Shamah-Elim Bible Studies

Home
Site overview
 
Random posting
 
Newest articles
Prophetic words
Pending interpretation
Questions & Answers
Trains of thought
Tweets
 
Latest postings
Videos
 
Search
 
Postings in other languages
Changes to articles
Copyright info
Contact info
 
Books
Offerings

 

_

 

Follow us on Twitter
Follow Shamah-Elim on Twitter

 

ClustrMaps Map Image

The sons of Gomer - Ashkenaz

 

This article is the second in a series meditating on the spiritual significance of the sons of Japheth, son of Noah. It is also the first in a sub-series of articles on the sons of Gomer, the first son of Japheth.

 

Index

Ararat

Revenge

Minni

Catastrophic Ashkenaz fire

Angelic Ashkenaz fire

Eyes of Ashkenaz fire

Hellish Ashkenaz fire

Anti-pastoral Ashkenaz fire

The revenge cycle

Ashkenazi Germany

German revenge fire

The Nordic connection




Ararat

Immediately after listing the 7 sons of Japheth in Genesis 10:2, the Spirit of God proceeds to list the sons of Gomer, the first son of Japheth:

 

"And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah" (Genesis 10:3)

 

According to the Strong's Concordance, the name of the first son in Genesis 10:3, Ashkenaz, can be translated as "a man as sprinkled; fire as scattereth". It is interesting to consider that, despite the fact that he is the first son of Gomer, he is only explicitly mentioned 3 times in all of Scripture, once in Genesis 10:3 above, later in 1 Chronicles 1:6, which is a reiteration of Genesis 10:3, and in Jeremiah 51:27, in the context of God's destruction judgement against Babylon:

 

"Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz; appoint a captain against her; cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillers." (Jeremiah 51:27)

 

Notice that the Spirit of God mentions 3 names, Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, who shall rise up against Babylon. Interestingly enough, all 3 names have very few appearances in Scripture. The name "Ararat", for example, only appears 4 times in Scripture. The first time is in Genesis 8:4, when describing where Noah's ark rested at the end of the flood. Given that the name "Ararat" literally means "the curse reversed" or "precipitation of the curse", we can see from its connection to Noah's ark that it is a name related to the releasing of curses unto destruction to rid the Earth of the lingering unrighteousness that only brings the curse of sin and death. In other words, Ararat speaks of actions that precipitate a destructive curse judgement on unrighteousness and that therefore lead to the reversal of the curse brought on by unrighteousness. Hence, it makes sense that the Spirit of God speaks of raising Ararat against Babylon, since, as we have said before, Babylon represents the pastoral matriarchy that has enabled the Canaanite-pastor and Girgashite-teacher rule of the soul, a rule that has brought about a deep, fundamental curse upon humanity, a curse that can only reversed through obliterating judgements.

 

The second time that Ararat is used is in 2 Kings 19:37, where, for some reason, the KJV translators chose to translate it as "Armenia":

 

"And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead" (2 Kings 19:37)

 

The above verse speaks of how Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was eventually killed by 2 of his sons. This happened after he had brazenly dared to challenge the God of Israel, raising an army against Judah and king Hezekiah. Because Hezekiah and the people of Judah relied on God against the taunting Assyrians, God pronounced a curse on Sennacherib and the Assyrians that followed him (2 Kings 19:20-34). The first manifestation of this curse happened when the angel of the Lord smote 185,000 Assyrians camped outside of Jerusalem, forcing Sennacherib to depart and return to Nineveh, the Assyrian capital.

 

Despite the shame of a forcible retreat after so many taunting words, Sennacherib must have thought that he had "gotten away" with his transgression, convinced that he had been able to defy the God of Israel and live to see another day unharmed. However, the fact that he did not literally die the moment that Isaiah pronounced a curse against him (Isaiah 37:21-35) does not mean that he had gotten away with his act. In a sense, Sennacherib was a dead man from the very day that the curse was pronounced. That curse followed him like a cloud over his head from that day forward, and, even though there were surely times when he did not perceive that cloud above him, it remained ominously there. Thinking that he could take refuge in his usual covering, the "god Nisroch", he thought that the curse could be ignored and was incapable of doing him any harm. This is why God waited for a day when he was worshipping in the house of his god in order to strike him down through his own 2 sons, whom he must also have trusted.

