205Questioning Paul
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
5
Thanatos | Deadly Plague
Feed My Sheep…
Yahowsha’ made yet another prediction regarding Sha’uwl. And just as Shim’own’s last words warned us about this man, the following prophetic admonition was the last Yahowsha’ would make following his fulfillment of Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children.
As was his custom, his preamble provided the information we need to understand his prediction, so let’s begin where this specific conversation began. But keep in mind, this is actually a translation of what Yahowsha’ said in Hebrew into Greek and then into English. Also, with the exception of portions of seven words from a tattered one-by-three-inch fragment of the 18th and 19th verses on P109 dating from the late 2nd century, nothing prior to the wholesale corruption of the text under Constantine’s Roman Catholicism in the mid-4th century exists from which to verify the authenticity of this translation. So while the fragment from the 2nd century affirms that this conversation took place, and that Yahowchanan recorded it, we must be careful reading too much into the words themselves as they were subject to translation and copyedit.
This discussion followed a theme which undermines Christianity and its fixation on bodily resurrection. Yahowchanan | John, who recorded these words as an eyewitness, was with Shim’own Kephas | “Peter,” Ta’owm 206| Thomas, Nathan’el (meaning: the Gift of God), the sons of Zabdy | Zebedee (meaning: Endowment), and two other unnamed disciples. They had gathered on the shores of the Sea of Galilee to fish. Then as was the case with every prior meeting with Yahowsha’ after the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, those who knew him best, and who had recently seen him, did not recognize him. This is the antithesis of what we would expect to read if bodily resurrection occurred.
These things known, notice the change from “agapas – taking pleasure in love” to “phileo – engaging in a loving familial relationship” as Yahowsha’s conversation with Shim’own progresses.
“This was already the third time (outos ede tritos) Yahowsha’ (ΙΣ – a placeholder used by the Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’ – Yahowah Saves) was seen (phaneroo – was disclosed and displayed, made known and revealed) with the disciples who were learners (tois mathetes – to the followers who were students being educated regarding the relationship), having been equipped to stand up (egertheis – having been caused to be recalled, restored, and appear; from agora – assembling His facilities and collecting His capabilities for the purpose of being seen, debated, and chosen in a public place) out of lifelessness (ek nekron – out of breathing His last breath, being spiritually deficient in a state of ineffectiveness and powerlessness, unable to respond, departed and separated). (21:14)
Therefore (oun – as a result), while (hote – when) they ate breakfast (aristao – they consumed food early in the morning), He said (lego – He speaks) to (to) Shim’own Kephas (Simoni Petro – an awkward transliteration of the Hebrew Shim’own, meaning He Listens, combined with a translation of the Hebrew Kephas to the Greek word “Rock”) being Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saving (o ΙΣ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the 207Septuagint to convey following the article o in the nominative: “being Yahowsha’” – Yahowah Saves), ‘Shim’own of Yahowchanan | He who Listens to Yahowah’s Mercy (Simon Ioannou – transliterations of Shim’own – He Listens to Yahowchanan – Yahowah’s Mercy), do you show your love for Me more than these (agapas me pleon – do you take pleasure in, desire, and express your love for Me to a greater degree than these)?’
He said to him (legei auto), ‘Yes (vai – verily acknowledging agreement), Yahowah (ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name), you are aware (ou oieda – you realize, know, acknowledge, and appreciate) that I am engaged in a loving relationship with You (oti phileo de – that I have great affection for You based upon our friendly and familial association; from philos – to engage in a close, family-oriented relationship as a companion similar to a marriage).’
He said to him (legei auto), ‘Feed (boskomai – tend to, caringly guide, and nourish) My lambs (ta arnia mou – the young sheep of mine).’ (21:15)
He said to him (legei autos) again, a second time (palin deuteros), ‘Shim’own, of Yahowchanan / he who listens to Yahowah’s Mercy (Simon Ioannou – transliterations of Shim’own – He Listens to Yahowchanan – Yah’s Mercy), do you love me (agapas me – do you revere and respect me)?’
He says to him (legei auto), ‘Yes (vai – verily acknowledging agreement), Yahowah (ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name), You are aware (ou oieda – You realize, know, acknowledge, and appreciate) that I am engaged in a loving relationship with You (oti phileo de 208– that I love you fondly as my close friend and that I have great affection for You based upon our family-oriented relationship).’
He said to him (legei auto), ‘Shepherd (poimaino – acting as a shepherd guide, care for, feed, protect, tend to, and assist) My sheep (ta probate mou – My adult flock).’ (21:16)
He said to him (legei autos) a third time (to tritos), ‘Shim’own, of Yahowchanan | He who Listens to Yahowah’s Mercy (Simon Ioannou – transliterations of Shim’own – He Listens to Yahowchanan – Yah’s Mercy), are you engaged in a loving, family-oriented relationship with Me (phileo me – are you My companion and friend; from philos – to engage in a close, familial relationship)?’
The Rock (o Petros – a translation of Kephas, the Hebrew and Aramaic word for rock) was saddened (lypeomai – was grieved and distressed) because (oti) he said to him a third time (eipen auto to triton) ‘Are you engaged in a covenant relationship with Me (philies me – are you participating in a close, friendly, and family-oriented association with Me consistent with the vows of a marriage)?’
