-1-

The Genealogies of Jesus

&
God’s Kingdom on Earth

This is about the reestablishment of God’s kingdom on earth. Adam, with the golden gloss of
kingship was a type of the priestly king. Then was the beginning of God’s visible history and His
revelation to this struggling world. The great Conspiracy, plotted against the ranking order of
kings, is against the throne and the altar, by these proud and headstrong people who do not want
the Kingdom of God but wish to create their own institutions and define their own laws. Let Thy
Kingdom come” is one of the most remarkable prayers. It is for the fulfillment of God’s kingdom on
earth, for the establishment of the messianic Reign of Peace, when the swords will have been bea-
ten into plowshares. Then nation shall not lift up sword against nation and neither shall they learn
war anymore. But there is no kingdom without a king! The Lord, king of kings, shall appoint that
king, who will have come from a blessed line, an elected line that can be traced back via his
ancestry. Genealogies are important. The Bible has many genealogical lists and with reason! As the
priest Zecharia prophecised: “The Lord God of Israel has raised up a horn of salvation in the
dynasty of his servant David.”

1 – The Messianic promise: her Seed shall bruise the enemy’s head
The Virgin Mary, from whom the Messiah was born, was the election par excellence, while at the
same time she could claim a royal lineage. She certainly was not a simple commoner. She
fulfilled the Messianic protopromise, pronounced shortly after the snake had seduced Eve: “The
Lord God said to the snake: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed
and her Seed and He shall bruise your head.” The Messiah Jesus happens to be the prophesized
Seed of the woman, designated in this prophecy in the singular form. He would be the coming
 -2-

One to bruise the enemy’s head. “Her Seed” is strange wording, as seed normally belongs to the
man. But here Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit; no man was involved. In this particular verse
‘Seed’ (zera) is often translated by ‘offspring’, but in the whole King James edition, from 1611,
there further is no instance where zera is trans-
lated in this way. (1) In Isaiah 44:3 both words
are used with different Hebrew terms: “I will
pour My Spirit on your Seed (zera) and My
blessing on your offspring (tse’etsa).” The first
part indicates Isaiah 42:1, referred to in Matthew
12:18 when speaking of Jesus: “My Elect, on
whom I have put my Spirit.”

Adam and Eve failed because of the transgres-

sion of the command, but their mission remained
untouched according to the protopromise that
was renewed in Abraham. That explains why
Jesus’ genealogy from Matthew starts with “son
of David son of Abraham”, which is also the first
sentence in the New Testament book. Galatians King David playing the Psalms
3 formulates this renewal as follows: “All who
are from faith are sons of Abraham to whom the promises were spoken - and to his Seed; not to
‘seeds’ as of many but as of one, which is Christ.” A similar image is called up in Acts 2:29-30
but here as regards David: “Let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he both died
and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that
God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne,
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ.”

Adam was a sinner and David, son of Abraham, might have been a worse sinner. People who
want to find an excuse for adultery like to point to his scandalous conduct with Bathsheba, the
wife of Uriah, and later she became the mother of king Solomon. Notwithstanding, he came from
a line of ancestors with a mission for humankind. He was ordained for the good of his people, just
as his people is ordained for the good of this world. The psalms, written by king David, witness
that he stood guarantor for his people in the Mikveh baptism and brought it into the only sacrifice
of the Son - which is God’s hidden name. Because the Son had not yet come, it was an “advance”
baptism in His Name. (The Mikveh is a bathing facility in Jewish practice, used for ritual immer-
sion.) The line of David is the beginning of the royal line carried by the reconciliation line or
blood-line of intercessors with the prayer of supplication: “Let Thy Kingdom come!” The Bible
often mirrors the Messiah in David, not that he was perfect, far from that! Yet like Adam he is a
model (a tupos) of ‘the’ to come. The ‘imperfect’ biblical law too is a model of the perfect hea-
ven’s example.

2 – God fended off the curse because of the treacherous alliance

Hosea calls the Northern kingdom Israel and the other Judah. Strictly speaking, Judah too belongs
to Israel but it has been the common practice to reserve the term Israel for the Northern kingdom
of the ten tribes. The context illustrates whether the whole of Israel of the 12 tribes or that of the
10 is meant. Ephraim, the other term for the Northern kingdom, was the name of the youngest son
of Joseph and Asenath, a woman who was formerly the house-seer of Potiphar, head of the guard
of Pharaoh and also priest of On. (compare Gen. 39:7 with 41:45) We will look in this section as
to the reasons and conditions that caused Ephraim to be so special in God’s plan with our world,
because in Ephraim, Israel would be a blessing. (Gen. 48:20) As Onkelos said: “Ephraim’s des-
 -3-

cendants will be rulers of nations.” And as the prophecy of Genesis continues: “May God make
Israel as Ephraim and as Manasseh!”

The marriage of Joseph and Asenath, which was arranged by a series of unlikely incidents, has
been the way God fended off the curse, which the people of Israel called upon themselves be-
cause of the treacherous alliance with Shechem. It appears that Asenath (belonging to the god
A’nath) was the illegitimate child of Joseph’s sister Dinah, begotten from Shechem prince of the
Hebites, whom Dinah herself had called Zelicha (cunning). (Baraita Eliezer 38, Book of Jasher
44) To revenge, the sons of Jacob formed with the people of Shechem an alliance under a treache-
rous oath, yet valid in the eyes of God: for they had sworn in the Name of the God of Israel, an
oath that was to make them in all aspects equal to Israel. Because of the importance of the events
that lead to the massacre of the Shechemites, I will quote the main part of it from Genesis 34:
«« Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob (the grandson of
Abraham), went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor
the Hebite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. His
soul was strongly attracted to Dinah, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to her.
So Shechem spoke to his father, saying: “Get me this young woman as a wife.” And Jacob
heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter. Now his sons were with his livestock in the
field; so Jacob held his peace until they returned. Then Hamor went out to Jacob to speak
with him.
When the sons of Jacob came in from the field and heard it, they were grieved and very
angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a
thing which ought not to be done. But Hamor spoke with them, saying: “The soul of my son
Shechem longs for your daugther. Please give her to him as a wife. And make marriages
with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves. So you shall dwell
with us, and the land shall be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and acquire possessions for
yourselves in it.” Then Shechem said to her father and her brothers: “Let me find favor in
your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give. Ask me ever so much dowry and gift, and I
will give according to what you say to me; but give me the young woman as a wife.” But the
sons of Jacob spoke deceitfully to Shechem and Hamor: “We cannot do this thing, to give
our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. But on this
condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is
circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us;
and we will dwell with you, and we will become a single people. But if you will not listen to
us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go.” And their words pleased
Hamor and Shechem. Shechem did not delay to do the thing because he delighted in Jacob’s
daughter. He was the most respected of his father’s household. And Hamor and Shechem
came to the gate of their city, and spoke with their men: “These men are at peace with us.
Therefore let them dwell in the land and trade in it. For indeed the land is large enough for
them. Let us take their daughters to us as wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only on
this condition will the men consent to dwell with us, to be one people: if every male among
us is circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock, their property, and every
animal of theirs be ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will dwell with us.”
All the people who depart through the gate of his city listened to these words and all the
males – all those who depart through the gates of the city – were cicumcised. Now it came to
pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob – Simeon and
Levi, Dinah’s brothers – each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the
males. They killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah
from Shechem’s house, and went out. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered
the city, because their sister had been defiled. They took their sheep, their oxen, and their
 -4-

donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, and all their wealth. All their little
ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses.
(We may assume that, according to the custom of the time, their women and children were
sold as slaves.) »»

