilement, secret: Nu. 5:29-31, KJV, or open, if not adultery, secret or open—John 8:4, KJV. Then, and only then, is the husband lawfully (according to the Bible) to put away his wife, and to give her a bill of divorcement. Logically, if a woman, has committed a sin of fornication with someone, a bill of divorcement does not induce her to become unchaste—she has already committed the act which defiled her.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19:9, AKJV)

If a man puts away his wife for any reason other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5:32, KJV). Fundamentally, from a synoptical viewpoint, there are two distinct acts, the one subsequent to the other, which constitute adultery. The first act is a sin of “putting away” because the Scripture says the husband “shall cleave to his wife” (Gn. 2:24, KJV); and also, that no one should separate what God has yoked together (Mk. 10:9)—”one flesh” (Gn. 2:24, KJV). The second sinful act, “marry another”, is subsequent to the first. It also contradicts 1 Cor. 7:10, 11 (KJV). The Lord Jesus explained that going beyond divorce so as to “marry another” constitutes adultery:

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:10, AKJV)

So, clearly, remarriage for any reason other than fornication is adultery and against the teaching of the Lord. Take for instance a case of betrothal. If a man had betrothed a wife and had not slept with her yet similarly as Joseph and Mary before the chaste birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, but then his woman fornicated, failing to keep chaste, would leave him in a predicament. Since he did not become a legitimate one flesh with her through the attempt of consummation, he was not committed (Mt. 19:9, KJV) to the marriage to her because she failed her chastity obligation. Remember, female lack of virginity in the OT. also prevented a marriage and concurred the death penalty (Dt. 22:21, KJV for the female who attempted to get a husband through fraud. Hence, he was no longer bound to her or the betrothal knowing her moral, physical and spiritual deficit. He could lawfully divorce and annul the relationship without being obligated to a marriage. Marriage, different from fornication, is based on becoming one flesh through faith and purity as the example Adam and Eve gave us.

Female uncleanness that cannot be restored requires separation (2 Samuel 20.3, KJV)

However, if he was a man who had different circumstances and married through consummation, and if his wife erred (Nu. 5:12, KJV) later through committing adultery or some other horrible sexual act, he could lawfully divorce her so as not to defile his whole family by living with such an unclean woman.  However, he still would be obligated to remain single due to the New Testament concept of monogamy (1 Cor. 7.27, KJV) and the direction of the Apostle Paul.

Chaste re-uniting vs. abomination

Now, let's consider a chaste re-union in comparison with the matter of the defiled relationship of Dt. 24.4: If a woman is married to a man and she divorces him, of course they would be separated but hypothetically she could join back with him as long as she remains chaste. However, that re-uniting would be a “restoration” of the marriage; it would not be technically “remarrying” as in the sense of adultery, which is erringly permitted and occurs in the modern, heretical congregations.

Abomination of return of defiled wife

However, on the other hand, if the woman divorces her husband and remarries to another man, she becomes an adulteress. She would be a defiled woman (lacking purity as Eve, wife of Adam) even to her second man whether he recognizes it or not. Then, after becoming a remarried woman and no longer chaste, and not being satisfied with her consequent man, if she leaves him also and re-unites with her first man it would be an abomination:

4 her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Dt. 24:4, AKJV).

If she became defiled by her second man and rejected him, she could break up the sinful relationship but certainly could not become undefiled by leaving him. Her unchastity would be a physical and spiritual disgrace that she would have to live with for the rest of her life. It would be impossible for her to restore her marriage with her first man. King David could not have sex with his defiled concubines (a fulfilled prophecy of Nathan the prophet) after the treachery of Absalom (2 Samuel 12:11, 2 Samuel 16:22, KJV); they lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3, KJV). Even though she may go through a legal proceeding for marriage or not to be re-united with him, it would be in vain and would constitute an abomination.

Maintaining purity always pays off

Women must bear in mind to remain chaste and not get involved in affairs, becoming defiled. If a woman lives in an unhappy marriage and her husband leaves her, she should live single and keep her dignity. Perhaps in the future her husband and she may decide to live together again, which would be acceptable.

                              Works Cited: Chapter II

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Dt 1:1.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Dt 23:15.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Jos 8:32.

Black, Matthew, et al. The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 1997, p. Mt 5:32.

Black, Matthew, et al. The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 1997, p. Mt 19:9.

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996, p. Nu 36:13 – Dt 1:1.

CHAPTER III

How The Law Determines

Whom the land of Israel belongs: (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV)

The ten lost tribes were found by God through the gospel: They were firstfruits. (James 1:1, KJV) The Assyrian captivity of the Hebrew tribes resulted in cultural change if not genealogical and subsequently genetic among the captured peoples. I believe we can correctly assume that the chosen of the lost tribes became (James 1:1, KJV) part of the firstfruits as well as the remainder (Judah and Benjamin) of the believing-in-Christ tribes of Israel through the gospel. Note, James did not say the “two” remaining tribes, no, he addressed the twelve tribes.

Today, in the general area the Assyrians may have taken their captives of Israel, Muslim and Kurdish ruled areas, there have no known tribes appeared who have maintained patrilineal-genealogy, which is required (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV). Perhaps the disconnected Israeli people were forced by their captors to change their Hebrew, patrilineal genealogical law or maybe they compromised on their own. Whatever the case may be, no patrilineal tribes with legitimate pedigree and register can be found. Without patrilineal law and genealogical register, no one can obtain genealogical inheritance! If a person can’t claim genealogical inheritance, he can’t claim genetic inheritance. The person must be born into it. Without a patrilineal father with pedigree and genealogical register that is impossible.  So, anyone, even if he becomes a Herzl Matrilinealist cult member and claims he loves the Hebrew law, cannot resume the former biology and pedigree of the ancient Hebrews.

Merely removing the foreskin of the penis (circumcision) cannot make a Philistine (1 Samuel 14:6, KJV) or “Jewish” person a Hebrew. A Jooish baptism (mikveh) cannot make a Hebrew. Ceremonies or religious tenets cannot change the genealogical and genetic state of being. There is no way a member of modern Judaism, a non-Hebrew (a person who lacks continuous, patrilineal descendancy), can make himself as a member of ancient Judaism and a Hebrew heir (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV) of Israel. Modern Joodaism/Judaism and matrilineal law is proof of the current, fraudulent possession of the state of Israel itself.