So he says to Him (kai legei auto), ‘Yahowah (ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name), You are aware (oidas su – You perceive and realize, know and recognize) of everything (panta – of all of this). You (ou) know and understand (ginosko – through examining the evidence and evaluating it recognize and realize) that I am engaged in the loving, family-oriented, covenant relationship with You (oti pilo de – that I have great affection my association with You, see You as friend and family).’
Yahowsha’ / Yahowah Saving (o ΙΣ – a placeholder 209used by the Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’ – Yahowah Saves), said to him (legei auto) ‘Nurture and tend to (boskomai – feed and nourish, care for and guide) My sheep (probaton mou – my adult flock).’” (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:14-17)
Yahowsha’, whom it appears Shim’own Kephas of Yahowchanan thoughtfully and appropriately addressed as “Yahowah” in his post-Bikuwrym state based upon the Divine Placeholder, wasn’t talking to his pupil about grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The “sheep” was a reference to Yahowah’s “Covenant children.” It is why Yahowah is called “My Shepherd” in the 23rd Psalm, and is credited with guiding, nurturing, and protecting His flock. Their “food” is “the Towrah.” As a “shepherd,” Yahowah through Yahowsha’ was asking His Disciple “to guide and protect” His flock, keeping His sheep out of harm’s way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and remain “His” sheep, not “Peter’s,” and especially not Paul’s, not a pope’s or a pastor’s.
“Tending” to Yahowah’s Covenant children requires a shepherd to be “properly prepared,” which means Shim’own would have to diligently study Yahowah’s Towrah so that he would be able to teach our Heavenly Father’s children what they need to know to survive and grow, and to be properly nourished and guided.
To tend the most highly valued sheep in the universe, “the Rock” would have to remain “observant,” which is to say that he must be vigilant, never letting his guard down, lest a diseased or vicious predator, unfit food, improper guidance, or an unauthorized shepherd mislead God’s flock. And the best way to do that would be to nurture Yah’s children on the merits of the Torah, so that they would be equipped to care for their children for generations to come.
210Agapao, the verb meaning “to love,” and agape, the noun for “love,” express the ideas of “showing love, expressing love, and enjoying love.” Agapao is from agan, meaning “much,” thus emphasizing quantity versus quality. And while the verb phileo can also be rendered “love,” its etymology, based as it is on “philos – friendly and familial association akin to a marriage relationship,” is more focused upon the “nature of the relationship” than the feelings associated with it.
Phileo was, therefore, being deployed in translation to ask Shim’own whether or not he “was engaged in the family-oriented covenant relationship” Yahowah established in His Towrah. While our response to our Heavenly Father saving us may be agapao, this emotional retort, while appropriate, is not as important as whether or not we phileo – have engaged in the Covenant.
Cognizant that Yahowah was telling Shim’own Kephas to fend off false prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of place or race, Yahowsha’ provided this prophecy to Shim’own regarding Sha’uwl before returning to Yahowah…
“Truly (amen), truly (amen – this is certain and reliable), I say (lego) to you (soi), when you were younger (ote es neoteros), you were girding yourself (ezonnues seauton – you were fastening the ties of your own garments, preparing yourself for work, clothing yourself in protective armor (second person singular imperfect active indicative of zonnymi)), and you were walking (peripateo – you were living, traveling around, conducting, and directing your life) wherever you were intending and whenever you decided (hotan thelo otan – as often as you were proposing and as long as you wanted, desire, and determined).
But (de) when you grow older (gerasko – when you age), you will extend (ekteneis – as a gesture you will hold 211out, stretching forth) your hands (tas cheipas sou) and another (kai allos – and a different kind of person) will gird you, placing a yoke on you to control you (se zosei – will fasten a strap around your midst; from zugos – imposing a yoke of bondage to manipulate and control, used to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and commands (future active indicative third person singular)) and he will move (kai oisei – he will bring, manipulate, and drive (future active indicative third person singular)) you to a place where you do not presently intend or desire (hopou ou thelo – you do not currently want, wish, propose, or determine (present active indicative second person singular)).’ (21:18)
And then this (touto de – in addition, therefore this is what), he said (eipen – but now this he shared, providing meaning) making the future clear, signifying (semaino – intentionally producing an insight to indicate, make known, and foretell) what kind of (poios – to answer questions regarding the manner, nature, and whereabouts) deadly plague (thanatos – pandemic death and physical demise, judgment separating dying and diseased souls) he will attribute to Yahowah (doxasei ton ΘN – he will impart and extol as being supposedly worthy regarding his opinion and estimate on how to properly judge, value, and view God).
And this (kai touto) having been conveyed (eipon – having been communicated), He said to him (lego auto), ‘You should choose to follow Me (akoloutheo moi – you should decide to actively accompany Me and engage as My disciple, learning from Me and electing to side with Me on my path; from a – to be unified and one with keleuthos – the Way (present active imperative)).’” (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:18-19)
Since this follows Yahowsha’ asking Shim’own to shepherd his children, to feed them, to protect them, and to guide them, wherever they may be, when he speaks of the 212disciple’s current liberty to accomplish this mission being constrained in the future by another person, we should be looking to identify the man (third-person masculine singular in the text) who openly sought to limit Shim’own’s ability to influence individuals outside of Yisra’el. The second clue that we were given to identify this villain is that he “attributed a deadly plague to God,” in essence killing billions of people with his words.