The conditions of the alliance between the people of Israel and the Shechemites are mentioned in
verse 15: “If you will become as we are if every male of you is circumcised, then we will give our
daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us; and we will dwell with you, and we will
become a single people.” Rambam (Rabbi Maimonides) makes the point that it was this condition

that was the source of Jacob’s later agitation (the exile to Egypt) when his sons took the lives of
the Shechemites. Whatever the evils of the townspeople, his sons had made with them a treaty –
and had broken it! A later example exists that Israel cannot make an alliance and break it, just like
God cannot make an alliance and break it. Israel is God’s partner and has to bend to His ways.
This is illustrated with the treaty they made with the Gibeonites, which happened shortly after the
release from the exile to Egypt, which proves that they had learned their lesson:
«« The men of Israel did not ask counsel of the Lord (which they should have done). Their
leader Joshua made peace with the Gibeonites to let them live. And the rulers of his people
swore to them. And it happened at the end of three days, after the treaty was made, that they
heard that they dwelt near them (and not far away as they were told). The children of Israel
did not attack them (though they would have liked to), because the leaders had sworn to the
Gibeonites. They said: “We have sworn to them by the (Name of the) Lord, the God of
Israel; now therefore, we may not touch them. We will let them live, lest wrath be upon us
because of the oath which we swore to them.” »» (Joshua 9:14-20)
 -5-

According to A.K. Emmerick, an Augustine nun who lived in the early 19th century and had vi-
sions of Old Testament episodes, it happened that following the massacre, Dinah was given in
marriage to a prince of the Jebusites in the vicinity of the
future Jerusalem; to prevent further trouble she gives her
little girl, together with the midwife, to a passing cara-
van. Even today, in this part of the world with its Islamic
presence, which is strongly based on the patriarchal fami-
ly unit, a child born out of wedlock leads a precarious
existence. To protect the child from the malice of the
community it may be placed in an orphanage, our present
substitute for a passing caravan. It so happened, years
later, that Joseph, Dina’s uncle, at age 17, is also given to
a passing caravan and so both ended up at Potiphar’s
house, …and thirteen years later they married. At the out-
set Asenath must have been unaware of her illustrious
past. (Gen. 39:14) From the Bereishis of the widely
popular ArtScroll Tanach Series, I learn that according to Joseph & Asenath
the Pirkei of Rabbi Eliezer (38), Dinah had borne a
daughter from Shechem’s assault, whom she named Asenath (or Asenah), an Egyptian name
meaning “she belongs to her father”. Rabbi Eliezer continues: “The brothers were opposed to
keeping the child so that people would not speak of licentiousness in Jacob’s tents.” To guarantee
her safety, Jacob engraved the tetragrammaton on a metal plate (the Lord’s Name), hung it on her
neck and left her in the field under a bush (bush refers to senah). Both stories essentially agree,
but I prefer Emmerick’s, because she can be depended upon. Providence brought the child to the
home of Potiphera, priest of On in Egypt, who was unfortunately childless. From the Book of
Jasher (ch. 44) we learn that at the time of Joseph’s troubles she had a baby of eleven months old,
of course from Potiphera. He and his wife will certainly have adopted the baby, and Joseph, after
he had become the Viceroy of Egypt, then married Asenath/Zelicha. (2)

This background helps us to understand why Ephraim, son of Joseph, was given such an excep-
tional patriarchal blessing, a blessing that made him God’s first-born amongst the nations of the
earth. (Gen. 48:5-6) And this also explains why it was not Joseph but Ephraim, together with his
brother, who inherited the land that Joseph’s father had bought from Shechem the Hebite, the
father of Asenath. In this way God managed to remain faithful to the solemn alliance with the He-
bites in spite of the seemingly successful attempt at genocide. And so God fended off the curse
that would have been caused by it. This was extremely important, because out of ‘blessed’ Israel
the Messiah would be born. Now back to the genealogical lists of Jesus Messiah.

3 – Two requirements for the Messianic ancestry

We will delve into genealogical tables of Jesus provided to us by the Gospels. The Messianic Jew
Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes about the two lines of Jesus’ ancestors. (3) To understand why two
registers are necessary, he says, we have to know what was required for kingship. Two union
states, each with its own requirement, had come into being after Solomon’s death, after which
both boasted a monarchy: the Northern kingdom of the ten tribes with Samaria as its capital and
the Southern of Judah and Benjamin with Jerusalem as its capital. Jesus had to fulfill the require-
ments of both union states. We have given the issue much thought, and the article here can be
regarded as an amplification of that of Fruchtenbaum, presently more than twenty years later.
 -6-

For the ten northern tribes no particular ancestry was required for kingship. It had to be placed
under the approval and confirmation of prophets. By way of contrast, for the two Southern tribes
a descendant of David was a must. No one else was allowed to ascend the Judean royal throne of
what was to become at one time the Jewish people. A conspiracy against these requirements came
into being, a conspiracy of which God says that it was doomed to failure. (4) This, according to
Fruchtenbaum, is the background of the different biblical requirements for kingship and these are
addressed by the two New Testament genealogies. These are related to both calling and blood-
line. Fruchtenbaum also points out that the list in Matthew’s gospel breaks with a Jewish tradition
in that it includes the names of four women. This is unparalleled, for the Talmud says that the
family of the mother, of the wife, shall not be regarded as family. And for a simple reason. The
woman merged into the family of her husband in a way comparable to our legislation for an
adopted child, and only through bond of blood she would relate to the family from which she
issued. Consequently, those four women are related to calling in the same way as for the other
genealogy, which is that of Mary, who by calling became the mother of the Messiah. That Mat-
thew shows the genealogy of Joseph is evident from the context. In that narrative Joseph plays an
active role and Mary a passive role, while the other narrative tells the same story from Mary’s
perspective. The ancestry of Mary has an added clue that it belongs to her, explains Fruchten-
baum, as it follows the Jewish custom to use the definite article ‘the’ before each proper name (in
the original Greek). Conversely, those definite articles are missing in Joseph’s ancestry.

4 – Why four women in Jesus ancestry?

The four women in Matthew’s list, Thamar,
Rachab, Ruth and Bathseba, are included to
highlight the unique reasons of each one’s
election, which in the divine plan would even-
tually lead to the birth of the Messiah. With
Thamar God had to bend circumstances be-
cause, in the first place, Judah should never
have married Batshua. Just as Judah had mar-
ried a Canaanite, so now he found a Canaanite
wife, Thamar, for his firstborn son. In this way,
Judah intermingled his family with the Canaa-
nites, which proves that he was going his own
and distorted ways without consideration for the ways of God. Thamar means palm, indicating
endearing beauty. Surprisingly, Thamar becomes a heroine in the Bible. Judah is rather the anti-
hero. Thamar is acceptable, Batshua not. By means of a fascinating chain of events (which you
should look up in Genesis 38), Thamar becomes the mother of the twin sons of Judah, called
Zerah and Perez. Like Rachab, the second woman in the genealogical list, she stands model for
the heathen peoples, because in Abram all families of the earth would be blessed. Their son Perez
was to become the ancestor of Jesus. His twin brother Zerah, who received the right of the first-
born, is another story to be discussed later. They are both mentioned in the Biblical genealogy.
(Mt. 1:3) That in itself presents a problem. Because, if Zerah is no forefather of Jesus, why would
he be mentioned? Neither the firstborn Ruben is mentioned, for it says: “Jacob begot Judah (from
whom Jesus descended) and his brothers (the tribal elders of the people of Israel).”

When Joshua captured Jericho the spoils and souls of that town were devoted as a firstfruits offe-
ring to God. Only Rachab, the harlot and innkeeper from Jericho, was saved. This, in a sense, is
comparable to Israel’s fate, whose firstborns were devoted to God since the day that God struck
 -7-

Egypt’s firstborns. God punished the Egyptians, but saved His people. As a firstfruit from the
heathens, Rachab was therefore, by God’s grace, included in the line of ancestors of the Messiah.

The third woman, Ruth, was a descendant of Haran - Abram’s

oldest brother, who was killed by Nimrod, ‘the mighty hunter’.
Nimrod’s hatred against Abram and his attempts to exterminate
the seed of promise are described in a delightful story every
Jewish child knows, to be found in “The Talmud” by Hymen
Polano, first published in 1876, which is still being reprinted.
Abram survived Nimrod’s fiery furnace while Haran died, “…for
his heart was not perfect with the Lord”. As the story goes, the
good side of Haran felt inclined to follow the ways of Abram, but
he kept it within himself, thinking - and that was his fault: “…if
Abram prevails, I will follow him, but if the king prevails, I will
go after the king.” The Midrashic literature describes Ruth, this
Lion of Judah
Moabite girl, as the good side of Haran’s seed (the Moabites
descended from Lot, son of Haran), which explains why God re-inserts her into the sacred line of
descendance, and this in spite of the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3. (5) Incidentally, Abram’s
wife Sarai was a daughter of Haran, and Isaac’s wife Rebecca a great granddaughter.