Israelite prescription for race and demographics

Even before the law of Moses, God had established the moral of racial exclusion and institution of homogeneity among the nations following the scattering at the Tower of Babel and eventually at the separation of Ishmael (Gn. 21:9-13, KJV), which implemented the calling of the people of God through Isaac. Intra-racial marriage and dispensational fulfillment:

Marriage, Hebrew identity, priesthood and posterity

Moses, earlier who did not marry a Hebrew (Nu. 12:1, KJV) when he joined with an Ethiopian woman, reproved himself later in Nu. 36 and commanded the children of Israel to follow strict patrilineal rules on both sides of the marriage intra-tribally (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV). Ezra followed this rule for male and female (Ezra 10:3, KJV). Also Ruth's marriage,  during the period of the judges, was not the norm and deviated on the matrilineal side even after the law (Nu. 36: 5-13, KJV) was given. However, significantly, her marriage was patrilineal Hebrew on Boaz's (her husband) side and their posterity were still considered heirs. The Maccabees  (1 Maccabees 2:1-4, King James Version Apocrypha), after the second temple was built and over a hundred years and more before Christ, also recognized the Hebrew, patrilineal law as the rule to determine Abrahamic/Jacobic/Hebrew family and priesthood from Aaron “… throughout their generations” (Ex. 40:15, KJV). Some failed the patrilineal genealogy register earlier at the time of Ezra and were penalized as to loss of holy official administration and Hebrew identity (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV).

Beware of made-up religion

The modern “Jewish”/Herzl Matrilinealists, have no Hebrew register, identity, inheritance nor legitimate priesthood either. Anyone today can claim to be a Hebrew, and a rabbi, but no one has register to prove that he is a Hebrew. Beware of made-up religions!

Cult formation: disregarding Hebrew law and making up a different, non-genealogical religion

Contrarily, mere modern, immigrant proselytes who have no Hebrew patrilineal continuity and required, genealogical register cannot qualify genealogically even though they may contrive a non-Hebrew genealogical cult and rhetorically call themselves Jews. They can no more be Hebrews but nevertheless call themselves Jews than those of the time of the converts of the provinces of Persia (Esther 9:27, 28, KJV) and later, Antiochus Epiphanes IV himself, who was thought to be a prototype of the anti-Christ.

15 And as touching the Jews, whom he had judged not worthy so much as to be buried, but to be cast out with their children to be devoured of the fowls and wild beasts, he would make them all equals to the citizens of Athens: 16 And the holy temple, which before he had spoiled, he would garnish with goodly gifts, and restore all the holy vessels with many more, and out of his own revenue defray the charges belonging to the sacrifices: 17 Yea, and that also he would become a Jew himself, and go through all the world that was inhabited, and declare the power of God. (2 Mac 9:15-17, KJV Apocrypha).

As time passed after the leadership of Moses, Israel committed many marital inter-racial sins after the exile to Babylon. The people who had inter-married were rebuked and the law was restored with the Covenant of Ezra (Ezra 10:3, KJV). God has guided and reproved his people throughout history. Spiritual development has occurred through dispensations; for instance, the giving of the law and the making of covenants. Eventually the New Covenant dispensation began (Jeremiah 31:31, KJV) and is fulfilling now. However, beware, as the apostasy and tolerance of myth and fake-Jews of our time gets more lawless, many of the former Christian, Japhethic (white) nations are being flooded with non-white migrants.

Former homogeneity and Japhethic hegemony has been lost

Not long after the Herzl movement, Russia was taken over with a Communist government and the United States had lost its country to a foreign enterprise through the Federal Reserve Bank. All things were working together for the elite, anti-Christians, and the Japhethic peoples lost their centuries-long, world-wide hegemony. (At one time, Americans and Europeans rightfully thought race was sacred.) Previous to the disasters, Karl Marx had promoted his faction. Through a bought dinosaur, media, the global political emphasis sway waned from White racial genetics to anti-Christian religion (Herzl Matrilinealism) and racial diversity, a form of religious schizophrenia so to speak, over the last couple of centuries.

Genealogical-patrilineal descendancy of the Lord Jesus Christ

Yeshua hamashiach, Jesus the Anointed One or Salvation (Mt. 1:21, KJV) the Anointed One, had patrilineal register (Mt. 1:16, Luke 3:23, KJV). Finite genealogies, and my current explanations may help you understand some things about Biblical, patrilineal lineage and genetics, and even the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moses concerning the one—like himself, “… like unto me”—to come (Dt. 18:15, KJV).

Moses ruled Israel by the direction of God. The genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ is patrilineal—he had legitimate pedigree and register (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38). He fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of a prophet like Moses genealogically through a Hebrew tribe: "נָבִ֨יא מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ מֵאַחֶ֙יךָ֙" (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Dt. 18:15), “... may-ah-hay-hah”—my transliteration and translation, “… from out of your brethren” (Dt. 18:15, KJV). The Hebrew brethren were from continuous, patrilineal families who followed the tribal inheritance and genealogical command of God (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV).

Continuous—no breaks in the generations—genealogical-patrilineal succession is both a Written Torah (the Old Testament) genealogical and genetic (biological) requirement! Jesus Christ, although begotten of God and born of a woman met the requirement of the register (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV) and genealogical-patrilineal pedigree through adoption of Joseph and birth of Mary. Non-Hebrew families (those without patrilineal Hebrew genealogy) were separated (Nehemiah 9:2, 13:3, KJV), and the tradition of Hebrew tribal supremacy stood in Israel until after 70 AD, when Titus dispersed the Hebrews.

Generational accounts that are not specifically identical but Scriptural

Matthew and Luke would probably note the patrilineal inheritance of Joseph as to comply with the law: Nu. 36:5-13, although their accounts may have at least Levirate differences. Equivalent tracing of uterine brothers may be very difficult. Thomas Aquinas has some good thoughts about the general subject. However, Levirate law and theological strategy must be taken in consideration of both genealogies of the two gospels, of which we can assume both not to be in exact historical order, but nevertheless to be correct (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV). Regardless, both synoptic genealogies lead to Joseph, who possessed patrilineal inheritance, obviously had required register, and was the husband of Mary, mother of our Lord.

Genealogical non-Hebrew rejects of the Ezra Congregation

Note the rejects at the congregation of Ezra could not meet the register requirements. The modern Jewish people are not Hebrew and do not possess these racial or genealogical qualities either. The state of Israel is currently in a process of transition, but the possibility of finding a person with proof of pedigree (documents of register) and of the Hebrew race is almost null. I do believe the Hebrews became extinct; so, it is impossible. To erase any doubt, anyone claiming to be a Jew who has been in a cult that has followed any marriage code other than Nu. 36:5-13, such as matrilineal law (Herzl Matrilinealism) and inter-racial marrying automatically exposes his error.