 

Interestingly, the name "Nisroch" means "great eagle". This speaks of how Sennacherib truly thought that he could soar above the curse cloud that was over him in order to be free from its influence. However, there was no amount of "soaring" that would remove him from under the curse cloud that had been placed over him by God through the wilful mouth of Isaiah.

 

The names of the sons that inflicted justice on Sennacherib -- Adrammelech and Sharezer -- also have spiritual significance. The name "Adrammelech" means "honour of the king", and it speaks of the honour towards God and His remnant that the matriarchals so arrogantly disregard. When Sennacherib spewed out his taunts against Judah, against Hezekiah, and against his God, he showed that he did not care to give to God and His people the honour that they were due. Thinking that his words could simply "blow over" and be as if he had never uttered them, Sennacherib did not realise the level of disrespect that he had committed against the invisible God and the invisible authority of His externally-powerless remnant, for which reason the judgement against him became irrevocable.

 

The name of the other son, Sharezer, means "prince of fire" and speaks of the invisible, fearsome authority of God's remnant. Though weak on the outside, they are "princes of fire" who have the authority to release the fury of the God of Consuming Fire (Hebrews 12:29, Hebrews 1:7). Thus, the names Adrammelech and Sharezer speak of the honour that is due to God and His remnant and the authority that His remnant have to unleash God's revenge on Earth when that honour is disregarded.

 

The fact that both Adrammelech and Sharezer fled to Ararat (mistranslated as "Armenia") is evidence of their spiritual origin. Spiritually speaking, they had been sent from "Ararat", i.e. from the curse precipitated by Isaiah, and they chased Sennacherib down in order to take him out, after which they returned to their "home base". The fact that they did not try to rule in Sennacherib's stead proves that they were not motivated by petty ambition or political interests. Matriarchals are always ready to smear revenge as "evil" by always associating it with fleshly motivations, and, even though many acts of revenge are indeed from the soul and from unrighteous motivations, there is a righteous dimension of revenge that is indeed of the Spirit and pleasing to God, and that dimension emanates from souls that are subservient to the Spirit and who act to further truth and not themselves. When a judge sentences a vicious serial murderer to death, he is indeed taking revenge, for he is making the murderer pay for what he has done (that is the essence of revenge), but no one (with any bit of sense) would dare to say that the judge's revenge is unrighteously motivated and is therefore to be condemned. A matriarchal may be quick to argue that "only God" has the right to judge and hand out such sentences. Yet, such a matriarchal would have to admit that the judge in the example above is not "God Himself". It is a human appointed to his judge position by another human, and, given the state of politics in most places, the appointing human will probably be very morally questionable himself and never be confused with "God". Therefore, the matriarchals' effort to relegate all judgement to a very other-worldly entity in some distant future is both invalid and hypocritical. In fact, such matriarchals would not hesitate to figuratively (and sometimes literally) crucify anyone who staunchly opposes their soulish value system; they would never wait until some distant time and place for God to exact revenge on such people. They are happy to exact their revenge themselves and in the here and now. Even so, their hate-filled revenge never seems to prick their numb consciences or force them to question the sustainability of their belief system.

 

Revenge

Having said all of the above, some may sincerely ask, "What about Romans 12:19?":

 

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

 

To understand what the above verse really means, we must consider what the very same Paul said about "vengeance" a little later on:

 

"For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter" (2 Corinthians 7:11)

 

The word "revenge" in 2 Corinthians 7:11 was translated from the same Greek word (ekdikesis) used in Romans 12:19. Therefore, if we are to understand Romans 12:19 in a literal, soulish way, we would have to conclude that the Corinthians were indeed wrong in exacting revenge on the evildoer referred to in 2 Corinthians 7:11, and we would further have to rebuke Paul in a strong way for praising such behaviour. Thus, we can conclude that, in Romans 12:19, Paul was referring to taking revenge in your own terms, pursuing your own interests, and using your own means. In other words, the revenge that God abhors is the revenge that flows from judgements made in the soul, judgements not founded on God's wisdom and that are motivated by banal interests instead of the defence of God's truth and righteousness in an objective way. And, even if the desire for "revenge" stems from righteous judgements, God also disapproves of it when it is executed through earthly means and not under the guidance of His Spirit. Said another way, when you are operating under God's wisdom and you release vengeance judgements in Him, you are not "avenging yourselves" but are instead allowing God to take revenge, and you are acting as nothing more than an agent of His justice, like a judge on Earth who objectively applies the laws that he has sworn to uphold. Romans 12:19, therefore, is an admonishment against allowing ourselves to be swept away by unrighteous, self-centred emotion. When our emotions remain submitted under the Spirit and when we are always attentive to God's voice on the verdict and the method of punishment in any matter, all our acts of vengeance will be God taking revenge (through us).