The fourth woman, Bathsheba, with whom David committed fornication, is mentioned because
the election of her offspring compensates for his murder of Uriah, with whom she was married; in
Matthew’s list she is therefore simply called “the of Uriah”. It is by this election and subtle way
of mentioning it, that the curse, that would have otherwise burdened David’s offspring, was
cancelled out.

5 – The Joachim question: is it Jechoniachim or Jechoniachin?

As said, in Jewish practice the name of a woman does not appear in the line of descendance.
Nevertheless when a Jew wishes to trace a female descendance he would go about it by looking
up the genealogy of her spouse. Fruchtenbaum quotes Ezra 2:61 as an example of the search for
the maternal line. He also says that the translation from Greek leaves open the possibility that
Jesus descends from Joseph, but that appear not to be the case. Nevertheless, Joseph is closely
related because Joseph and Mary have the same grandmother, named Phanuel of the tribe of
Asher, a woman of great renown. (6) She was married twice, first to Mattan, the grandfather of
Joseph, and next to Levi, the great-grandfather of Mary. Levi begot Mattat whose son was Heli.
The Jerusalem Talmud recognises that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary and not of Joseph. The
beginning of his list can be read as follows: “Jesus, as was supposed, the son of Joseph (but in
reality the son of Mary) son of Heli, etc.” The same Talmud confirms that Mary is a daughter of
Heli (Hagigah 2:4), whereas the father of Joseph was Jacob, son of Mattan. So it is the couple
“Phanuel x Mattan” who begets Jacob, who begets Joseph, and it is the couple “Phanuel x Levi”
(Phanuel’s second marriage), who begets Mattat, who begets Heli, who begets Mary. Mary’s
ancestor is Nathan, king Solomon’s brother. She also came from David but not via Joachim,
which illustrates that in both instances Jesus descends from the required line for kings.

Matthew’s genealogical list has another peculiarity. It omits certain names, as far as we know,
those of: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, which follows the restrictive primogeniture requirement to
include only firstborns, also called the first fruits of vigour. This is defined as the first child and
son of his father who first opened the womb of his mother unless by exception, and that for a
variety of reasons, someone was designated to receive important rights and blessings that nor-
 -8-

mally belonged to the firstborn pretender, as was the case with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Da-
vid, Perez, Solomon and Jechonia(chim), and therefore those names are mentioned in the list of
descendance. The primogeniture existed in many ancient cultures and is here a notion that is
directly related to the biblical practice of bringing the first fruits offering to God. Starting with
Abraham, Matthew’s genealogical list follows the line to David. Out of his many sons, Solomon
succeeds and the line passes to Jechoniah. Matthew’s list leaves open the possibility that Jecho-
niah is short for Jechoniachim or alternatively Jechoniachin.

Jechoniachim, son of Josiah, was one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. He was
the father of Jechoniachin and the brother of Zedekiah, the last in line of the Davidic dynasty,
who was left to rot away in prison. In Jeremiah 22 we read that this Jechoniachin (with an «n»,
not an «m») was proscribed. God refuses to grant him an heir to the throne of David. Even though
he might have sons, the prophecy held that his descendants would never sit upon his throne. Hun-
dreds of years later the curse still remained in force. So it is important to know whose blood
Joseph had in his veins, of which we cannot be sure.

It is remarkable that in the earliest Christian traditions Mary’s father is called Joachim, derived of
course from Jechoniachim, while in reality her father was Heli. I rather follow the Christian tra-
dition instead of the Talmudic, mentioning “Jechoniachin the cursed” from whom Jesus’ would
have descended, a tradition less trustworthy because the Jews had a vested interest in discrediting
the descendance of Joseph from which, in their eyes, Jesus came. The virgin birth of Jesus was
not yet known during his public life We Christians believe in the virgin birth of the Messiah. But
this was not known during his public life. Considering that Joseph descended from the required
line of kings, the priests could not have disqualified Jesus as the Messiah on the mere ground that
Joseph was not a suitable father. In the Gospels this accusation is nowhere to be found. The much
later Talmud is therefore no dependable source. For the expected Messiah of Israel, Joseph hap-
pened to be both a suitable adoptive father and a suitable natural father. This gives added weight
to the assumption that Joseph descended from Joachim and it explains why Mary’s father is
called Joachim, while it was Heli. (7)

6 – The scarlet line of God’s sons: the vocation to suffering

We have pointed out that the ancestry shown by Luke is that of Mary, following the tradition that
she had merged into the family of Joseph in a way comparable to an adopted child. It always
works from both sides: the adopted child also has to adopt the family. (I know from experience,
because we have two adopted sons.) Joseph accepts Jesus as his son and Jesus accepts Joseph as
his father (via his mother’s line of descendance). Through his mother, then, Jesus adopts Joseph’s
 -9-

family. In the genealogy of Luke, He even adopts all the generations of humankind – all the way
back to Adam son of God, where the ancestry ends.

In Luke’s genealogy a number of names are omitted, but yet the list is much longer. It has 77
names and goes back until it reaches Adam, who was the anointed son of God. In the original
Greek text, the term ‘son’ is used only in the first verse: “Son of Joseph, son of… etc.” In the
following verses it was not deemed necessary to repeat this word in order to focus the attention
on Jesus, the outstanding example of a martyr. The scarlet line of God’s sons is depicted in this
passage. Could it refer also to the line of ancestry of Zerah, the firstborn who got the scarlet
thread on his little hand, and thereafter disappears in the womb? (Gen. 38:30) It seems to be a
double ancestry that consists of the visible line of Perez and the invisible one of Zerah!

The great mystery of the sonship as related to standing in for the benefit of the people seems to be
shown in Luke’s genealogy. This refers to all the anointed ones, to those called ‘in fire’, who
have to suffer unknown and in utter loneliness, as if God does not exist. Let me clarify. The
Nobel lauriate Elie Wiesel, a survivor of Auschwitz, spoke of this fire in a television broadcast.
(8) The vocation to suffering is in the image of suffering in fire. Moses’ vocation to lead his
people out of Egypt and to receive the Law (the Torah), and the Ten Commandments, began with
a confrontation with fire. He saw a burning bush not consumed by the fire. Then God revealed
Himself, telling Moses that the ground by the burning bush was holy. Wiesel considered this
ground to be holy, since the suffering of the just is so excessive and indescribable, that it may
only be trodden in bare feet. Then, of course, he was not only speaking of the ground of the
burning bush, but in particular of the grounds of the German destruction camps. And as the bur-
ning bush revelation began with fire, the Law too began with fire, in fiery letters. The Law too
must be approached with awe in bare feet, for it is related to this suffering. Luke’s genealogy
deals with those persons who, like Moses, were permitted to come near, but they are not remem-
bered. It is the scarlet line of the Jonah service, who was immersed, a martyrdom, of the victims
who, in their vocation through suffering have become similar to Jesus ‘son of…’. It is not only a
blood-line, but also and especially a bloody line. They went under to stand against the practice of
going under. This seems to be the meaning of “son of…” from the Gospel of Luke. Various theo-
ries have been advanced regarding Luke’s genealogy and this guesswork will continue until the
veil is ripped away.

7 – God’s curse on the descendance of Chonia is a blessing in disguise

In Jeremiah we read that Jechoniachin (with an «n») was proscribed. God refuses to grant him an
heir to the throne of David. Even though he might have sons, the prophecy held that his descen-
dants would never sit upon his throne. Related to this question, Professor Arthur J. Zuckerman
has conducted a joint study with other historians regarding the presence of a prince (or nasi) of
the houses of David and Judah in Southern France during the early Middle Ages. (9) This ama-
zing episode echoes the messianic expectation of the Jewish people. His book represents a some-
what bold attempt to throw light on this dark period of time. From his book we learn exciting
facts. During the era of the Frankish kings one of them sent a representative to Babylon to invite a
prince to take up residence in France. It was insisted that he be a descendant of the royal house of
David. He happened to come from a small Judean principate within the Babylonian empire.