You could search the world as far as you want, but whatever descendant you may find, in order for that descendant without continuous, patrilineal-descendancy and having a broken genealogical chain could not meet the registry requirement of Ezra 2:61-63 and would not be able to qualify as a member of a former Hebrew tribe, similarly as the “Jewish” can't. His DNA test could not prove it, his legacy and Hebrew-like mannerisms could not prove it.

Hypothetically, if a descendant did arise that could meet the requirement of the registry, it would disqualify and expose the fraudulent Jewish of modern Israel because they don't have proof of register and can't obtain it. They would have to kill or hide him so that it would not stir up controversy to their matrilineal-Hebrew myth and they would be found not to be worthy genealogical heirs of Hebrew inheritance, thus deserving to be rejected as the those at the Ezra congregation. Thus, the people living in modern Israel don’t have an inheritance or right to live there any more than the Palestinians do!

Post-Titus dispersion and lost identity of the Hebrews

After the dispersion of Titus, the remaining anti-Christian Hebrew people lost their fundamental cohesiveness, having been forewarned (Joshua 23:13, KJV), and eventually a heretical and genocidal, matrilineal form of law became known among a factional and biblically fraudulent group known today as the “Jewish” (mere Gentiles with a customized, non-proof of register, partial-Hebrew religion), who uplift their bible-contradicting, “oral” Torah commentary as religious authority. They are not a Hebrew people, nor are their God-in-the-flesh-denying and Jesus-denying factions and groups that even approve of only the written Torah. Regardless of their spiritual failures, they cannot make their rejected, anti-genealogical (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV), biological pedigree (lacking continuous patrilineal descendancy) meet the requirement of the register (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV).

Myth and powerful lobbies

They call those who oppose their mythological and made-up religion anti-Semites, and have pressured nations and their leaders to follow their lies and evil desires.

Female exceptions to the patrilineal law (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV)

Some non-Hebrew women were tolerated to be patrilineal wives in ancient Israel, but a woman married to a non-Hebrew (there are no Hebrews anywhere in the world today) man could not have an inheritance in Israel. Of course, the genealogical law was strictly kept after Ezra, the Maccabees, and early Christians, but the modern “Jewish” (a different people than ancient Israel, having a broken genealogical chain) cannot meet nor follow those requirements. That is why they merely “occupy” but are not and never will be able to be legitimate heirs of the land. Contrarily, they seem to be the rise of the anti-Christian elite and have developed a platform for a false and non-Hebrew messiah: their false and devised (Dt. 4:2, KJV) religion eschatologically tramples over faith of the firstfruits (James 1:1, KJV) and the fulfillment of the early church.

Mere Jewish, written Torah circumvention: evasion of the truth and tribal integrity

The Joos, a name that seems more appropriate to me and does not defraud the patrilineal, patriarchs and tribal integrity, are very deceptive as to genealogy. As impostors, some misconstrue a reference of Deuteronomy 7:3, 4 as a defense to their lack of patrilineal pedigree and mandated (Ezra 2:61-63, KJV) register. However, those verses are not verses specifically having to do with inheritance, “נַחֲלָה֙" (BHS/WHM 4.2, Nu. 36:7); transliterated by me, “na ha la'”.

As cult proselytes, similar but not as faithful as the Persian converts in Esther as to adopting another religion without attempting to change its tribal inheritance rules, and not having patrilineal descendancy like the Maccabees—many of them with Polish and other Gentile, genealogical backgrounds—they use distortion of the biblical genealogical rules to promote their irreligion. Herzl Matrilinealism is far different than Old Testament Judaism and the Hebrew religion before the New Testament. We can confirm that the Maccabees were Hebrew due to the fact they could officially offer sacrifices because they were in patrilineal tribal succession (“son of”). They were relatives of a member of the priesthood, v. 1, “… the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from Jerusalem… ” (1 Maccabees 2:1-4, Authorized King James Version).

The “Jewish” sinful (Gal. 5:21, KJV), Purim drunkenness ritual is a great but relatively minor example of a violation of the written Torah compared to making up a matrilineal law that contradicts Nu. 36:5-13 and other patrilineal requirements.

Circumcision and merely keeping just some of the ancient laws can’t make a person a Hebrew or Jew

There are infinite ways to circumvent the truth. Satan is a master at it. Circumcision was a criterion to consider for the ancient Jew. The "Jewish", similary as the proselytes of Esther, may observe a facade of Old Testament practices and this cutting operation but that cannot make anyone of their cult a Hebrew or a Jew. Ritual cannot induce or change genealogy, genetics and biology so as to make a Polish Gentile a Jew and genealogical member of the ancient Hebrews.

Religious cult, not ancient Judaism

The modern “Jewish” have been Joodaized and followed a Talmudic cult, whereas Old Testament converts as the proselytes in Esther followed the true and patrilineal Hebrew religion at that time and were Judaized. The deciding criterion of a Hebrew tribal member is patrilineal law (Nu. 36:5-13, KJV), which if any of the ancestors of the modern Joos began with patrilineal law, he did not continue to follow it. The “Jewish” don’t have a Hebrew gene pool and register and can't produce a Hebrew/Jew child. Hence, they are merely Herzl Matrilinealists.

Loss of genealogical, Hebrew identity

So, don't be deceived by all of the modern government propaganda, biblical myth and circumvention. If any so-called “messianic Jews” were decent and on-target Christians, they would be glad to emphasize they came out of a false religion and cult. They would rejoice to call themselves a "Jewish" convert to Christianity and not misconstrue commanded genealogy law, the effort of God, Moses, Ezra, Nehemiah and now extinct, faithful Jews.

The Covenant of Ezra

Ezra acted in fear of the commandment of the Lord and according to the Torah/law (Ezra 10:3, KJV), not his own agenda. Numbers 36:5-13 was the law pertaining to such matters of genealogy, tribal integrity and inheritance. A covenant was made: The faithful put away their non-Hebrew, illegitimate wives and children. “Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wsives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezra 10:3, KJV) "All these had taken strange wives, and they put them away with their children." (1 Esdras 9:36, The King James Version Apocrypha).

Pollution of Hebrew genealogy and race: loss of inheritance and ministerial privileges

Today, in modern Israel, there cannot anyone be found with Hebrew patrilineal succession, no priests with the required genealogy and register, and the children of the occupiers of the land are no more eligible than those that were accounted “… as polluted, put from the priesthood” at the time of Ezra. (Ezra 2:62, KJV). They were deposed due to desecration (Ezra 2:62): “yegoahlu”, from “… vayegoahlu… ”, my paraphrase and transliteration. (Brown et al. p. 146) They cannot produce a Hebrew messiah, which we know has already come—the Lord Jesus Christ, who had patrilineal succession (Matthew 1:1-17, KJV). The made-up matrilineal law of the "Jewish" can’t suffice and is 180 degrees from the required patrilineal law of Nu. 36:5-13.