Third, since this advisory concludes with Yahowsha’ encouraging Shim’own to follow his Way instead of the path proposed by his future adversary and recognizing that Yahowsha’ was the living manifestation of the Towrah, we should be on the lookout for someone whose philosophy differed from God’s, someone who was demonstrably opposed to the Torah, its Covenant, and its Invitations to Meet with God.
And fourth, since this is a prophecy, for it to have merit, this heinous man would have to be known to history, he would have to appear on the scene within a reasonable number of years, and he would have to caustically interact with Shim’own during that time, limiting the disciple’s audience, while attempting to thwart his ability to negate this foe’s contrarian message.
I know such a man, and so do you. Sha’uwl | Paul is a perfect fit in every regard. And I dare anyone reading this material to suggest any other viable candidate.
You will notice that this begins and ends with freedom. And that is because the children of the Covenant, like Shim’own and all of those who follow Yahowsha’, are liberated by the Towrah. It is the great irony of religion, the putrid misnomer of Christianity. Beguiled by Paul into believing that they are emancipated from “the Law” by believing “Jesus’ Gospel of Grace,” by rejecting the Towrah’s guidance and therefore Yahowsha’s path, Christians are controlled by the religion that claimed to free 213them. Moreover, all who follow Yahowsha’ are Torah observant because he was Torah observant. It is nonsensical to believe that one can reject the former without also denying the latter.
The Towrah’s prescriptions for living, and its means to resolve disputes, when approached by those embracing the terms of the Covenant, not only free us from all forms of human oppression, they bequeath Yahowah’s promised benefits: eternal life, vindication, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. This is the Way of Yahowsha’, the path he not only followed, but also encouraged Shim’own and all of us to walk along with him, learning from him along the way.
This explains why Yahowsha’ encouraged Shim’own of Yahowah’s Mercy to be wary of the man who would try to put his own yoke upon him. It would lead not to life, as Paul promised, but instead to the death of billions – to the greatest pandemic the world would ever know: Pauline Christianity. And this is why Yahowah said, “She’owl is the plague of death.”
The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek thanatos that Yahowsha’ almost assuredly communicated to Shim’own is deber. It speaks of “diseased statements,” of “words which plague,” of “pandemic death resulting from a spoken or written message.” Deber is not only associated with “divine judgment,” but it is also a “thorn” and a “sharp-pointed stick,” also known as a “goad” – things which are directly associated with Sha’uwl and his poison pen. Further cementing deber’s place in this discussion, it depicts a “pasture where flocks of sheep are grazed.” Therefore, Yahowsha’ was not predicting Shim’own’s ultimate demise, but instead the deadly plague that would be unleashed upon the world by his rival – Sha’uwl.
Unfortunately, as was the case with much of what Yahowsha’ told his disciples, Yahowchanan, the 214eyewitness who chronicled this conversation, may not have understood its prophetic intent. If he actually wrote the commentary which was added much later, then he incorrectly assumed, especially with Yahowsha’s crucifixion vivid in his mind, that the reference to “ekteneis tas cheipas sou – you will extend your hands” was a prophetic portrayal of the nature of Shim’own’s death. But in context, it is obvious that this isn’t possible because those who are nailed to a wooden beam become immovable, and thus cannot be taken to a place they do not intend. Moreover, since we do not know how Shim’own died, it is likely that the commentary was added much later by a scribe to keep the prediction from appearing irrelevant.
And since I do not suppose Yahowsha’ squandered his last opportunity to talk directly to his disciples by conveying an immaterial message, I’m inclined to do as we have done, and ascertain exactly what he was predicting. And in this regard, we were given many useful clues – some of which we have already deployed to identify our villain.
The most compelling words which lead us to the perpetrator are: zosei, oisei, semaino, doxasei, and akoloutheo. On the surface they mean “gird,” “move,” “clearly predict,” “opinion attributed,” and “follow,” respectively. But to fully appreciate the prophecy, we will have to dig a little deeper – just as we did with thanatos.
Zosei, translated “will gird you, placing a yoke on you to control you,” is from zugos, which means “to tie together so as to yoke, to apply a burden, or to enslave.” Those who are zosei and zugos will find a strap fastened around their midst by someone who is trying to control and manipulate them. Yahowsha’ is translated using the term to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and commands which were imposed by man. It was also used by Shim’own in his debate against Sha’uwl during the Yaruwshalaim 215Summit.
Remember Acts 15:10: “Now, therefore, why do you test and tempt (peirazo – do you (speaking to Sha’uwl and Barnabas) look for mistakes and try to exploit and trap) God, to place upon and impose a yoke (zugos – a mechanism for controlling the movement of animals) upon the neck of the Disciples which neither our fathers nor we were given the authority to accept, support, put up with, or endure in our walk?” (Acts 15:10) I suspect that Shim’own used zugos expressly because of Yahowsha’s warning seventeen years earlier.