 

It is also worth noting that Romans 12:19 appears in the context of sowing sacrifice on behalf of those who are evil when we are called to do so by God (Romans 12:20-21), meaning that, when we are exacting revenge in the Spirit, we will be taking into account the redeemable parts of the persons involved so as to not destroy the wheat with the tares, so to speak. Also, a person who takes revenge in the Lord will always show the willingness to invest of himself in order to forge those redeemable parts. This is something that soulish revenge never does, especially when it is carried out by those who claim to hate revenge in general.

 

As we have often shared before, the matriarchal believer's view of God always revolves around what God can do for them. Therefore, any acts of judgement and purification of the Earth are always delegated to God and are never in any of their interest. This is why they are so quick to see passages such as Romans 12:19 as justifications of their spiritual inaction. However, as we have shown over and over again, things that happen on Earth are under the direct responsibility of the sons of men first (Psalm 115:16), and it is through the actions of the sons of men that events progress on Earth, even those events originating from God Himself. When the Lord declared that Jezebel would be punished to death for her evil (1 Kings 21:19-24), it was not through some magical Tannoy in the sky that reverberated the sound of His voice throughout Israel. Instead, it required the willingness of a man on Earth, in this case Elijah, to come to agreement with Him (Amos 3:3, 3:7) about the nature of Jezebel's evil and pronounce the necessary curse judgement on Jezebel so that it could come to pass. And even after Elijah had declared this revenge, God did not send a literal lightning bolt from heaven to strike Jezebel dead. Instead, her death required another man, Jehu in this case, being willing to take up God's call at the appointed time in order to rise up and kill Jezebel (2 Kings 9:30-37). And even the fact that the killing of Jezebel by Jehu did not happen immediately after Elijah's curse reveals that the alignment of other people's wills was also required before the spiritual door for God's revenge could be carried out. Hence, even when God has clearly declared, "Revenge is mine, I shall repay", it would be foolish and anti-Scriptural to conclude that we must therefore assume that God's repayment will not entail any action from us. On the contrary, His repayment will require one or more persons mentally and emotionally agreeing with God in order to forge that repayment. Yes, it is true that, even if no one on Earth ever agrees with God about a particular judgement, justice shall be done, for no one can escape His justice. However, if (or when) it ever comes to that, God's justice will come until the very end, after a long, long delay that will have left behind a devastation of destroyed dreams, lives, and potentials, with no possibility of a redemptive benefit surfacing from that judgement.

 

It is also worth emphasising that the agents of God's revenge are not mere automata executing an order that they understand in their mind but are otherwise indifferent about. Otherwise, why would Paul praise the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 7:11 above for their "indignation", "vehement desire", and "zeal" in carrying out their revenge? The word "indignation" there was translated from the Greek word aganaktesis, which literally means "irritation, vexation", and the phrase "vehement desire" was translated from the Greek noun epipothesis, which literally means a (strong) "longing". The word "zeal", on the other hand, was translated from the word zelos, which can literally be translated as "jealousy" and is, in fact, the root word of the English word "jealousy". Thus, it is clear that those who properly carry out God's revenge will manifest the same emotions that God has towards the object of their revenge. This is so that, when they carry out their actions, it will be as if God Himself in the flesh had carried them out. These emotions are meant to be pure, untainted by personal interests or agendas, and they will not be carried out through banal, earthly means, even if those means are at times visible from an earthly perspective. In fact, this writer would dare to say that, on many occasions, the agents of God's revenge enable that revenge without ever "laying hands" on the target of their revenge or even coming within "view" of them. Generally, they enable their (i.e. God's) revenge through purely spiritual actions and sacrifices, with the visible consequences of the revenge happening without them apparently being present.