Faith, patrilineal, genealogical, tribal integrity and fulfillment of the law

Let us abide in faith of the Lord Jesus Christ (Yeshua hamashiach) with respect to the requirement of Hebrew registry (Ezra 2:61-63, Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38, KJV). The author of the book of Ruth reveals to us its importance as to remembrance of patrilineal law: chapter 4, verses 18-22; so do other Hebrew genealogies within the Scriptures.

                                  Works Cited: Chapter III

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German Bible

Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Dt 18:15.

Brown, Francis, et al. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Clarendon Press,

1977, p. 146.

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, p. 1 Mac 2:1–4.

The Apocrypha: King James Version. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, p. 2 Mac 9:15–17.

Understanding The Basic Precepts Of Biblical Marriage

Marriage: my paper “Illusion Explained”

Scriptural and biblical revelation

It is illusory to think biblical marriage is instituted by mere contract or vow! Marriage is a physical sex act between a virgin female and a male (Ex. 22:16, Dt. 22:13-21, 28, 29, KJV)—biblical and written revelation. There must be evidence of the marriage agreement with the bridegroom and acceptance by the father of the girl.

Natural revelation of female marital eligibility

The virginity of a woman is proof of a woman's eligibility to marry—natural revelation. The male partner by either sharing or violating the virgin female's chastity becomes either a husband or a polygamist (although legally disallowed in many places), the latter sexual status is in contradiction to a new testament principle of monogamy (1 Cor. 7:27, 1 Ti. 3:12, KJV). Nature and God's written word, natural and biblical revelation, harmonize as to the enlightenment of the essence of marriage and encourage the continuance of a chaste relationship.

The once virgin female partner no longer has a justifiable opportunity to have sex with anyone else as long as her first male sex partner is alive and she did not officially marry him—to do so would commit fornication. In the case of the female's first man dying, she would have a justifiable opportunity to date or marry someone else because the marriage bond she created through first-time sex can no longer be valid if the man has deceased (Romans 7:1-3, KJV). Nevertheless, sexual experiences with men other than the first man (while he is living) defile the female and commence a degree of unchastity even if the first man were to die. In order for her to marry, such fornication would require all of the men of her promiscuity to be dead before she could have a clear account of no male cognizance of her, and it may be very hard to prove.

Marriage, unity and chastity: our need to understand pure marriage

Marriage, much different than fornication, is based upon the principle of unity, "one flesh" (Gn. 2:24, KJV) and chastity. Eve, the first woman (implicitly a virgin) on earth, is referenced as an authoritative example of a natural and pure woman, having an acceptable marriage with the male Adam through coitus, meeting the purity requirements of both the new and old covenants. She did not have an ervat davar', my transliteration for how I translate “nakedness of a matter”—עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Dt.23:15) and correlate it with "uncleanness” (Dt. 23:14, Dt. 24:1, KJV), defilement or reason to be divorced.

When she married Adam, through having sex and uniting physically and spiritually, her intellect and mentality changed, she obtained and possessed a one-male cognizance. Of course, the male who became intimate with her was Adam, the only other human being on earth. Intellectually, he became more than co-existent, he became one with her. They were a clean and undefiled, marital entity, a united body, each became part of the other, one flesh (Gn. 2:24, KJV), and they fulfilled the marriage institution, social and psychological adherence and oneness commandment: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”. (Gn. 2:24, KJV)

Today, in order to preserve our God-given marital institution, we need to look at the cognizance factor and make background checks for males and females before marriage, looking and finding that neither have any previous sex experiences. Our erring, mainstream churches do not have pastors and teachers that understand and promote sexual purity. One teacher condones adultery and another unclean marriage with a defiled woman. Our colleges and universities are full of women partying at night. The need for the study and emphasis of the eras of the biblical law has been evident. Islam, Eastern religions and other anti-Christian influences pervade the media. Due to our lack of moral and physical borders, our culture in America has deteriorated to the point the common person doesn't have a clear perception between the difference between adultery, fornication and pure marriage.

NWO hegemony has emasculated the male and masculated the female. We have fallen politically from Jeffersonism to Lincolnism to Reconstruction to Jim Crow to Babelist diversity and transgenderism. Instead of correcting and helping the abused, we are promoting abuse through common law marriage and fornication, whereas there should be deterrent and penalty.

Moses’ redaction of the first law (Dt. 24:1-3, KJV): divorce for non-dowry brides permitted

Now, on the other hand, divorce is a psychological-physical separation through commitment (1 Cor. 7:10, 11, KJV): when the act of divorce is put in writing it becomes a written contract and public notice (Dt. 24:2-3, KJV). In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted (Dt. 24:1-3, KJV) with some women, but not dowry brides (Dt. 22:19, KJV), and sexual immorality or adultery on their part would have earned the death penalty (Lev. 20:10, KJV). See Dt. 22:22-24 (KJV).

The heart of the people of God had become hardened, and Moses gave a redaction (Dt. 24:1-3, KJV) of the first law including the Ten Commandments, (Ex. 21, KJV). It is the book of Deuteronomy, meaning etymologically, “second law”, which I discussed more thoroughly in chapter II. Then, a man could actually divorce a woman due to something he perceived as naked or unclean (Dt. 24:1, KJV) in his view of female morality. An unclean or divorced woman who was given (written) by her ex-husband a book of divorcement, a contract: “βιβλίον ἀποστασίου” (Septuaginta, Dt. 24:1)—transliterated, “bibli'on apastasi'ou”—Greek; “סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙” (BHS/WHM 4.2)—transliterated, “sayfer keritut'”—Hebrew) was allowed to marry again.

However, later, the Lord Jesus Christ reproved the redaction of Moses and referred to the one-man purity of Eve (and even the one-woman cognizance—sexual purity of Adam). Thus, since Moses referred to the prophet to come (the Lord Jesus Christ—Dt. 18:15) and his authority, divorce (Mt. 19:9)

may be permitted in some cases 1 Cor. 7:11, 15 but female defilement in marriage (fornication) or remarriage (adultery) was not tolerated in the New Testament.

