355Twistianity
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
7
Thanatos | Deadly Plague
Feed My Sheep…
The third of the three men to feel the sting of this scorpion’s toxin, Yahowchanan / John may have had the last laugh. Just as Shim’own’s last words warned us about Sha’uwl, the following prophetic admonition was among the last attributed to Gospel Jesus in the Book of John.
In this case, the preamble is instructive to the prediction, so let’s begin where this specific conversation began. But keep in mind, this is actually a translation of what John recalls being expressed 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 conversation. So while the fragment from the 2nd century suggests that this may have been communicated, and that Yahowchanan recorded it six decades thereafter, we must be careful reading too much into the words themselves as they were subject to faded memories, mythological characters, translation imperfections, and copyediting.
This discussion followed a theme which undermines Christianity and its fixation on bodily resurrection. Yahowchanan | John, who is alleged to have recorded these words as an eyewitness, was with Shim’own Kephas / Peter, Ta’owm / Thomas, Nathan’el (meaning: the Gift of God), the sons of Zabdy / Zebedee (meaning: Endowment), 356and two other unnamed disciples. They had gathered on the shores of the Sea of Galilee to fish. Then as was the case with every meeting following the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, those who claimed to know him, 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 or if Iesou Christou had actually existed.
These things known, notice the change from “agapas – taking pleasure in love” to “phileo – engaging in a loving familial relationship” as the conversation with Shim’own progresses.
“This was already the third time (outos ede tritos) Iesous (ΙΣ – a placeholder used for Iesous) 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 faculties 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). (John 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 for “rock”) being Iesous (o ΙΣ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey following the article o in the nominative: “being Iesous”), ‘Shim’own of Yahowchanan | He who Listens to Yahowah’s Mercy (Simon Ioannou – 357transliterations 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), Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey kuriou – lord and master), 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).’ (John 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), Lord (ΚΥ), 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 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).’ (John 21:16)
358He 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), ‘Lord (ΚΥ), 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 for my association with you, see you as friend and family).’
Being Iesous (o ΙΣ), said to him (legei auto) ‘Nurture and tend to (boskomai – feed and nourish, care for and guide) my sheep (probaton mou – my adult flock).’” (John 21:14-17)
Since the mythology of Gospel Jesus was predicated upon misrepresenting Dowd, this is either the Messiah speaking to a fellow countryman following his fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, or mythological dialog without a historical basis. But for our purposes, it doesn’t matter since it impugns Christianity either way.
359The speaker wasn’t talking to his pupil about grazing, about sheep, or animal husbandry – although Dowd was an expert in these things. “Sheep” are 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,” he may have been asking a fellow countryman “to guide and protect” his flock, keeping his sheep out of harm’s way, while keeping the wolves at bay. After all, they were and remain his flock, 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.
Agapao, 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 as “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 360feelings 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 the Shepherd was telling Shim’own Kephas to fend off false prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of place or race, it appears as if Dowd may have provided this prophecy to Shim’own regarding Sha’uwl after fulfilling Bikuwrym…
“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 out, 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)) 361and 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)).’ (John 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 God (doxasei ton ΘΝ – he will impart and extol as being supposedly worthy regarding his opinion and estimate on how to properly judge, value, and view theos).
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)).’” (John 21:18-19)
Since this follows the request made to Peter to shepherd his flock, to feed them, to protect them, and to guide them, wherever they may be, when he speaks of the disciple’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.
362Third, since this advisory concludes by encouraging Shim’own to follow the proper Way instead of the path proposed by his future adversary, 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 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, Christians are controlled by the religion that claimed to free them. Moreover, all who follow the Messiah 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, but they bequeath Yahowah’s promised benefits: eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. This is the Way of the Miqra’ey, the path Dowd not only followed but also explained and fulfilled.
363This explains why Shim’own of Yahowah’s Mercy was told to be wary of the man who would try to put his own yoke upon him. It would not lead 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, “Sha’uwl is the plague of death.”