“He will move” was transcribed in the third person singular, affirming that there is one solitary male individual in the disciple’s future who would attempt to manipulate “the Rock,” dragging Yahowsha’s Apostle to a place he had not intended. And we find this occurrence bluntly conveyed in Galatians with Sha’uwl condemning Shim’own and pushing the disciple out of Antioch, driving him back to Yaruwshalaim.
Sha’uwl’s rhetoric and force of personality, especially the modicum of devotion he seemed to garner initially with some followers, caused Shim’own to cower as he had before on Passover, and even retreat, leaving Yahowsha’s flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Keep in mind, Yahowsha’, as he had before, let Shim’own know that this would occur.
Adding fuel to the fire, as we shall soon witness in Ephesus, in Acts 19, Paul admits to “setting boundaries” for Yahowsha’s disciples, notably Shim’own and Yahowchanan. And even Kephas’ comments regarding Paul’s epistles were used in a way “the Rock” never intended. Rather than being seen correctly, as a warning to God’s sheep, telling them to be on their guard lest Paul’s epistles confuse them and lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what “Peter” wrote to infer that Paul’s 216letters were “Scripture.” The disciple had been taken to a place he did not intend to go.
Beyond the fact that these words came from Yahowsha’, beyond the fact that this was his last prophecy, Yahowsha’ is translated using semaino, a word which affirms that this was a prophetic prediction, one which was designed to clearly communicate a future event, making it known to us. As such, only a fool would ignore its implications, one focused upon the deadliest plague ever foisted upon humankind. And in this light, there is only one possible perpetrator, the man who did this very thing.
We have already examined thanatos, associating it with the Hebrew deber, so we recognize that the revelation Yahowsha’ wanted to make perfectly clear was the demise of billions of diseased souls, all separated from their Shepherd, from life, nourishment, protection, and guidance, as a result of the words one man would write while “doxasei ton ΘN – attributing his opinions to God.” And that, more than anything else, was the problem. Had Sha’uwl not claimed that his message was inspired, he would have been summarily rejected for being insane, for being arrogant, presumptuous, and delusional. But Paul provided a new, entirely different way to view God, one that made salvation as simple as believing. There was nothing to know, nothing to do, and the saved were at liberty to sin. All that was required was to believe Paul while ignoring God, His prophets, and His disciples.
As a compound of a, “signifying unity and being part of,” and keleuthos, “the Way,” Yahowsha’ used akoloutheo to tell Shim’own to “Follow the Way”—the narrow path to God continually described by Yahowsha’ as being accurately and completely delineated within the Towrah. This is especially relevant when considered adjacent to Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5:
“Moreover, because the intoxicating and 217inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence and control others without justification through trickery and deceit is a high-minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way associated with Sha’uwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and places.”
Written as akoloutheo, it was rendered in the present active imperative tense. The use of the present active tense indicates that he wanted the man he had trained to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The imperative mood was deployed to express that this instruction was subject to the exercise of freewill, and yet it was expressing an earnest desire. This was supportive advice upon which a choice should be made, and thus in full recognition that Shim’own’s volition was in play.
Yahowsha’ wanted “the Rock” to “Follow his Way” to the Father – not Paul’s way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the opposite direction.
Should you want additional proof that it was appropriate to refer to Sha’uwl as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” let’s turn our attention to Bare’syth / Genesis 49:27. There, Yahowah spoke about Sha’uwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamin’s tribe.
But first, let’s affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheep’s clothing communicating his own personal mantra, wrote:
218“I say (lego – I speak and I provide meaning), therefore (oun – indeed as a result), not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai – cast aside, thrust or driven away) the God (o ΘΣ) the people of Him (laos autou – the nation of Him).
Not may it be (ue genoito). And yet (kai – so then) indeed (gar), I, myself, am (ego eimi) an Israelite (Israelites – transliteration of Hebrew Yisra’el), from (ek – out of) the seed (sperma – semen singular) of Abraam (‘Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Abram), the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn).” (Romans 11:1)
While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, I would be remiss if I didn’t correct Paul’s erroneous statements. God temporarily rejected Yisra’el in Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity because they, like Paul, embraced the religions of the Gentiles. And He has repudiated their political and religious leaders countless times for their false teachings. So while Yisra’el and Yahuwdym will be reconciled with Yahowah on the Day of Reconciliations in 2033, Paul’s “not may it be” is in direct conflict with God’s testimony. Further, Yisra’el and Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set apart unto Yahowah, making them the antithesis of “laos – common.”
However, since Sha’uwl has shown his utter disregard for Abraham, consistently referring to him by his pre-Covenant name, Abram, and will profess in his letter to the Galatians that the Covenant he formed with Yahowah enslaved and thus had to be replaced, it is Sha’uwl who has rejected Yisra’el. He also repudiated Moseh and the Torah, Dowd and his songs he wrote to the Torah, and all of the Hebrew prophets, including the most Hebrew of prophets, Yahowsha’, even pushing His Disciples, all of whom were Yisra’elites, away.
219Since we know that Paul has a propensity to twist God’s Word, it is incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious. Paul’s theory is that, since God has not rejected all of His people (at least according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not repudiated “me,” “for indeed I, myself, am an Israelite.” Simply stated, Paul was bad to the bone.