So, considering the biblical facts concerning the essence of marriage and divorce, and the world-wide immoral sexual circumstances, there are probably many state unregistered (unpublished) marriages assuming the consummation/marital deposit had been followed with marital acceptance (more so than are revealed by statistics, or spoken of) and divorces. Subsequently, due to the disregard of biblical precepts, many unregistered and registered forbidden, some acts of fornication, others adultery, but legalized, marriages have resulted.

The concurrence of marriage in regard to choice or violation of a virgin

Today there are many questions concerning marriage. There are many different views stemming from social, legal, and religious philosophy. From a Christian perspective the biblical law of the Old Testament delineates the boundaries of marriage: the Apostle Paul wrote, "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?" (Romans 7:1, AKJV) Jesus, upholding the guidance of the law, said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Mt. 5:17, AKJV). Theological men (1 Cor. 13:11, KJV), not heretics, perverts and erring seminary children, use the law knowing it is not for the “… righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God…” (1 Ti. 1:9-11, AKJV). The gospel, which was committed to the Apostle Paul’s trust, we have as a reference and written record in the Bible. We live in terrible times and must read the Bible and study it for ourselves.

Ancient Israel was subjected to the law and the prophets. The church is the Israel of God today (Gal. 6:16, KJV). Christians are subject now to both the New and Old Testaments. Monogamy (I Timothy 3:12, KJV) replaced polygamy (Exodus 21:10 KJV) in the early church, and celibacy was highly honored. Our world is very carnal during the apostasy and many people have been influenced by Hollywood and myth, even sexually. There are many defiled marriages today, and one of the reasons America is suffering from so many social problems is because Congress can't discern the necessity and transparency of pure marriage so as to legislate law to prohibit and penalize fornication and adultery. I am working on a second book to explain in detail.

The fallen country used to disallow adulterers to become citizens, and now after so much neglect of character and immorality is rampant. People need to learn that morality must come first and they don't have to have a sex partner, especially if it is biblically forbidden. The Apostle Paul even recommended singleness before marriage, although both avenues of life (marriage and singleness) can be gifts and blessed.

Marriage as a remedy for pre-marital sex in the Old Testament: rape

Sometimes people think of the concurrence of marriage only as the mutual consent of a male and female, but this perception may be an illusion if the female is not a virgin or a widow (1 Cor. 7, KJV)—marriage was also instituted to prevent unchastity in ancient Israel. God honors moral-sexual cleanliness, purity and unity in marriage. The Lord upheld the virginity of a woman so as if a male violated her chastity he was obligated to marry her since he completed the sexual bond with her, the physical part of the marriage unity that Adam and Eve accomplished, who the bible testifies they and the institution of marriage were undefiled.

Remedy for rape: required marriage and no divorce tolerated

The obedience, moral cleanliness, beauty, glory, purity, magnificence and innocence of virginity possesses perpetual oversight and protection from the Lord. According to Dt. 22:29 (KJV), a male was commanded to marry (take for a wife) a girl if he raped her; and it was disclosed; and under the condition that she was not engaged to anyone. He was never able to divorce her. The virginity of a girl is more than a state of chastity before marriage—it is the undefiled housing of potential reproduction of life, significance of sexual purity—God honors its holiness and innocence; and he protected the virgin against impulsive divorce once having married. The Old Testament law states specifically, "… she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.  (Dt. 22:19, AKJV).

Virgin rape within a Hebrew ethnic group invoked homogeneity law

According to the Old Testament, when rape of a virgin occurs, she is required to marry the rapist. Please acknowledge this rule did not violate the genetic, race prescription in Nu: 36:5-13. Also, note the intolerance of the attempted, inter-racial marriage of Dinah, and the sharing of posterity of Ishmael by Sarah. Racial and cultural homogeneity is expected to be preserved.

However, as to dowry brides of the Hebrew tribes, this type of sexual assault may have been considered a great loss to the female victim in an unwanted circumstance, but if the sexual aggressor was a boyfriend or someone that the father accepted as a good man but just couldn't handle his sexual appetite at the time, he may have been obligated to approve the marriage. Hebrew communities were close knit with genealogical and homogeneous social conditions as to giving in marriage among the families of one another. Nevertheless, the father has the authority to finalize the decision as to marriage according to particular circumstances of seduction.

Incest

Of course, illegitimate rape such as incest would disallow marriage. Tamar, the lovely daughter of King David was raped by Amnon, her half-brother, and lived a secluded and devastated single life afterward. The put-away concubines of David, women whom Absalom defiled, lived as widows (2 Samuel 20.3, KJV). Such crimes defile the female, and the male-cognizance factor and defilement causes her to live without a husband, at least as long as the offender is alive.

Remedy for seduction of a virgin: required marriage

Thus, according to particular circumstances (regardless of the fact whether there was enticement or not on the part of the female virgin), rape or seduction of a virgin was an act which instituted marriage. However, a girl was expected to scream, cry (Dt. 22:24, KJV) or complain—to avoid the silence of passivity—to prove that she did not consent to any immoral sexual aggression. The screaming would give evidence that she resisted rape at least to a degree.

Ancient Israel used to have a homogeneous, racial and cultural environment. The people were the police so to speak, and they had an inherent desire to keep their women, posterity and community clean and undefiled. Similarly, the USA used to be much more homogeneous, caring and defensive for its founding, white people and their women.

Remedy for sex through choice: required marriage

If a man took (chose) a virgin for a wife and hated her afterward (with dissatisfaction), he was not able to divorce her (Dt. 22:13-19, KJV). Just because a man doesn't really like a woman he wanted to have sex with doesn't give him the right to leave her once he has sex with her, he is obligated to marry her if the father desires and consents, and a married man that puts away his chaste wife causes her to commit adultery (Mt. 5:32, KJV). In the case of pre-marriage, if he doesn't marry a girl of first time sex with him, wherein he made a physical deposit in her so to speak, it may cause her to fornicate, which fornication is to be avoided (1 Cor. 7:2, KJV). As a remedy for situations as such and guarding the institution of chaste marriage, God's law prevented this and the man from just considering it a one-time stand (cheap sex) by requiring the man to marry her, and keep her without an opportunity for divorce regardless of what selfish excuse he could think up.

Female virginity and chastity is a prerequisite for marriage (Mt. 19.9, KJV)

On the other hand, if the girl was not a virgin (even though she pretended to be) and she did not have any proof of chastity, then the male was not obligated to remain married to her (Dt. 22:20-21, KJV). Cheap and unchaste women could not easily get over on a guy. If she wasn't a virgin with cloth-proof evidence of experiencing bleeding after lying with the male in bed, the marriage could easily be annulled. This concept of required female virginity and proof was carried over to the New Testament era; see Mt. 19:9 (KJV), wherein the male was not obligated to marry but could divorce an unclean woman and even marry another woman without being imputed as committing adultery against the first woman. The defrauded man could marry another woman because the first sexual encounter with an unclean woman does not and cannot establish a biblical marriage—it was an act of fornication, which is to be avoided (1 Cor. 7:2, KJV).