Why should a Frankish monarch show so much interest in a descendant of David? By letting their
children intermarry he may have wished to obtain additional assurance that his offspring were the
object of divine choice. Additional assurance, for the Frankish kings were already aware that their
forefathers had come from the East, via Zerah, the firstborn of Thamar. In early times people at
 - 10 -

least knew something… (10) The prince who accepted the invitation came from a principate
known at the time as an exilarchate. In Hebrew an exilarch is called Rash Gulath or prince in
exile. The Muslims called these exilarchs jaluti or “those who belong to the exilarchate”. They
had great respect for their illustrious descendance. Nevertheless, the tribute paid was purely hono-
rary because the real administrative power over the rabbinic community was exercised by the
gaon, the person who as the leader of the Jewish Yeshiva (academy) was known in Arabic as the
“ra's al mathiba” or head talmudist.

There is an eights century chronicle, the Seder Olam Zuta, that kept a record of the line of exi-
larchs. It notes that Jechoniachin (son of Joachim) is the ancestor of these exilarchs, via Zerub-
babel, his grandson, who leaded the group of exiles that returned from the captivity to rebuild the
Temple. (11) The following is written about Jechoniachin in the last verses of the second book of
Kings: “It happened in the 37th year of the exile of Jechoniachin that Evil-Merodach king of
Babel, in the year that he became king, raised up ‘the head’ Jechoniachin, king of Judah, from
prison. And he spoke to him in friendly terms and set his throne above that of the kings who were
with him in Babel.” The Hebrew for head is rash, which also means monarch, leader or prince.
Thus though Jechoniachin was the first-born of the cursed yet he became ancestor of exilarchs.

The curse of Jeremiah 22:30 reads: “No man of Choniah’s seed shall prosper while sitting upon
the throne of David and ruling in Judah.” That is neither in contradiction with being the ancestor
of exilarchs, nor in contradiction with the different requirements for kingship (blood-line or cal-
ling). This would put the curse in a special setting indeed! We could take one more step. I call
your attention to the prophecy (12): “God will make Judah and
Ephraim one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel;
and one king shall be reigning them; and they shall be no more
two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms,
any more at all.” If this king were to be a descendant from
Choniah and not living in Judah, but have residency elsewhere,
in Ephraim-Israel – whose whereabouts outside the region of
the Mid-East are still to be revealed – then the curse would not
be invalidated. You should know that the present State of Israel
is mainly inhabited by the tribe of Judah, to whom the priestly
service has shifted, for Jesus, the highpriest for ever, descends
from the tribe of Judah.

Actually, the curse happens to be a blessing in disguise, which

is already hinted at in the last verse of Haggai: “In that day,
Pepin III (the Short)
says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant,
and will make you a wearer of God’s seal ring, for I have chosen you”. This reverses the Je-
remiah verdict saying (22:24): “As I live says the Lord, though Choniah son of Jechoniachim,
king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off.” Because Choniah’s
misdeeds provoked the curse, and in light of the aspirations at the time that inextricably bound up
the region of Judah with the Davidic kingdom, there was only one possible explanation then.

It is significant that Pepin III (the Short) brought an exilarch to Europe, something that so far did
not attract much attention. To quote from Zuckerman’s book:
«« The coronation of Pepin the Short to the throne of Frankland in the year 751 was
especially distinguished by the ‘biblical’ rite of anointing. This was apparently a deliberate
attempt to suggest that the Frank monarchy was a replica, if not actually a continuation, of
the biblical archetype. In phrases reminiscent of the Bible, Pope Stephen II declared that
Pepin had been chosen for royalty from his mother’s womb, that the first of the apostles
 - 11 -

had elected him for his own possession out of all kings and peoples, that his right to royal
sway was a gift from God; and he drew comparisons in particular between Pepin and
David. »» (13)

Maybe Pepin believed that the theocracy of “Thy Kingdom come” had come already or that he
should safeguard it at the approach of the second millennium for which chiliastic expectations
were running high at the time. (14) Whatever the case, the Frankish sovereign considered it so
important that a Davidic prince be brought to Europe that he made every effort to achieve it, a
fact confirmed by the Jewish encyclopaedias. The story of an exilarch brought to Europe, to be-
come an ancestor of the European kings, is fascinating and could bear on events at the inception
of the third millennium. This is a clarification of Zuckerman’s book that deals with the invitation
extended by the Frankish king. It addresses the question of whether it has anything to do with the
descendance from Choniah, who in the fracture of times happens to be in a fortuitous position.
Certainly it has something to do with God’s Kingdom on earth. I expect more to be said on this
issue.

8 – I will raise unto David a Branch

I have talked about the hidden line of ancestry of Zerah, the firstborn who had the scarlet thread
on his hand, whose twin-brother Perez was to become the ancestor of Jesus. And I also talked
about the fact that the Frankish kings knew already that their forefathers had come from the an-
cestry of Zerah. Both Zerah and Perez, born from the patriarch Judah, lay claim on a royal line-
age. Except for his birth we curiously enough hear nothing more of Zerah, who was given the
 - 12 -

blessing of the first-born because he was the first to

extend his hand (from the womb). Yet, im-
mediately after he retracts the hand, but not before
a scarlet thread had been put around the little wrist
as a sign of recognition. He apparently retreated
back down the birth canal – generally a physio-
logical impossibility. “But it came about as he
drew back his hand, that behold, his brother came
out. Then his mother said: ‘What a breach you
have made for yourself!’ So he was named Perez.
Afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet
thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah.”
(Gen. 38:29-30) Zerah bursts the womb but then
hides in it, which is the perfect image of his line of
descendence. Perez, who did not break the womb,
breaks out first to become the ancestor of the kings
of the tribe of Judah, starting with David, nearly
seven hundred years later. Perez, whose name also
means breaker, represents the Messiah in His first What a Breach !!
coming. He breaks open the way into the kingdom
of heaven. In the Midrash Rabbah, Tamar names him Perez to indicate that the Messiah-king, ‘the
Breaker’, would one day come forth from him. (Gen. Rabbah 85:14)

Zerah, whose name means dawning, represents the Messiah in his second coming. Here applies:
“The first one, will be the last.” Before the final redemption could dawn, Jesus Messiah had to set
the preconditions. Zerah, the first, will become the last king of Israel and its most glorious one,
known as the Great Monarch or Prince of Peace. The great redemption of the messianic age is
spoken of in the prophets as the dawning, according to Isaiah 60:1-3 :
«« Arise, shine: for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen (zarach) upon
you. For behold, darkness will cover the earth and deep darkness the peoples, but the Lord
will rise upon you and his glory will appear upon you. Nations will come to your light, and
kings to the brightness of your rising (zarach). »»

If the Prince of Peace is of Zerachitic descent, why in prophecies is he called Son of David, who
is from the Perez line? That is because he will be entirely clothed with Christ. Because of this
clothing by the One who is the outstanding example of the Son of David, the line of blood has
become secondary. That there is question of two different persons, and not of one person with
two functions, appears from the prophecies of Jeremiah and the Psalms, which also point at the
restoration of God’s people in the land of Israel, which now, in our days, we see happening as su-
rest sign of the forthcoming Reign of Peace.

Jeremiah 23:5-8 reads:

«« Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise unto David a Branch of
rightheousness. A King shall reign and prosper, and excute judgement and righteousness in
the earth. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell safely. Now this is his name
by which he will be called: “the Lord our Righteousness”. Therefore behold, the days are
coming, says the Lord, that they shall no longer say: “as the Lord lives who brought up the
children of Israel form the land of Egypt”, but: “as the Lord lives who brought up and led
the descendants of the house of Israel from the northern country and from all the countries
where He had driven them”. Because they shall dwell in their own land! »»
 - 13 -

Why all this secrecy? Why are these prophecies so difficult to understand? God hides his inten-
tions not only for us, but also for his adversary. He also protects the Zerachitic descendents
against assaults by putting them under a cloak of secrecy. The secrecy surrounding the Zerachitic
descendance has to do with the conspiracy through the ages against the divinely ordained king-
ship, according to famous Psalm 2: “The rulers of the earth set themselves and they take counsel
together against the Lord ‘and’ his Anointed (the Great Monarch), saying: Let us break ‘their’
bonds in pieces and cast away ‘their’ cords from us.” In these verses the Lord and his Anointed
are two distinct persons, a fact normally overlooked, as if it is a kind of poetic language.