 

Minni

Now that we have some understanding on the meaning of Ararat in Jeremiah 51:27 above, let us consider "Minni", the next name mentioned by the Lord before mentioning Ashkenaz. The name "Minni" literally means "division" and, interestingly enough, it only appears once in all of Scripture, meaning that there must be a particularly important reason why the Lord chose for it to appear in Jeremiah 51:27, in the context of the destruction of Babylon.

 

To understand what the division of "Minni" represents, we must consider the verse that appears 21 verses before Jeremiah 51:27:

 

"Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the LORD'S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence" (Jeremiah 51:6)

 

Notice that the above verse speaks of God's "vengeance", which points to everything we shared above regarding Ararat. Notice also that it calls people to separate themselves from Babylon, meaning that people are called to establish a division between themselves and that which is cursed unto destruction and is the object of God's revenge. This principle is emphasised in passages such as the following:

 

"8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." (Luke 10:8-12)

 

Notice that the separation or division is to be so radical that even the dust that attempts to cleave to you must be forcibly and deliberately removed. This is after declaring that the place has the curse of God upon it and will have a revenge from God that is worse than the one for Sodom. It is important to emphasise that Yeshua did not tell the disciples to behave in a lovey-dovey way towards the city. Instead, He called them to be emphatic about externalising God's disdain for the place and to create a clear division between themselves and the place. This is the spiritual essence behind "Minni".

 

It is also important to note that the destruction of the city was not to necessarily happen immediately after the disciples left the city. On the contrary, after externalising God's curse on the city, there would be a period during which life in the city would continue as usual. Even so, a spiritual dark cloud would remain over the city, a gloomy cloud that would unyieldingly remain over the city until God's revenge was completed. This is what happens when you pronounce God's curse judgements on someone. Those judgements remain like an unavoidable cloud that remains over them and produces increasingly visible effects until God's destruction is complete.

 

Catastrophic Ashkenaz fire

After Ararat and Minni, the Spirit of God mentions "Ashkenaz" in Jeremiah 51:27 above. As we shared above, the name "Ashkenaz" can be translated as "a man as sprinkled" or "fire as scattereth". Ashkenaz, therefore, speaks of God's full-blown revenge being fully unleashed on the object of His curse.

 

"24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground." (Genesis 19:24-25)

 

As we have shared before, fire speaks of God's purifying judgements. In this context, however, the "fire" that is "scattered" (i.e. Ashkenaz) speaks of something stronger.

 

"2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; 4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: 5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: 6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (2 Thessalonians 1:2-10)

 

The word "flaming" in verse 8 was translated from the Greek word phlox. Interestingly enough, the first time that phlox appears in Scripture is in the following verse, translated as "flame":

 

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24)

 

Notice that phlox is used in the context of insufferable judgement heaved upon someone who has let his opportunity for redemption go by and who no longer has access to God's mercy.

 

Angelic Ashkenaz fire

The next time that phlox appears is in the following verse, again translated as "flame":

 

"And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush" (Acts 7:30)

 

Notice how the "flame of fire" appeared at the end of a 40-year period, meaning that it speaks of the manifestation of a judgement (on Egypt) whose conclusion has come and must be fully manifested. Notice also that the verse above declares that "an angel of the Lord" appeared in the flame. As we have shared before, "angels" in Scripture speak of "soulless spirits" and they also speak of our proactive "angelic actions", meaning that the flame of God's revenge is made evident through believers acting like soulless spirits, proactively pushing forth God's agenda on Earth. God did not literally descend from Heaven to set His people free from Egypt. He did it through Moses, the "angel" that He had chosen and who had made himself available to be a conduit of God's revenge on Earth.