Righteous male bias from polygamy and the law era as to the male not having to be chaste for marriage

However, in my opinion, his fornication with an unclean woman could possibly be imputed to him as not being beyond reproof as to being a local church official, a minister of the house of the living God, a pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15, KJV). The sexual immorality could cost his spiritual leadership endeavor for an office in the local church. Nevertheless, it seems the man would be given another chance to marry depending on the vexation or lack thereof upon a future prospective wife. Thus, the male has a given bias supporting marriage after defilement if it is not adultery-divorce (Mt. 5:32, KJV) whereas the woman does not.

It is very important for people to understand what the Bible teaches concerning marriage. The Apostle Paul speaks about the subject in 1 Cor., ch. 7; and in many of the other Scriptures. The principles apply for everyone. There is a need to be thorough in strengthening and armoring souls by means of teaching, exhorting, encouraging, proclaiming and declaring God's written word to be true and authoritative. God's law is our teacher, and we see how it is fulfilled through the new covenant apostles and prophets, and the acts of the early church.

Early Hebrew chaste women of the first law era: dowry

Abraham was a follower of God. He was a great beneficiary of God and founder of the Hebrew race, a chosen people that no longer exist today. No one in the world has Torah-required genealogical register. The Hebrews dissolved some time after the destruction of the temple and Titus. Nevertheless, their laws which were given by God and Moses, and the fulfillment of those teachings through Jesus Christ are the basis of holy civilization today.

First law era: dowry bride seduction and marriage

So what were the early Hebrew women like and what were the requirements of the first era law for marriage? Evidently, virgin women expected to be married and their fathers given a dowry price. The virgins who were not betrothed (formally engaged to the extent of being accepted as a wife but yet

having to await consummation) were able to meet men preferably of their same tribe (Nu. 36:5-13) and have conversations with them. They were able to make romantic decisions and implicitly were even at times “enticed” (Ex. 22:16, KJV) by men to go to bed. The verse tells us:

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.  (Ex. 22:16, AKJV)

Parental decision and formation of contract of marriage

However, the father of the girl was the one who decided whether a marriage was to be accepted. It seems he had the choice of determining his daughter's future (almost as if she were property) whether she agreed or not. If he did not give his daughter in marriage after a man had sex with her (taken her virginity), the rejected man was still responsible for his actions and had to pay money even though he could not get the woman he had sex with for a wife. Of course, this would leave the daughter in an unchaste condition, a very hard way for a woman to live. So, in such a religious, close-knit family and community under chastity-preserving laws (which we Japhethites should have today!), it would probably take an undesirable or seemingly worthless man to cause her father to commit his daughter to living unchaste and never able to marry as a virgin, note v. 20, 21 (KJV).

The perfect wedding ceremony

Marriage is an institution of God and monogamy is a divine, institution of the church. Both institutions are in process of fulfillment during a pure wedding. At least four people are required: two guarantors and the marrying couple.

Post-marital consummation

I would prescribe things to assure purity and be simple: One guarantor (the daughter's father or guardian) say, "I give this bride in respect of chastity according to Ex. 22 and Dt. 22 (KJV)." Another (the son's father or guardian) say, "I give this groom in respect of monogamy 1 Cor. 7:27 and 1 Ti. 3:12 (KJV), and that he has no obligations to any former virgins. You will be joined together at consummation (Gn. 2:24, KJV)."

Pre-marital giving of virginity (pre-consummation)

It should be followed with ceremony, and without promiscuity it can be equally made a pure marriage with the father's consent as well as a post-giving of virginity (consummation); however, of course, engagement with the fathers' approval of both participants of marriage is recommended.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German Bible

Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Ex 22:15.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Dt 23:15.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Nu 36:7.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Dt 24:1.

Septuaginta: With Morphology. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996, p. Dt 24:1.

CHAPTER V

Decency And Order, God’s Will, Gifts And Roles

Male teachers in the assembly

We are living in a time when male leadership and female subjection is not adhered to, even in the churches (assemblies). Due to a lack of godly discipline, some homes are desolated even before the children grow up. It is difficult for people to survive without being duped or afflicted by treacherous, avaricious, wanton, materialistic, overrunning, mixed worldly cultures.  I can help reveal God's plan how we Christians are to associate among ourselves and how we are to live in this world with respect to God's creative, functional and judicial attributes unto mankind.

Though I find the "charismatic faith" more acceptable than the some-gifts doctrine, there seems to be a dilemma concerning church order. God is a God of order; he is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33, KJV).

The Lord set the earth, sun, and stars in their place—astronomical order. He placed the church to announce the manifold wisdom of God unto the civil authorities—prophetic order (Eph. 3:10, KJV). He placed men under civil authority—civil order. He placed the man to be the head of the wife—marital order. He placed the master above the servant—economico-social order. In all God's creation there is an order, and a divine plan for mankind to follow without disorder and confusion.

The inspired written word of God, the Holy Bible, is the authoritative source of becoming order within the church; in this instance particularly, the assembly. It seems to me that since the church is a collective witness for Jesus, that it should have beauty of concordant pattern sparkling as a diamond. To the contrary, as I have surveyed the churches through my pilgrimage, I have found them in a sad, and wanting condition so many times. I hope that I do not sound as a harsh critic—because I love my brethren, and I desire the best for our spiritual family.

Unfortunately, it is among the some-gifts people (who some have erringly coined themselves as “cessationists”) as though one might glorify God for his creative power, and yet not attribute him fully for healing power in sickness. God is the same today as yesterday, and tomorrow: He is the Almighty One in any particular instant of time.

God’s emotional will vs. determinate will

God has good will toward man, desiring his creature to be in good health. How one shall consider God's emotional will has an effect on how one shall consider his predeterminate will. His emotional will is the desire he has for all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Ti. 2:4, KJV). God desires all good things for man: health, peace, wealth, prosperity, goodness, and eternal salvation. The elder expresses his desire for the beloved, “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (3 Jn., v. 2, AKJV) If we believe God wishes mankind well—which he does—then we may pray in faith without wavering; whether we act in faith upon God's word or not, determines our destiny!