Agnès-Marie, a Roman Catholic woman with the gift of prophecy, writes in Christ’s message
given to her on December 5, 1999: “At the act of anointing the soul of My Viceroy is by special
grace entirely clothed with Christ and (his soul) has from that moment on little to do with its
former condition.” Thus, the Zerachitic king granted by God is rightly called a Branch raised to
David, which agrees with the promise of Jeremiah in verses 23:5 and 33:15. I like to point out
that there is no mention here of a branch raised ‘from’ (the root of) David, but “I (God) will raise
a branch ‘to’ David”, which is a different thing. This man is also called “the Branch of the Lord”
in Isaiah 4:2 and “My Servant, the Branch” in Zechariah 3:8, or just “the Branch” according to
Zechariah 6:12. These texts are normally understood as pertaining to our Lord Jesus Christ, which
seems right, for the man who is entirely clothed with Christ and Christ Himself are acting with
One accord, as the one being clothed will have become the perfect servant. And so the last one
will become the first one!

9 – A generation tainted in sorrow

Let us consider the battle at Ai, described in Joshua 7, which is the only place where the Bible
mentions a descendant of Zerah. Joshua, leading the people of Israel into the promised land, first
conquered Jericho. Then he goes on for the town of Ai. This was not as easy as with Jericho. His
 - 14 -

men first took a severe beating and Joshua could not understand why. It was then found out that
Achan, the son of Charmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah - the twin brother of Perez, had taken from
the banned (herem). With Jericho despoliation had been expressly forbidden because the first
spoils of the promised land were dedicated to God in accordance to the prescription of Exodus
23:19. As punishment, Achan of the house of Zerah is taken off to be stoned together with his
whole family. The ban, not the punishment itself, is extended from the house of Achan to the
house of Zerah. Up to this day the ban holds on the house of Zerah. It follows the rule that who-
ever takes from the banned and associates with the treasures of the enemy that were ‘dedicated’ to
God, joins the people lost and is banished too. To be understood in the meaning of the Hebrew
term herem, which is either a curse (bar-ak) because of a separation from God, or a blessing and
an election (bar-ak again) because of a separation from the human community with the purpose of
a consecration to God, a meaning found back in the Arab for women’s quarters: haram.

The Talmud teaches (Sanh. 6:2) that the free confession of Achan was a victory over his evil in-
clination; the reward for his confession was that his soul was saved for the coming age while it
was lost for the present age. (15) Now we can explain Joshua 7:25 as follows: “The Lord shall
trouble thee this day, but thou wilt not be troubled in the age to come.” The Bible passage itself
reads: “The Lord will trouble you ‘this day’. So all Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned
Achan and his family with fire after they had been stoned. Then they raised over him a great heap
of stones, still there to this day.”

The living Dead of Buchenwald - 1945, photo taken by Margaret Bourke-White

His herem should not be viewed as being doomed but as a consecration to God, “a separation in
view of sanctification”, a so-called kedushah in favour of the future generations humankind. Both
kind of separations look similar, at least during this age, this ‘olam’ or ‘ayon’. A seperated person
takes on the image of the town of Jericho, which was forbidden ever to be rebuilt. Why Jericho in
particular? It is built with endless layer upon layer, each time rebuilt, and offers an archaelogical
picture of all those human generations that turned against God and are in need of redemption. It
may even be the oldest town on earth. Achan was buried in the valley of Achor. It is as deep as a
ravine can be, more than anything else. The Zerachites have sunk so deep that they have become
 - 15 -

a generation ‘tainted in sorrow’, completely lost out of sight. Who wants to see the beggar and
leper? They are the lamed-waw, which is a typical Jewish expression to indicate such a thing. If
these holy and suffering men did not exist, the Jewish lore teaches, the world would perish. (16)

The Talmud tells that the world is sustained by the presence of at least 36 justified ones or saints.
But nobody knows who they are! In Hebrew the letter lamed stands for 30 and waw for 6. Those
are therefore called the lamed-waw or 36 justified ones, with the number 9 (3 + 6), antitype to the
number of the beast, who is said to carry the number 6 or 666. They have sunk so deep, to the
limits of human endurance, that they have become completely isolated. They are so far away that
no one speaks their language. No one truly understands what they have gone through. Whatever
may be the case, they were never without the company and compassion of the Son.

Let us consider the meaning of Achor,

a word derived from aacher, which
means trouble, difficulty, sorrow, pain,
to hurt, to be attacked, and lastly: tain-
ted generation. Tainted generation is a
typical Hebrew expression and points at
people who are “blemished with the
taint of sorrow”, an image so eloquent-
ly described in Psalm 88. I thus wonder
if in the line of descendance of Zerah a
connecting line is revealed of a tainted
generation brought forth in sorrow and
pain. Should we not say that this is a
saintly line, the line of God’s lamed-
waw singled out to bring about libera-
tion from the curse of expulsion that weighs on humankind? Just think about it, a sort of royal
line, though not that of a literal kingship as the Frankish kings, but of a priestly service of recon-
ciliation that cries for the restoration of God’s theocracy; in the Lord’s prayer we implore “Thy
kingdom come”. The lamed-waw stand in a line of descendance in opposition to the other line of
cursed and evil councillors. (17) Collectively the lamed-waw have contributed against the other
collection while metaphorically lifting up the Cross of the Son. In this act of raising they have
raised the Lord – of all times – in His disfigured and suffering position to the heights of the
Almighty. These heights are set against the lowness of the deep ravine of Achor. In this raising
they reached the high place of refuge under the protection of the Almighty, which is offered to all
foregoing generations who have lived in the mist of gloomy indetermination and loneliness. The
Son will draw this line of God’s lamed-waw forth from the valley of Achor with the multitudes
who sojourn there, who are captured there up to the present day. (Rev. 6:9) When the Almighty
stands revealed, eyes will be opened to those who have dwelt around Him. It will then appear that
the Zerachites, who exalted the Son, have worked to the benefit of the Covenant and for the resto-
ration of the kingdom under the enduring dynasty of the Sun-King. (Ps. 89:36-37) That is the
implication of Achor.

10 – The coming of two Messiahs

Jewish tradition expresses the common belief in the coming of two Messiahs. The sacred writings
give such a contrasting picture of the Messiah (rejected and slain versus triomphant and reigning
as a king), that there are supposed to be two messiahs. The first would be Messiah Ben Joseph
(ben = son of), known as the suffering servant. In Sukka (18) two Messiahs are mentioned in the
 - 16 -

order the Christians are familiar with: the suffering Messiah and the glorious one under his sign
(the Cross). Great mourning is required, says the Talmud, because of the killing of the first Mes-
siah, Son of Joseph. He would be the predecessor of the good one, Son of David. Sukka refers to
the suffering servant Messiah when it speaks about the mourning for the only son, the pierced
one. In this text the appearance is so bad that He looks like the embodiment of the evil inclination
(the ‘yetzer ha-ra’), known as the original sin in Catholicism or ‘peccatum originale originatum’
(the original sin with its effects from the origin). This is right, for Isaiah 52:14 says of Him: “So
marred was his visage unlike that of man and his form unlike that of the sons of men.” Jewish
traditon recognises in the Son of Joseph whom the prophet Zechariah describes as “the mourning
for Him who was pierced”. (Zech. 12:10) In full: “(In illumination of conscious) I will pour out
on the House of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication,
so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns
for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born.”
To this the rabbis responded: “This is Messiah ben Joseph, the slain one.” (Yalkut Shimoni)

Actually it reads: “They shall look upon Me, the Alpha and the Omega, whom they have pier-
ced.” Alpha and the Omega is the translation of Aleph-Tau immediately after “upon Me”, which
is normally left untranslated (aleph is the first, and tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet).
The aleph-tau (et) is a linguistic device, which occasionally can be a hypocatastasis – often used
with a connector-bar, designating a hidden metaphor that expresses a superlative degree. This is
again found in the very first sentence of the Bible after the two words “bara Elohim” (God crea-
ted), where it reverts to: “God, the Alpha and the Omega, created”. (Is. 44:6 and Rev. 22:13) We
could also call it a Nomen Sacrum (Holy Name), an abbreviation to indicate: this is not just some
lord, but ‘the’ LORD. The same rethoric is found seven times in the first Genesis chapter, each
time designating the God of creation, the One who is the origin of all life. We have it also in
Zecharia 12. No doubt: Jesus our Saviour is God. Yes, He is the One who was pierced! See also:
“The Bible in Shorthand?” by Chuck Missler. (19)