Also, there was a twinge of Sha’uwl’s messianic complex being revealed here because Paul said that he is “from the seed (singular) of Abram,” a distinction that would otherwise be redundant to being an “Israelite.” The notion that there was “only one seed of Abram” will be twisted in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians to jump from Abraham to Yahowsha’, bypassing the Towrah. But now according to Sha’uwl, he, himself, is that seed.
Before we consider Yahowah’s prediction regarding Sha’uwl, the Benjamite, remember that in the Chabaquwq / Habakkuk prophecy which calls Sha’uwl out by name, we find a reference to a later time:
“So therefore, the expectation and subsequent realization of this revelation from God is for the appointed meeting time. It provides a witness and speaks in the end. Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved it shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard because indeed he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering.” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3)
With this in mind, the preamble to Yahowah’s next indictment is found in Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:1, where we read: “And Ya’aqob called his sons and said, ‘Gather together so that I may declare to you what is to befall you in the last days.’”
Then, speaking of this Benjamite, we are told that he will seek to shred the eternal witness, mangling the enduring testimony, as the day dawns, secretly offering 220what he has spoiled to his false god. Then as darkness descends upon God’s people, he will join races and religions together through seductive oratory and outright deceit to apportion the world as if prey, causing incomparable harm.
Before we contemplate the prophecy, let’s consider the name. Benjamin was the thirteenth child, the last born of Ya’aqob’s children. Of Yisra’el’s twelve sons and one daughter, he was the only one who was given two names. He was also the lone child born in Canaan – and even then, only after his parents left Beyth‘El | the House of God. Benjamin also holds the distinction of being the only child whose mother, Ya’aqob’s first love and second wife, Rachel (whose name means: the Lamb’s Journey), died in childbirth.
So we may want to ask ourselves: why would a lamb give birth to a wolf if not to symbolically reveal the wolf in sheep’s clothing who would ravage the purpose of the Lamb of God? Who else in our evolving story had two names other than Sha’uwl who became Paul? And who besides the supposed “13th Apostle” had as his life’s mission to take everyone away from the House of God?
With all this distinguishing symbolism lingering in the air, and while still a considerable distance from ‘Ephrath | Being Fruitful, with her dying breath, Rachel gave her son the foreboding title: Benoni – My Anguishing Son. As her soul was departing and she was dying, she left us this warning: “she announced (qara’ – she proclaimed with ongoing actual consequences) his name and reputation (shem huw’ – his designation and renown): Ben-‘Owny | My Unrighteous Son (ben ‘owny – My Evil and Troublesome Son; from ‘awen – the one who exerts himself in vain, who is wicked, haughty, and unrighteous, idolatrous and inept).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 35:18)
During her labor, we were told that this child, unlike 221any other, would be “qashah – stubborn and cruel, arrogant and fiercely unyielding, brutal and especially mean, demonstrating a caustic air of superiority.” He would “cause great harm and terrible distress.”
The 13th child, away from the House of God, negating the Journey of the Lamb, with two names, who would be stubborn, arrogant, and cruel, displaying an air of superiority as he grew up to become the Son of Unrighteousness and the embodiment of evil, is Sha’uwl – the father of Christianity known by his second name: Paul.
Also interesting, while Rachel’s choice of names was explained, as was the name of every other child, we are left to ascertain the reason Ya’aqob chose to call him “Benyamyn” after his wife’s death. He could have wanted to say Son of the Sea – suggesting that the boy born among the Canaanites apart from the House of God would live among and influence gentiles. Ya’aqob may have considered him the Son of the South, indicating that he would be subordinate to Yahuwdah above him. There is the possibility, however slim, that the child Ya’aqob’s first love called Evil was instead the Son of the Right Hand, with the thirteenth child being kept by his father’s side. And that is particularly foreboding considering what this tribe would do to themselves, to foreigners, to Yisra’el, to Yahuwdah, and to God. There is even some justification for the Son of My Days, as this name was written Binyaamem in the Samaritan Pentateuch. This would then say that he was born in Ya’aqob’s old age (he would have been around 100 at the time).
So now this Towrah prophecy…
“Benjamin (Benyamyn) is a wolf (za’eb – a predatory animal) viciously tearing apart and ravenously mangling, even shredding (taraph – ripping and plucking the life out of his victims) while consistently devouring (‘akal – actually feeding upon) the enduring witness as 222plunder (‘ad / ‘ed – the eternal testimony as prey, the evidence and spoil as a result of the conflict) as the day dawns, contemplating what will be secretly offered to a false god (ba ha boqer / baqar – inspecting and sizing up the sacrifice in the morning).
And as the darkness descends at the end of the day, he joins races and religions together, commingling foreigners in disorderly fashion (wa la ha ‘ereb / ‘arab – at dusk as the night becomes gloomy, he makes a bargain along with a personal pledge regarding the fate of other people, cultures, and geographic regions, a wager and trade to ensure his noxious agreement is carried out) using seductive oratory, misguided opinions, and outright deceit to divide, apportion, and assign the fate those who will be egregiously harmed (chalaq – being deception with a smooth and slippery tongue to encourage those listening to swallow the insincere tactics such that they distribute and disperse that which is ruinous, causing tremendous harm), spoiled as a result of the conflict (shalal – plundered as if possessions, considered prey and a prize to be awarded to the winner of the conflict).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
If Questioning Paul is the first book you have considered in the Yada Yahowah series, it would be reasonable to assume that I have read too much into the text, extrapolating each word beyond its primary intent. Therefore, I would encourage you to examine each of these terms for yourself. If my rendering is correct, this is a stirring affirmation that God was aware of the egregious crime Sha’uwl | Paul would foist on His creation 1500 years before it was perpetrated.