Immediate healing does not always occur (2 Ti. 4:20, KJV)

Hence, when God confirms to anyone that His grace is sufficient for him, and that His power is being perfected in his weakness, the matter is settled. I do not believe we can comprehend fully how great God's grace is; however, we may be certain that it is far greater than what we may imagine is good for us. Excellent physical health, wealth, education, and many good things may be enjoyed in life; but in a paradoxical manner, even when a Christian suffers the lack or loss of one or all these things, one may be used to demonstrate God's power being perfected in weakness. Whether health, or sickness, it is whether that we have been converted and saved eternally by God's grace that is most important, and his power rest upon us when we lack in this life.

Those who neglect God's emotional will for good unto mankind, and do not seek his blessing and gift of healing, and disallow those who would seek healing for the sick by the miraculous manners spoken of in the Scriptures err because healing is one of the ministries of the church (1 Cor. 12:5).

Dispensation of the gifts unto the transformation

Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians (KJV) depicts a time period from the dispensation of the gifts among the early church unto the transformation from the "body of our humiliation" unto the "body of his glory" (Phil. 3:21, KJV). Knowledge shall vanish away (1 Cor. 13:8, KJV). There is a contrast between "partial" knowledge, which exists now; and with "full" knowledge, whereas one shall know even as he has been known (1 Cor. 13:12, KJV). In order for the greater to become existent, the lesser must be annulled—that will happen when "that which is perfect" comes (1 Cor. 13:10, KJV).

If the dispensation of the gifts, even though they be from "part" (1 Cor. 13:9, KJV), existed from the early church era and will continue to exist until that which is perfect is come (an everlasting era in the future), how is it then, that people can say they believe in God and his power, and not believe that he is able to heal the sick through faith, and the gifts of his ministers when healing is mentioned as one of the gifts (1 Cor. 12:28, KJV), and when they can see that the longevity of the dispensation of the gifts includes our contemporary era? When they speak of God's creative power, they seem to be so thrilled with wonder, and then when the applying of faith to God's healing power in sickness is mentioned, where is their zeal? If God can do miraculous and marvelous creative works, he also is able to do miraculous healing works. If God has the power to create this universe, which he did according to the written word, it is also logical that he can heal disease of any sort because he is almighty, and nothing is impossible with God.

Disorder and mockery: Women have an obligation to teach only other women and children

Now, on the other hand, though I find faith in God's healing power in the charismatic churches, many times I've found disorder in the services. Women teach groups of men, women and children, which is contrary to the Scripture: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Ti. 2:12, KJV). It is fine for a woman to teach other women or children, but in the assembly women need to realize that they are expected to be taught; hence, women should be willing to be subject to male authority and teaching, and they should be willing to listen quietly (1 Ti. 2:11, KJV). If women have any questions concerning what is being taught, they should ask their husbands afterward at home (1 Cor. 14:34-35, KJV); see Eph. 5:22, (KJV); Col. 3:18 (KJV).

Rectification: men must commend themselves and not suffer a woman to teach

Retrospectively, in the churches where I have found a general regard for male leadership, which is God's will and commendable, I have generally found a deficiency as to a mature conception of the dimension of spiritual gifts: this should not be so. Yet, even so, that some of the more orderly—as to male teacher—churches are wanting in this spiritual area, allowing or condoning the usurping of authority of women as a replacement (because many women are bold or because of the lack of boldness of the men) will not fill the unwholesome gap. Men of God should recognize God's plan of assembly order, commending themselves, not suffering women to teach (1 Ti. 2:11, KJV), (1 Cor. 14:34, KJV).

Women must not teach men in the assembly (church gathering or meetings in houses similar as the disciples in the upper room)

There are many Christian women who disagree with this spiritual precept. How they choose to think is up to them. But what they may have to say, and how they may go about saying it is up to the elders of the church. (See the first chapter of this book.) Let the elders be minded that they have a leadership role, and a Scriptural outline to follow: 1 Cor., ch. 14 (KJV). God's spiritual, and prophetic men are responsible for the order, and conduct of the assembly (1 Cor. 14:37, KJV). The apostolic rules of order are commands of God for the spiritually learned who willingly desire to obey God in a becoming manner.

But, if any person is not satisfied with the precept, such a one is not compelled to concede. The primary importance is that all believers gather together regardless of their differences of opinion in reference to church order according to becomingness (1 Cor. 14:38, KJV).

Personally, even if a woman is rude and overbearing in a rebellious, and insulting manner as by ignoring the God-given, dignity and authority of a man, to such an extent that she may openly mock me, I still do not hinder her from attending service because I know it is God's will for men and women to gather together in his name and to be fed and nourished by the presence of the Lord, and his word, and the other members of the body. However, I also know that there are other gatherings I can attend if things get too disgraceful.

Let me make the point that Paul says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" (Eph. 5:22-24, KJV). Also, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Col. 3:18, KJV).

In order for a person to serve the Lord piously, he must reverence Him. So it is in a becoming marital relationship—the wife reverences her husband (Eph. 5:33, KJV). As God would have us to worship himself with reverence and awe (Heb. 12:28, KJV), in a like holy manner let the wife reverence her husband as her ordained head of the household; and with shamefacedness (1 Ti. 2:9, KJV). Also, note 1 Pet. 3:1-7 (KJV).

Now, it is a grievous matter when the whole assembly is so far out of control that responsible elders do not have command, and therefore, confusion, and disorder continually go on.

The early church had its problems concerning the developing, and implementing of the gifts. Throughout history, since that time, religious dogma has offered its unworthy substitute for the place, and standing of the Scriptures. Church order has been a problem for centuries, but no cultural ideas have ever successfully stamped out completely the simple, but spiritual Scriptures. God's written word has survived the ages. Denominational religion has offered its suggestions, ethics, and reputation, but the word of God piously discerns and exposes religious error. Church order is a latent expression awaiting to be sought, and applied by the elders, and body, through means of God's harmonious, holy, and inspiring word.

As for those advocates of dogmatic religion, no matter how beloved, knowledgeable or gracious they may be, I say their excuses are error and a waste of time. Their misinterpretation of the Scriptures is a hindrance to the purpose of the church. For instance, some of the erring teachers who do not concede to male leadership and the silence of women in the assembly misconstrue "there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28, KJV) to support their thesis. Furthermore, they speak incorrectly to the effect that "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law" (1 Cor. 14:34, KJV) does not have to do with this time or culture.

For reference: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28, KJV). And "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14:34, KJV).

The verse Gal. 3:28 declares the unity and equality which is in the liberty of faith in Jesus regardless of sexuality. Unity and equality result in deliverance from the bondage of the law, which was of a former covenant; however, the verse does not say that the God-given attributes which distinguish the sexes are abolished.