According to Sukka, the second, Messiah ben David, would come as a triumphant authority and
saviour of his people. The first one, Christians have recognised as the God-man Jesus Christ. The
second one could be a normal human being and this was also the conviction of the Frankish king,
who was a devout Christian. If he had not believed so, the installation of a nasi (prince) in his
realm would be difficult to understand. Perhaps the famous prophecy of Saint Remy played a part
in it, pronounced in 496 during the baptism of king Clovis. The expectation of the coming of a
second messiah, who is not God, does not only agree with the Jewish tradition, but also with the
prophetic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. This messiah is commonly referred to as ‘the
great monarch’ or ‘king of kings’, but also under titles, like: “the man of God, the noble exile, the
white lily, the prince granted by God, the king sent by providence, the finger of God, the chosen
one by God, the one sent by God, the one predestined by God, the instrument of God”, but also
“messiah”, “lieutenant or viceroy of Christ”, and even “son of man”. (20)

The prophecy of Saint Remy (Remygius), archbishop of Reims, the city named after him, is com-
parable to that of Moses (Deut. 11:22-32) when the people of Israel were going to cross the
Jordan on their way to the promised land. The river Jordan is in the image of baptism at the be-
ginning or renewed beginning of the great dedication in life. The pope’s visit to France in 1996
was celebrated under the theme of: “France, have you remained faithful to your baptism?” (21)
Of course the baptism of 31-year-old Clovis, presumably in 496, who converted from paganism
to Christianity, was just a personal matter, but it had a universal meaning that transcended him, as
the words of Remygius confirm:
 - 17 -

«« Listen, my son, God has predestined the realm of the Franks to defend the Roman
Church, that is the only true Church of Christ. One day this realm will be great under all the
realms on earth; it will include all territories of the Roman Empire and will subject all other
kingdoms to its sceptre. It will last until the end of times; it will be invincible and prosperous
as long as it remains faithful to the Roman creed and is not guilty of the crimes that destroy
the other nations; but it will be severely punished, each time it neglects its vocation. »»

11 – The house of David preserves the promise until Shiloh comes

The promise holds that “The scepter shall not depart from (the house of) Judah, nor a lawgiver
from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, so that tribute shall come to him by the people.” (Gen.
49:10) These were Jacob’s last words to his son Judah before he died. Shiloh is a place in the
Ephraim or 10-tribe area in the Northern part of Palestine. It was the religious center of the twelve
tribes in the period of the Judges (14th-12th century before Christ). “The Torah: A Modern Com-
mentary” states in the footnotes concerning Genesis 49:10: “One Jewish tradition, taking Jacob’s
blessing to be a prophecy for the end-time interpreted Shiloh to mean the Messiah, a new David
who would come out of the house of Judah (…) If we abide by the Masoretic text it may be best to
interprete: ‘Until Judah will come to worship at Shiloh’, that is UNTIL THE NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN KINGDOMS WILL BE REUNITED.” (22) Shiloh means the person sent out and is
seen in this prophesy as the Messiah. We also recognize here the Viceroy, the Messiah-king, who
according to this tradition will be ruling both kingdoms from a place in the 10-tribe or North area.

The sceptre handed over is the emblem of royal authority. We have arrived at another image! The
Christians say that the sceptre of Judah (the Jews) has had its day because Jesus has come al-
ready. This is partly true. Indeed, He has come as the suffering servant Son of Joseph, but we are
still awaiting the glorious appearance of the Son of David when the Messiah-king will have van-
quished everything and everyone. The great Messiah-king, Prince of Peace and king of kings, has
been foretold throughout the ages and reputedly comes from the lineage of exilarchs via Pepin II
(23) from a branch ‘believed’ to be extinct. (24)

Until the cleansing of the cosmos the struggle continues. We may say that the victory has been
won but that the enemy has not yet surrendered. The underground resistance keeps on with its
reign of terror. It is in our time His underground forces against theirs. We may assume that the
main underground line is from Judah while the royal house of David preserves the promise of the
sceptre “until Shiloh comes”. The tradition indicates that the Shilohan banner is to be found in
the North with, around it, the saved ones of the lost tribes, of those who did not return after the
Babylonian exile and were scattered among the nations. The banner will be raised there, partly by
Judahites, so that in the North the Covenant will be sealed again between God and the two split
apart: of Ephraim (son of Joseph) and his brother Judah - the patriarchs of both kingdoms. It is
from the scarlet line of Zerah, son of Judah, that the chain reaction and reconciliation will follow,
so it seems. There in the North the letter of separation will be torn to pieces, mending the breach
between God and Israel (the 10 + 2) and at one stroke many others too: breaches between indivi-
duals, between families and between peoples and nations.

In the 6th century before Christ the Davidian kingship over Israel finished. (25) So we should look
elsewhere for the fulfilment of the sceptre promise, bearing in mind that this can only happen in
an unbroken masculin line of royal descent. A prince in exile will not do. This excludes the royal
house of Britain that purportedly relates to a female branch of the House of David. Besides,
between 1649 and 1660 the monarchy in Britain was abolished under Oliver Cromwell, which
violates the scepter-promise, and, more importantly, as from 1689 onwards England has known a
constitutional monarchy - like, subsequently, all the other European countries - which violates the
 - 18 -

second part of the promise concerning the lawgiver. I only see one solution: the royal house of
Ethiopia, which, remarkably, has a large number of mother co-regents in its dynasty, called can-
daces, which reminds of the relation between Jesus and his mother Mary. In article 2 of its con-
stitution the emperor of the Ethiopian royal house was called the victorious lion from the tribe of
Judah and God’s elected one. From regional records we learn that Queen Bilqys of Sheba (1
Kings 10), daughter of the legendary Angabo, begot a son from king Solomon, named Menelik;
we also learn that Solomon had their son anointed king in Jerusalem, no doubt accompanied by
words of prophecy from the officiating priest, but that the records do not tell. Haile Selassie, the
direct descendant from this Menelik, was dethroned by the marxist regime of Mengistu in 1974.
If here the kingship-promise applies, this means that in 1974 Shiloh had come, born from the
tainted line of Zerah. (26) Who he is and where he is, remains to this day unknown.

The fulfilment follows Ezechiel 17:24: “And all the trees of the field shall know that I, the Lord,
will have brought down the high tree and exalted the low, dried up the green tree and made the
dry tree flourish.” Done what? Brought down the HIGH from the throne and exalted the LOW on
the throne. These trees represent the descent of the royal branches of Israel. This means that God,
in our time, has taken the crown off the Davidic or Perez line, and will place it upon the head of
the Prince of Peace from the Zerachitic line. In the aftermath, the proverb is annulled concerning
Israel (next three verses 18:1-3): “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth
are set on edge.” Thus, now, in our present generation we will witness the glorious revelation of
Shiloh. And we know his approximate age: he will have been born before 1975.

Hubert Luns

Partly based on an unpublished manuscript of Jacqueline Wels.

The photograph “What a Breach !!” was taken at the holocaust memorial site at Berlin by P.M. van Til from
the Netherlands on September 12, 2005. It shows the tombs from a special perspective.