As you embark upon this quest for elucidation and verification, keep in mind that the distinction between ‘ad / ‘ed, boqer / baqar, or ‘ereb / ‘arab did not exist when this was written circa 1450 BCE, nor prior to the diacritical markings of the Masoretes in the 11th century CE. As a 223result, it would be imprudent and presumptuous of us to discard any reasonable definition which works within the context of this declaration which is derived from these words’ three-letter roots. We will examine each of these further in a moment.
Also, believing that you have found the definitive answer by examining only one lexicon is akin to a fellow with one old watch being confident that he knows the time while a gentleman with three watches is less assured but better informed. In other words, be observant, closely examine and thoughtfully consider all of the evidence available and then decide.
After you have done so, you are free to trim my translation, reducing it to the definitions you think God meant and forego considering what He may have intended. However, be careful in doing so because, everything I conveyed in my rendering of Bare’syth 49:27 is not only readily found among the words which would have been scribed identically using the same three letters in the original text, they apply to the Benjamite in question – providing a precise prediction into what he would do, with whom he would do it, how he would achieve this result, and the consequence of him having done so.
As for me, I am encouraged by what we have just uncovered, thankful that the more closely we observe, the more we learn. A superficial reading of Yahowah’s message is revealing while a thorough investigation pays dividends.
Also, since ‘ad / ‘ed was singular in the text, the enduring witness and everlasting testimony being ripped apart and spoiled is Yahowah’s Towrah. The horrible crime perpetrated by this wolf from the tribe of Benjamin was perpetrated during the very period Yahowah predicted and it transpired in the manner He foretold. In the tenth verse of this same discussion, we were told regarding 224Yahuwdym | Jews:
“The scepter of the people (shebet – the family and authority, the tribe and the staff) shall not be removed (lo’ suwr – will not be turned away and depart) from (min) Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Beloved of Yah and Related to Yahowah), nor the staff of the leader who inscribes instructions (wa machoqeq – nor the power to lead and to write authorized prescriptions for living; from mah – to contemplate the meaning of chaqaq – being cut in and cut out, inscribing and engraving a decree which establishes guidance (scribed in the rare poel stem, whereby the action of the verb’s effect on the object is intensified)) to advance understanding regarding (min byn) his footsteps and walk (regel huw’ – his stance and footing as he embarks upon a journey to seek information and exploring and striving to learn) until the eternal witness (‘ad ky – providing a continual testimony and an emphatic contrast) returns (bow’ – arrives) prosperity and tranquility to whom it belongs (shyloh (MT) or shelow (LXX) – reconciliation or to whom it belongs; the MT shyloh is from shalah – to draw out unto tranquility and prosperity, extracting people to a place of relaxed happiness).” Bare’syth / Genesis 49:10)
The scepter of the people depicts the nation of Yisra’el’s ability to govern itself – something which occurred during Dowd’s | David’s reign and will occur again when he returns. Dowd is the ultimate representative of Yahuwdah. He wielded the scepter of his people. He was also their shepherd, and thus held the staff. As a prophet and psalmist, he met the criterion of inscribing instructions which advanced understanding. His Mizmowr and Mashal guide our footsteps along the path to Yahowah. And Dowd, even more than Moseh, and second only to Yahowah, is the most mentioned individual in the whole of God’s eternal witness. He is called the Son of God, the Chosen One, the Shepherd, the Messiah, the Beloved, and the King of 225Kings. And it is Dowd | David who will be returning with Yahowah to bring ultimate prosperity and tranquility to Yisra’el. It is regarding him that all of these accolades rightfully belong.
I understand that if you have been a Christian up until the point of being exposed to the truth about Paul being the Plague of Death and Yahowsha’ representing the Passover Lamb, that it may be difficult to grasp all that Yahowah has promised Dowd | David. Christians, without any justification, have even been told that “Jesus” is Shiloh. It was the great heist of Christianity that has robbed Dowd of all that Yahowah said about him, transferring every promise to their “Jesus Christ” in order to deify the Passover Lamb. In so doing, they have come to worship a false god and have rebuffed Yahowah’s offer of eternal life.
A lot has been written, and even more assumed, regarding whether the Masoretic Text is correct with Shyloh | Shiloh or the Septuagint with shelow. Unfortunately, the controversy cannot be resolved with the Dead Sea Scrolls because the last line of Bare’syth / Genesis 49 extant among the collection found at Qumran is the 8th verse.
Having considered the possibilities, I translated it as “prosperity and tranquility to whom it belongs” because even if shyloh, the root meaning of shalah from which it is based is “to draw out unto tranquility and prosperity, extracting people to a place of relaxed happiness.” Both words share the same base.