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 this warning seventeen years earlier.
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 the flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Adding fuel to the fire, as we shall soon witness in Ephesus, in Acts 19, Paul admits to “setting boundaries” for the 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 letters were “Scripture.” The disciple had been taken to a place he did not intend to go.
This is especially relevant when considered adjacent to Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5:
364“Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating 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.”
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:
“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 365the 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 the Songs he wrote regarding the Towrah, and all of the Hebrew prophets who regaled Yahowah’s Guidance.
Since we know that Paul had 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 366twisted in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians to jump from Abraham to Gospel Jesus, bypassing Ya’aqob and 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 what 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 – the first by the mother, Rachel, who knew him but died in childbirth and the other by his father, Ya’aqob, who was 367not paying attention. 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: Ben’owny – 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 / In the Beginning / Genesis 35:18)
During her labor, we were told that this child, unlike any 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 368Unrighteousness 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, the thirteenth child who was 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 Binyamem 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 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 – 369at 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 of those who will be egregiously harmed (chalaq – being deceptive 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 Twistianity is the first series of books you have considered in the Yada Yahowah family, it might be reasonable for you to assume that I have read too much into the text, extrapolating each word beyond its primary intent. Therefore, I 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 1,500 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 result, 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 370while a gentleman with three watches is less assured but better informed. In other words, be observant, closely examine and thoughtfully consider all 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 / Genesis 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 of what he would do, with whom he would do it, how he would achieve this result, and the consequence of 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 Yahuwdym | 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 371contemplate 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 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 Kings. 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. Even more relevant, as the Zarowa’, Dowd was the Passover Lamb, fulfilling the Miqra’ of Matsah which perfects us in God’s sight.
I understand that if you have been a Christian up until the point of being exposed to the truth about Paul being the 372Plague of Death and Dowd serving as the Pesach ‘Ayil, 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 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 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 the Tabernacle to Yahowah erected in this city which was some twenty miles or thirty kilometers north of what would become 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.
373Shiloh 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 practiced in Shiloh, denouncing them in 7:12-14 and again in 26:6-9. As a result, the Christian translation, “until Shiloh comes,” is as ludicrous as 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 in time to the close of the fourth millennium and see how Bare’syth / Genesis 49:27 becomes inescapable for Sha’uwl. Every tribe except Yahuwdah, Lowy, and Benyamyn was 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 the 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 man,” thereby replacing Dowd and Yisra’el. 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 of replacing Dowd, the oft-acclaimed Right Hand of God. And it has become obvious that Sha’uwl, a man whose name is indistinguishable from 374She’owl, served at Satan’s dominant side.
Perhaps, we should also look at yam based on its root because yam is the Hebrew word for “sea.” 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 as “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 the 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 disciples 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,” denoting a much longer period of time. The same 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 as “in the morning,” and interpreted as “the first part of the day,” we find that Paul was the first to mangle the purpose and message of the Passover Lamb. As Thomas Jefferson 375wrote: “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))) While Jefferson was bright enough to write Paul out of this story and is famous for being among the first to openly rebuke him, I wonder if he ever took this realization to its natural conclusion and considered the devastating consequence of Replacement Foolology? Whether he realized it or not, the demonizing of other ethnicities and the unjustified sense of divinely awarded superiority, played an enormous role in the emerging nation’s horrific treatment of the native population.
As for Paul’s treachery, it transpired 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.
Sha’uwl began his career murdering those who came to know and trust the Messiah. (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 as “devouring,” and meaning “to eat and feed upon,” in addition to “to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable,” is an even more exacting fit for what transpired. Sha’uwl viciously savaged and devoured God’s flock. 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 376the 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.” Sha’uwl 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.”
The final thought expressed in Bare’syth 49:27 presents 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 377darkness, 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 the prophetic warning affirmed during the Sermon on the Mount. 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 made by the replacement cast of characters.
There is but one man who fits these 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 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 378they 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 with 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. Dowyd | 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 bearing 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 379love 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.