Notes
Seed can be translated as ‘manly seed’
(1) After having written this article I discovered in “The Ancient Book of Jasher”, in an English
translation from Hebrew, an expression, which warrants to translate the Hebrew for seed into
“manly offspring”, to be applied only to a boy, because a girl – in Hebrew practice – would be
given later in adoption to the family in whom she marries. It concerns Jasher 16:30-34 :
«« And when Sarai saw that Hagar had conceived by Abram, Sarai was jealous of her
handmaid, and Sarai said within herself, this is surely nothing else but that she must be
better than I am. And Sarai said unto Abram, my wrong be upon thee, for at the time when
thou didst pray before the Lord for children why didst thou not pray on my account, that the
Lord should give me ‘seed’ from thee ? (…) And Sarai afflicted Hagar, and she fled from her
to the wilderness. And an angel of the Lord found her in the place where she had fled, by a
well, and he said to her, do not fear, for I will multiply thy ‘seed’, for thou shalt bear a son
and thou shalt call his name Ishmael. »»

(2) These so-called ‘traditions’ might be surprising, but more traditions exist that are not in the
forefront of religious experience but yet true. For example, in Jude verse 9 is written the strange
passage: “Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of
Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said: The Lord rebuke thee.”
 - 19 -

(3) “Issues: A Messianic Jewish Perspective” by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum # Nov. 1987 (vol. 5:6).
“Issues” is published by “Jews for Jesus”, which has become one of the world’s best-known and
largest Christian ministries to the Jewish people, with international headquarters in San Fran-
cisco. The article is still available on their website.

Why the Gihon Spring was named the Virgin’s Fount

(4) The conspiracy against the ordained kingship by God refers to Isaiah 8:6-10. Verse 6 reads:
“For as much as this people refuseth the waters of Shilohach that go softly…” The Midrash Rab-
bah interpretes this verse as pertaining to a refusal of God’s Word. This is an extension of the
usual interpretation that these waters represent the Messiah. One of the titles of the Messiah is
Shiloh or “the One Sent”. That is why Christians started to call the orifice of the spring itself the
Virgin’s Fount instead of Gihon Spring. The occasion that gave rise to the prophecy of Isaiah 8:6-
10 was the Assyrian invasion during the reign of king Hezekiah. This king prepared for the con-
frontation with the Assyrians by assuring the water supply to Jerusalem, that also provided the
pool of Shilohach. The Gospel of John (9:7) suggests that the pool was probably used as a mikveh
(ritual bath).

(5) Deuteronomy 23:3-6 reads:

«« An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth
generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever, because they
did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because
they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram Naharaim, to curse you.
Nevertheless the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam, but turned the curse into a
blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. You shall not seek their peace nor
their prosperity all your days forever. »»

(6) The conclusion that Phanuel, mentioned in Luke 2:36, is the grandmother of both Mary and
Joseph is based on the pseudepigraphium “Gamaliel’s interview with Joseph and Mary and others
concerning Jesus”, which is discussed in “Proofs of the Life and Death of Jesus – Hubert
Luns”, to be found like that on the Internet. See Ch. 6 (pp. 14-21): “A discussion of Gamaliel’s
Interview (the Pseudo-Gamaliel)”.

(7) See also my article “The Panin Bible Statistics (PBS)” in which I discuss the statistical me-
thod of Ivan Panin (1855-1942). Panin has proved that the statistical phenomena in the Canons of
the Old and the New Testament are based on a design impossible to create by human hands. As
Panin once said: “I would gladly - at least the spirit is willing, however weak the flesh - have one
of my fingers cut off rather than permit a single word to be forever cut from the Authentic Origi-
nal.” The PBS settles in favour of Jechoniachim, which proof is given in the article.

Who was Elie Wiesel

(8) Elie Wiesel was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 in recognition of his unceasing
efforts on behalf of human dignity. Though primarily known as a writer, it was not awarded for
literature. The Nobel committee saw his writings and actions on behalf of the Holocaust as an
appeal to world consciousness to prevent these kind of calamities from happening again. Wiesel
continuously struggled with the agonizing question of God’s silence during the persecution of His
people. In “Night” (1966) he portrays the evolution of his despair during his time in Auschwitz.
He declares: “The Eternal, Lord of the Universe, the all-powerful and terrible was silent. Why
should I bless His name? What had I to thank Him for?” In the cantata “Ani Maamin” (1973) he
writes: “What kind of Messiah is a Messiah who demands six million dead before He reveals
himself?” But in the end of the cantata God does not remain silent. God weeps and whispers: “My
children have defeated Me, they deserve My gratitude.” The expression “they have defeated Me”
is not a literary invention by Wiesel, but a typical piece of Hasidic philosophy based on a Cabalis-
tic reinterpretation of a famous rabbinic discussion found in the Talmud. (Baba Meziah 59b)
 - 20 -

(9) “A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France” by Arthur J. Zuckerman in a joint study with other
historians - Columbia University Press, U.S.A. # 1972.

(10) That the Frankish kings were already aware that their forefathers had come from the East
from both the Zerachitic and Davidic lineage – the first one directly - is abundantly clear from the
old chronicles. Marquis de la Franquerie has written on this subject in “Ascendances davidiques
des rois de France et leur parenté avec notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, la très Sainte Vièrge Marie et
Saint Joseph” - Éditions Saint-Rémi, Cadillac, France # 2002.
In “Calendar of Saints: Whose Lineage is Known” by Brian Starr - BookSurge Publishing #
2006 (p. 56), I read under King Ethelbert of Kent (560-616), married to Bertha of the Franks:
«« Saint Ethelbert’s ancestry traces back to Zerah thru the Kings of Troy. His wife Saint
Bertha also is traced back to the lines of the Frankish Kings to Zerah whose father is Judah.
Saint Bertha’s ancestor is Saint Clotilde who converted the Frankish King Clovis to
Christianity. Also included is Joseph of Arimathea. (Ethelbert is listed as Aedilbert by St.
Bede.) »»

(11) 2 Kings 25:27-28 and Jeremiah 22:24. Jeremiah 52:10 reads that all the princes of Judah in
Riblah were killed. The text leaves open the possibility that at some other place a princely descen-
dent of Jechoniachin still lived.

(12) See Ezechiel 37:22. This relates to Isaiah 11:12; Jeremiah 3:18; 50:4 and Hosea 1:11.

(13) Zuckerman refers to “Jahrbücher der frankischen Reiches unter König Pippin” by L. Oelsner
(pp. 132, 155-160, 259).

(14) Chiliasm is a word derived from the Greek “a thousand”, which denotes a belief (cf. Rev.
20:1-6) that there will be an age on earth for a thousand years, prior to God’s final judgement. See
also: “The Jewish Festive Calender of Redeeming Grace”.

The Talmud tract on the stoning of Achan

(15) The Talmud teaches in Sanhedrin 6:2 that the free confession of Achan was a victory over his
evil inclination; the reward for his confession was that his soul was saved for the coming age while
it was lost for the present age. The Sandhedrin tract goes in full, taken from Rodkinson’s trans-
lation of the Talmud:
«« When he (the guilty one) was far from the place of execution - a distance of ten ells - he
was told to confess, as so is the custom, that all who are to be executed should confess, and
they who do so have a share in the world to come. And so do we find with Achan, to whom
Joshua said: “My son, give (…) and make confession.” And Achan answered Jehoshua (is
Joshua): “Truly, I have sinned, and thus and thus have I done.” And whence do we know
that he was atoned after his confession? From: And Joshua said: “How hast thou troubled
us! So shall the Lord trouble thee this day.” This day - but not in the world to come.
However, if the guilty one does not know how to confess, he is told to say: My death shall
atone for all my sins. Rabbi Jehudah said: If he knew that he was innocent of this crime, he
might say: My death shall atone for all my sins, except this one. And Rabbi Jehudah was
answered: If it were so, all those who were to be executed would say so, to the end that they
should be innocent in the eyes of the people. (…) But why was Achan (and his whole family)
punished - for his crime was in secret? Because his wife and children were aware of it. (…)
“Atoned after confession etc.” The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that his confession
has made atonement for him from Joshua: “How hast thou troubled us! So shall the Lord
trouble thee this day.” This day, but not in the world to come. And it is also written (1 Chron.
2:6): “And the sons of Zerach: Zimri and Ethan, and Heman and Calcol and Dara, in all
five.” To what purpose is it written ‘in all five’? It means all five have a share in the world to
come. Here it reads Zimri and in Joshua (7:1) he is named Achan (alternatively Zabdi). Rabh
and Samuel - according to one, his name was Achan. Why then is he named Zimri? Because
his acts were according to (the evil acts of) Zimri of the Pentateuch. And according to the
 - 21 -

other his name was Zimri. And why is he named Achan (circle and alternatively trouble)?
Because he caused the sins of Israel to rest upon them as by a circle (from which there is no
escape). »»

The legend of the lamed waw

(16) The legend that there are always at least 36 justified ones, through whom the world conti-
nues to exist, is based upon the following passage in Sanhedrin 97b and Sukka 45a: “Abaye said:
There are in the world no less than 36 justified ones in every generation upon whom the Sheki-
nah rests, for it is written: ‘Blessed all that wait for Him’ (Is. 30:18).” The last word has a nume-
rical value of 36. Around this idea exists a whole series of legends. They are commonly represen-
ted as hiding their vocation and usually practice a humble profession like an artisan, unrecog-
nized by the community, and denying their identity if accidentally discovered.