As for Shyloh | Shiloh, it has a turbulent and diverse history as a town. But as a title, the name does not fit the prophecy. On the positive side, Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn | “Joshua,” Moseh’s | Moses’ successor, chose Shiloh as his headquarters. He had a Tabernacle to Yahowah erected in this city which was some thirty miles north of what would 226become Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem.
On the negative side of the equation, Shiloh was home to a fertility cult and served as a base for military operations. Men from the tribe of Benjamin abducted women in Shiloh and Shamuw’el | Samuel (in 1 Samuel 2:22) excoriated the town for having promoted prostitution.
Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines around 1050 BCE. It was there that Yisra’el’s enemy confiscated the Ark of the Covenant, something alluded to in 1 Samuel 4 and in Psalm 78. Jeremiah spoke very harshly about the religious customs that had been practiced in Shiloh, denouncing it in 7:12-14 and again in 26:6-9. As a result, the Christian translation, “until Shiloh comes,” is as ludicrous as is applying any of this to “Jesus Christ.” It speaks prophetically of Dowd | David and of his return to Yisra’el.
That realization is devastating for Paul and Christianity, so let’s go back to that time to the close of the fourth millennia and see how Bare’syth / Genesis 49:27 becomes inescapable for Sha’uwl. Every tribe except Yahuwdah, Lowy, and Benyamyn were lost and thus unknown, this being the legacy of the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom six hundred years earlier. And immediately after Sha’uwl penned his last letter, it became impossible for any of the three remaining tribes to demonstrate affiliation because Rome razed the Temple where all of their genealogical records were stored. As such, the time prior to the destruction of Temple is so constrained, there really is no other viable candidate for this dire prophecy other than Sha’uwl.
Hebrew lexicons affirm that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son, and yamyn, conveying either “right, right hand, or south.” As such, we might see this connotation reflected in Sha’uwl’s attempt to take the upper hand and position himself as “God’s right-hand 227man,” thereby replacing Yahowsha’ and his disciples. Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock – Christians – south, and therefore back into the wilderness. Also interesting, Sha’uwl has already spoken of “the right hand being offered to him,” suggesting that this reference was somehow prophetic. And it has become obvious that Sha’uwl, a man whose name is indistinguishable from She’owl, served at Satan’s right hand.
Perhaps also we should look at yam in the name’s root. Yam is the Hebrew word for “sea,” and it is symbolic of Gowym, distinct from Yahuwdym who are associated with the “‘erets – land.” It is hard to miss Paul’s repetitive and braggadocious claim of dominion over Gentiles.
As we return to our examination of Yahowah’s Towrah prediction in Bare’syth / Genesis 49:27, we find that taraph, translated “viciously tearing apart and ravenously mangling, even shredding,” is an accurate prophetic portrayal of what Sha’uwl would do to Yahowah’s Towrah. It also has rather interesting allusions to thanatos in Yahowsha’s statement warning Shim’own about Sha’uwl. Written in the qal imperfect, as was “‘akal – consistently devouring,” “taraph – ripping apart” reveals that the wolf actually tore the disciple’s apart while continually mangling what God had promised, “consistently ripping the life out of” the Torah which ultimately led to the demise of countless Christian souls. Sha’uwl continually devoured the truth, leaving nothing but “rotting and neglected carcasses” in his wake.
Sha’uwl was indeed as cunning as a “za’eb – wolf.” He was a “predator” masquerading as the Shepherd’s “right hand” while dressed as one of His sheep, all to “pluck” souls away from the flock.
While ‘ad can mean “until,” it also means “enduring and eternal,” demarking a much longer period of time. The 228same letters pronounced ‘ed serve as Hebrew’s principal word for “testimony” and “witness,” thereby describing Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets. This was what the Benjamite was mangling and ripping apart.
If ba ha boqer is simplistically rendered “in the morning,” and interpreted as “the first part of the day,” we find that Paul was the first to mangle Yahowsha’s message. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of ‘Jesus.’” (From Jefferson’s letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, 1985, page 208)))
Paul’s treachery occurred at the onset of the fifth day of human history, at least as measured from the fall of Adam. Therefore, this timing is also indicative of his arrival. According to the Bare’syth / Genesis account, and history, this is the time of confusion when new religions would and now have ravaged the world. As the day dawned, Paul would offer the Gentile world up to his false god.
While it is a minor point, the “morning” reference adroitly connects us to Yahowsha’s “breakfast” conversation in which the prophecy warning about Paul’s predatory practices was revealed. It makes an otherwise extraneous comment relevant.
Sha’uwl began his career murdering those who came to know and trust Yahowsha’. (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, and 9:1) And then in Galatians 2:9, he claims Gentiles are his to influence as he sees fit, thereby marking his prey – inspecting and sizing up the sacrifice in the morning. His constant wrangling for money will dominate his later writings, and thus represent the evening of his career – all in keeping with the prophecy.
‘Akal, rendered “devouring,” and meaning “to eat and feed upon,” in addition to “to consume, ruin, and destroy 229something valuable,” is an even more exacting fit for Yahowsha’s prediction. While Shim’own was feeding God’s sheep, Sha’uwl viciously savaged and devoured them. Likewise, Yahowah is not speaking of “wolves and their prey” in a literal sense, but instead, of “predators” and their “victims,” with the prey representing the souls of the “sheep” He is offering to protect. Therefore, the wolf and sheep references adroitly connect these two predictions.