Both sexes are the workmanship of a divine Creator: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Gn. 1:27, AKJV). A creative attribute is intrinsic in the image of the creature, which reflects the likeness of God.

God said in the beginning, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Gn. 2:18, AKJV). The New Testament states, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9, KJV). A functional attribute of companionship as a helpmate for the man is inherent in the creation of the woman. A pastoral book, at 1 Ti. 2:13 (KJV, reflects some of the details of God's creative order mentioned in the Old Testament.

God announced judgment and punishment upon the serpent, the woman, the ground, and the man (Gn. 3:14-19, KJV). The woman lost the degree of self-rule which she once possessed (although she formerly had a creative attribute to be a help meet and companion according to God's purpose); however, subsequent to the sin and fall of Eve and Adam, the woman also obtained a judicial attribute (1 Ti. 2:14, KJV). God announced to her, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gn. 3:16, KJV).

The Hebrew word “יִמְשָׁל” (BHS/WHM 4.2, Gn. 3:16), which I transliterate, "yim-shal", means that the man shall have "dominion" or "power" over the woman, "rule over." The same word (in an infinitive construct form) is used in Gn. 1:18 (BHS/WHM 4.2) meaning "to rule over" the day and the night concerning the luminary prominence of the sun and the moon. The same word (in a participle form) is used in the prophetic utterance Micah 5:2 (BHS/WHM 4.2), meaning "ruler" concerning the future authority of the Lord Jesus Christ over Israel, take note of Mt. 2:5 (KJV).

Afterward, Eve was no longer sinless; the sorrow, loss and chastisement that sin brings materialized: Her freedom had diminished. The liberal status of our progenitors in relationship to God had been corrupted due to the fall, and their relationship (as to the aspect of authority between themselves) became affected. Also man still tills the ground today to survive—the earth still brings forth thorns and thistles; take note of the consequence of the fall (Gn. 3:18, KJV).

The curse still remains today; it will not include, but remain until: "the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:18-23, KJV); "… there shall be no more curse" (Rev. 22:3, KJV); "when that which is perfect is come" (1 Cor. 13:10, KJV); "we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. 15:49, KJV); "this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality... Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. 15:54, KJV); we "are as the angels of God in heaven" (Mt. 22:30, KJV).

Becoming converted, and saved through faith in Jesus does not take away all the evil, toil, affliction, and death that sin brought forth, not does it disannul God's judgment upon the serpent, woman, man, and the earth, even though we are "the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26, KJV), and even though we are "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16, KJV). Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden: the whole creation has never been the same since (Rom. 8:22, KJV).

No condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus

For now we should recognize: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16, KJV). The gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit: "… the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" (1 Cor. 12:7, KJV). The gifts are made known and real to us that they are of God, and God gives us the ability to acknowledge them, and the giver of the gifts—Himself—God's power is recognized by his children through the manifestation.

Also, we should realize that later we will be changed for the better: "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19). The "manifestation" of the sons of God is when God will reveal to his children their glory in the day there will be no more curse, no more corruption, no more sin: when God will have given them a new body and their eternal reward in heaven.

However, the day of the "redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:23) has not manifested itself yet; it has not been realized by us yet because it will not come until a time in the future. Nevertheless, until that glorious time, sexuality, and its inherent, creative and judicial attributes continue to exist.

Also, in further reference to "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28, KJV)—if the Apostle Paul had not believed that women have different attributes than men according to sound doctrine, then he would not have exhorted Titus, who was accompanying him at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1): "that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus. 2:4, 5, AKJV). Also note Pr. 31:10-31 (KJV). The career of homemaking is a God-given attribute of Christian women.

Likewise, in reference to the same verse, but not in contradiction to, if Paul had not believed in authority and submission in master-servant relationships: "there is neither bond nor free" (Gal. 3:28), then he would not have mentioned, "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things" (Tit. 2:9, 10, AKJV).

Now, on the other hand, the prophetic ministry is given to the church—males and females (1 Cor. 12:10, KJV). Any person, no matter what his or her sex, age, employment, social status, or nationality belongs to God if he or she has his spirit (Rom. 8:9, KJV); (Gal. 3:28, KJV). Due to the fulfillment of the following prophecy, many have an inheritance among those that are sanctified.

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. (Joel 2:28, 29, AKJV).

Not all have the same gifts (1 Cor. 12:27-31). The body consists of many individuals with various gifts: there is a spiritual manner in the way the gifts are developed and applied concerning the reverence of authority: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3, KJV).

Furthermore, worship service goes beyond the recognition of administrative rule. Appearance and conduct are important, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (1 Cor. 11:4, AKJV). A man should not pray or prophesy with long hair, or wearing a hat, or any type of covering on his head. That does not mean that he must be bald.

But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, that is, if she does not have long hair, or a veil of some type, or a scarf, hat, or covering, then she dishonours her head: for that is as disrespectful as if she were shaven (I Cor. 11:5, 6, 15, KJV). "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor. 11:7, AKJV).

If the woman is the glory of the man, what has happened to the church and our society today? How many churches do you see where the women have long hair, or a covering? How many wives do you see who reverence their husband? Extravagance does not avail unto righteousness; women should dress in "modest apparel" (1 Ti. 2:9, KJV). Disregarding chastity of dress and showing too much of their body, many women excite men. Just take a look at the way women cut their hair short as a man's today. It is difficult to distinguish the difference between a man and a woman because of the way some men and women dress and wear their hair. It is an awful sight the way some people make themselves appear when they should be glorifying God in all things.

The way a woman of devotion serves God shows honor and respect of the angels, "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:10, AKJV). The word "power" in Greek is "ex-ou-see'-a", which means "authority." It is written in the accusative case in the verse: “ἐξουσίαν” (Black, 1 Cor. 10:11); I transliterate it, “exousi'an”.

The woman should have respect of authority according to the creative attributes: the woman was created for the man (1 Cor. 11:9, KJV); and the woman is the glory of the man (1 Cor. 11:7, KJV). In this respect, she ought to be covered preferably with long hair (1 Cor. 11:5, KJV), or a covering of some other mode (1 Cor. 11:6). The woman should have reverence for her husband, men in general, God and angels when she is praying or prophesying.

Fullness of the gift of prophecy, ministerial appearance, and commandments of the Lord

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Ge 1:18.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Ge 3:16.  

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Wzith Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic ed., German

Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, p. Mic 5:1.

Black, Matthew, et al. The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 1997, p. 1 Co 11:10.

CHAPTER VI

Workin’ on it...

Second Law Era (Deuteronomy Through Malachi) And Fulfillment

Remedy for pre-marital sex by choice