The lament of evil councillors

(17) The lament of evil councillors is found in ancient English history: “Whereas, through bad
and deceitful counsel, our lord the king and all his men have everywhere been dishonoured and
his crown in many ways has been debased and ruined, while his lands of Gascony, Ireland, and
Scotland are on the point of being lost unless God improves the situation, and his realm of Eng-
land has been brought to the verge of rebellion through prises and (other) oppressive and des-
tructive measures (…) Therefore we (…)” From: “Sources of English Constitutional History: A
Selection of Documents from A.D. 600 to the Present” by Carl Stephenson & Frederick George
Marcham # 1937 (ch. 56).

The Talmud tract on the lament for the pierced one

(18) The sacred writings give such a contrasting picture of the Messiah (rejected and slain versus
triomphant and reigning), that there are supposed to be two messiahs. The Talmud passage from
the tract Sukka (booths) (51B, 52A, 53A) goes in full, taken from Rodkinson’s translation:
«« What was the mourning for? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ: One holds that it was for the
Messiah, the son of Joseph, being killed; and the other that it was for the evil angel being
killed. It would be right according to one who holds that it was for the Messiah the son of
Joseph, because he explains as supporting him the passage (Zech. 12:10): “And they will
look up toward me whom they have thrust through, and they will lament for him, as one
lamenteth for an only son, and weep bitterly for him, as one weepeth bitterly for the
firstborn.” But according to one who says that it was for the death of the evil angel, (the
question arises) why mourning? Must it not be, on the contrary, an enjoyment? Why then
weeping? This can be explained as Rabbi Jehudah lectured: In the future the Holy One,
blessed be He, will bring the evil angel and slaughter him in the presence of both the upright
and the wicked. To the former he will look like a high mountain, and to the latter like a thin
hair. Both, however, will cry. The upright will cry, saying: How could we overpower such a
high mountain? And the wicked will cry, saying: How could we not subdue such a thin hair?
And also the Holy One, blessed be He, will join them in wondering, as it is written (Zech. 8:6,
but here in a different and questionable translation): “Thus hath said the Lord of hosts: If
it should be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it
also be marvellous in my eyes.” Rabbi Assi said: In the beginning the evil angel appears as
insignificant and thin as a cobweb to finally become as thick as a wagon-rope, as it is written
(Is. 5:18): “Wo unto those that draw iniquity with the cords of falsehood, and as with a
wagon-rope, sinfulness.” The rabbis taught: When the Messiah ben David appears in the
near future (as we hope), the Holy One, blessed be He, will tell him: Ask something of Me
and I will give it to thee, as it is written (Ps. 2:7-8): “I will announce a decree. (…) Ask it of
Me, and I will give.” etc. But as the Messiah ben David will have noticed that the Messiah
ben Joseph, who preceded him, was killed, he will say before the Lord: Lord of the Universe,
I will ask nothing of Thee but life. And the Lord will answer: This was prophesied already for
thee by thy father David (Ps. 21:5): “Life hath he asked of Thee and Thou gavest it to him.”
»»
 - 22 -

(19) The Nomen Sacra exposition was taken from the Personal Update NewsJournal, Koinonia
House # January 2000, where the following list was presented:

(20) From “Christenen Ontwaakt” (Christians Awake) by B. Bahlmann, a little known work from
1986. Better known are the French publications of Marquis de la Franquerie, highly recom-
mended for further study, and the French publication of Baron de Novaye, entitled: “Demain…?
D'après les concordances frappantes de cent trente-deux prophéties anciennes et modernes”
(Tomorrow…? According to the remarkable correspondence between 132 ancient and modern
prophecies) - Editions Lethielleux, Paris # 1934. Several important prophecies in relation to our
subject are from St Francis of Paola (1416-1507), Nostradamus (1555), the parish priest Holz-
hauser (1613-1658), Bernard Rembort alias Spielbähn (1689-1783) and Marie-Julie Jahenny
(1850-1941).

(21) It was during his first trip to France, in 1980, that pope John Paul II asked this question:
“France, eldest daughter of the Church, are you faithful to the promises of your baptism?” He
himself gave the answer during his sermon in Reims on September 22, 1996: “You may keep the
splendor of the evangelical message, or you may loose it… either, you may be the light that en-
lightens the others, like a town on top of a mountain, or you may become the reverse of this light
that enlightens the others.”

(22) “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” by W. Gunther Plaut and David E. S. Stein - Union for
Reform Judaism # 2005. We should realize that the ten tribes or Ephraim-Israël were lost after
the Babylonian exile. They did not disappear or merged with other peoples. When God cancels the
banishment, they will be found again and find their final destiny.

(23) Charlemagne was the great-grandson of Pepin II, who is the patriarch of the House of Bour-
bon. It would appear that six generations earlier Pepin II’s ancestor was Clodion, from whom king
Clovis descends. Clovis is the one who was baptised on Christmas Day in the course of a ‘biblical’
rite. His baptism was immediately followed by an anointing ceremony in the course of which a
dove descended with a bottle of unguent, a miracle recognised by the Church - as is apparent from
the officium of the French rite of anointing and the preparation of the holy chrism. (see also
 - 23 -

Thomas Aquinas: “De Regimine Principum” II-16.) Clodion is allegedly a descendant of Zerah via
the legendary Antenor, king of the Cimerians.

From the private archives of the family De Vanssay

(24) Henri V of France, best known by his title comte de Chambord, was disputedly King of
France and Navarre from 2 to 9 August 1830 and afterwards the Legitimist pretender to the
throne of France. He told the comte Henri de Vanssay, his great confident:
«« Now I am convinced of the existence of my nephew Louis XVII. I shall never ascend the
French throne. But God wishes us to keep the secret. He alone reserves to Himself the right
to restore the monarchy. I am convinced of the fact that they (the family of the Count of
Vanssay) keep alive particularly the hope that one day God will restore the descendants of he
beheaded Lily to the throne of France. And that our beloved fatherland, once more the Eldest
Daughter of the Church, shall recover her greatness and glory. »»

Woe to us, because the pronouncement of a death sentence has been taken away!
(25) When, after the return from the Babylonian exile in 488 BC, the kingship over Judeah was
not restored, the Jewish nation experienced an existential problem regarding the sceptre-pro-
mise, to which they found the following solution. They said: “As long as the lawgiver faculty be-
longs to the nation the scepter has not receded, which is to be defined as the faculty to hand out
capital punishment.” J. Dérenbourg discusses that according to a Baraita and the Talmud of Jeru-
salem this faculty was taken away more than 40 years before the destruction of the Temple. But in
fact this happened much earlier; only, it took the priestly caste some time before they fully rea-
lized that not only the ‘execution’ of the death sentence was taken away, but also its ‘pronuncia-
tion’. (Aboda-zara 8b, Rosch Haschana 31a, Antiq. 20:9:1) Tacitus wrote: “The Romans have
reserved themselves the jus gladii (the sword of justice) and neglect the other things”, and this
principle applied to all the provinces that were put under the Roman yoke. When the authority to
hand out capital punishment was taken away, Rabbi Rachmon informs us that the members of
the Sanhedrin covered themselves with ashes and lamented in sackcloth: “Woe to us because the
sceptre is taken from (the nation of) Judah and yet Shiloh has not come!” (Source: Le Chevalier
Paul Drach)

(26) The uninterrupted descendance in masculine line accords with the transfer of the Y-chro-
mosome, which is unique for men and remains unchanged in the line of inheritance. This can be
used to prove someone’s original paternity until many generations in the past. In a research pro-
ject that tried to establish the Y-chromosome of Adam (and thus of Jesus), a DNA test was done
with a descendant of Haile Selassi with a view to establish the Y-chromosome of king Solomon.