The amalgamation of ‘ereb / ‘arab was translated “as the darkness descends at the end of the day he joins races and religions together, commingling foreigners in a disorderly fashion.” The three-letter root serves as the basis of one of the language’s most interesting and complex terms. When fully explored, its many facets reflect what we have witnessed in Paul. He “exchanged one thing for another.” His was a Faustian bargain, trading the world for his soul. His personal pledge, the deal he had made with the Devil regarding the fate of people the world over, from every culture and geographic region, was exceedingly noxious.
When translated as “divides and destroys,” chalaq fits what Paul sought and accomplished. It also speaks of someone who is a “smooth talker,” and a “slick operator,” as well as of the “slippery slope” they lead their victims down to their “ruin.” Chalaq is “flattery” in the sense of “insincerity,” words which reflect an attempt to lure the unsuspecting into a trap by enticing them.
Paul is defined by chalaq: “using seductive oratory, misguided opinions, and outright deceit to divide, apportion, and assign the fate of those who will be egregiously harmed.” Paul used “chalaq – a deceptive and slippery tongue to encourage those listening to swallow his disingenuous and hypocritical tactics such that he could separate them” from God, “causing them considerable harm.”
230That leaves us with the final thought expressed in Bare’syth 49:27, which is Ya’aqob’s prophetic portrait of the most infamous Benjamite: “shalal – spoiled as a result of the conflict.” It addresses victims and discloses the fate of their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Paul’s legacy, the Roman Catholic Church, has divvied up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed. Paul fought to win, and as a result, everyone else lost.
It is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Yahowah’s predictive description and Yahowsha’s prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahowah’s list, and the last prophecy in Bare’syth / Genesis, the prophetic reference to Sha’uwl was the last prediction Yahowsha’ would make before he returned to heaven.
There is but one man who fits Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s prophecies: Sha’uwl…
“Benjamin (Benyamyn) is a wolf (za’eb – a predatory animal) viciously tearing apart and ravenously mangling, even shredding (taraph – ripping and plucking the life out of his victims) while consistently devouring (‘akal – actually feeding upon) the enduring witness as plunder (‘ad / ‘ed – the eternal testimony as prey, the evidence and spoil as a result of the conflict) as the day dawns, contemplating what will be secretly offered to a false god (ba ha boqer / baqar – inspecting and sizing up the sacrifice in the morning).
And as the darkness descends at the end of the day, he joins races and religions together, commingling foreigners in disorderly fashion (wa la ha ‘ereb / ‘arab – at dusk as the night becomes gloomy, he makes a bargain along with a personal pledge regarding the fate of other people, cultures, and geographic regions, a wager and trade to ensure his noxious agreement is carried out) using 231seductive oratory, misguided opinions, and outright deceit to divide, apportion, and assign the fate those who will be egregiously harmed (chalaq – being deception with a smooth and slippery tongue to encourage those listening to swallow the insincere tactics such that they distribute and disperse that which is ruinous, causing irreplicable harm), spoiled as a result of the conflict (shalal – plundered as if possessions, considered prey and a prize to be awarded to the winner of the conflict).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
Before we move on, it should also be noted that Moseh provided other Benyamites a better option…
“Concerning (la) Benyamyn (Binyamyn – Benjamin), he said (‘amar – he accurately and completely declared (qal stem and perfect conjugation meaning literally and totally)), ‘Those who love (yadyd – those who are attracted to and adore; from dowd – beloved, being passionate in one’s devotion, a.k.a., Dowd | David) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) should consistently and genuinely live (shakan – should continually dwell, actually camp out, and always remain (qal stem, imperfect conjugation, jussive meaning collectively conveying a reality which is an ongoing choice)) by approaching with (la) absolute confidence through complete trust (betach – reliance which is proven and bold, leading to salvation) upon his God’s (‘al huw’) shield and shelter (chophaph – protective covering, enclosure, and protection from harm, keeping the beneficiary safe from harm) over and around him (‘al huw’) each and every day (kol ha yowm).
And by making the connections which lead to understanding (wa byn – so by comprehending) how He has adorned and what burdens He has shouldered (katheph huw’ – shouldering his problems while clothing him, surrounding and crowning him while patiently 232bearing with him), he lives (shakan – he dwells, camping out, inhabiting His home).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 33:12)
A Benyamite, like any other Yisra’elite, can choose to love Yahowah rather than go to war against Him. Instead of displaying a wanton disregard for Yahowah’s instructions, he can choose to trust God, confidently relying upon the means He has provided for us to live. And it is by making these connections, especially regarding the great lengths Yahowah has gone by way of the Passover Lamb to shoulder our burdens, and then on UnYeasted Bread to purify us, that we can be adorned in the robes of royalty and offered the crown of life.
Absolute confidence is the antithesis of faith, putting Yahowah’s declaration in irreconcilable opposition to the fulcrum of Pauline Doctrine. Diligent and disciplined observation of the prevailing evidence, followed by careful and discerning consideration of it, leads to knowledge and understanding which, in turn, facilitates trust and engenders complete confidence.
Yahowah warned us about the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing because there is a better, more reliable way, one in which His testimony is revered rather than ravaged.