 

The next time that phlox is used in Scripture is in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, which is quoted above. The next time after that is in the following verse, translated as "flame":

 

"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire" (Hebrews 1:7)

 

Notice how phlox is once again used in the context of angels. Notice also how the verse above does not portray God's angels as indolent creatures standing idly all day with a harp in their arms and a sedative-induced smile on their faces. Instead, the Spirit of God portrays God's angels as His "ministers". The word "ministers" was translated from the Greek noun leitourgos, which may refer to a "servant of the state" or a "military labourer"; leitourgos is derived from the words laos meaning "people" and ergon meaning "work, labour". Hence, leitourgos has the connotation of someone actively working and carrying out an assigned duty that reaches outside the scope of his personal life and impacts the "public" in general. This means that, as we act as avenging angels, we will be affecting lives and delving in matters that go beyond any personal agenda or self-interest.

 

Eyes of Ashkenaz fire

The next time that phlox is used is in verse 14 of the following passage, translated as "flame":

 

"12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Revelation 1:12-18)

 

Notice that the Son of Man's eyes were as "flames of fire". As we have shared before, the "eye" speaks of making judgements (by seeing things as "good" or "evil"). Therefore, the "eyes as flaming fire" speaks of a heart connected to a mind from which the fury of God's vengeance and judgements are released. Notice also how the Son of Man's mouth has a sharp two-edged sword coming out of it, which points to the logos of God's judgements (Hebrews 4:12). It is also worth noting that the Son of Man's presence is described as so fearsome that John, the one beholding him, falls at His feet as dead. Thus, it does not correlate with the "lovey-dovey", pastoral image that the matriarchal Church always tries to impose on Yeshua. On top of all of this, the Spirit of God emphasises that the person described above was "one like unto the Son of Man" (v13), which points to the fact that the characteristics described in the passage above are intended to be manifested in man, not just in an "ethereal, invisible" God who is just "too high above" mortal man.

 

Hellish Ashkenaz fire

A matriarchal may still try to argue that the passage above (Revelation 1:12-18) is in no way a reflection of how God envisions man by pointing out verse 17, where the Son of Man says, "I am the first and the last", since such a phrase speaks of "unattainable deity" to the matriarchal heart (Acts 13:46). However, it is also worth noting that, in the very next verse, the Son of Man says, "I was dead", which is contrary to the matriarchal understanding of "God" (since "God" could not possibly ever die). Also, notice that, in the very next verse (v18), the Son of Man declares that He "has the keys of hell and of death". This points to the following passage, which matriarchals know well but only understand in the context of "claiming a new car" or "claiming a job promotion":

 

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)

 

The word "hell" in both Revelation 1:18 and Matthew 16:18 was translated from the Greek word hades. Hence, it cannot be argued that both verses are speaking about a different type of hell. Notice also that the Lord tells "Peter", a mortal man, a man with "well-documented flaws", that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the understanding he had acquired a bit earlier (the understanding that Yeshua, though a man, was the Son of the Living God - Matthew 16:16). Thus, the Lord was declaring that, once armed with this understanding, the gates of hell would not be capable of keeping "mortal Peter" in or out of hell, which is equivalent to when a person is not held in or out by a door because he has the keys to it. Let him who has ears, therefore, understand what the Spirit of God is declaring in Revelation 1:12-18 about the potential of those who honour Him and have faith to believe what He plans for them.

 

Anti-pastoral Ashkenaz fire

The next appearance of phlox is in verse 18 of the following passage, translated as "flame":

 

"18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:18-23)

 

Notice yet again how the "flame of fire" is associated with judgement-making "eyes". Notice also how those eyes of "flaming fire" first point out the positive works that they have seen from those in pastoral Thyatira but then go on to prophecy a judgement curse of bedriddenness and death (v22-23) against pastoral Thyatirans for not giving up their Canaanite ways. Again, the Lord is not portrayed as a "gentle and peaceful shepherd" seeking for all to "love one another and get along in blissful, tolerant harmony". Instead, He is revealed as a man willing to unleash God's fire of judgements on those who dare to defy Him, thereby revealing how the Church constantly endeavours to portray Him as something that He is not.

 

The last time that phlox appears in Scripture is in verse 12 of the following passage, again translated as "flame":

 

"11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (Revelation 19:11-15)

 

Notice how verse 11 describes Yeshua, the One whose eyes are as a "flame of fire", as a man who "doth judge (apostolically) and make war (evangelistically)", like an angel (not as a man "handing out candy floss and warm hugs"). Notice also that the man with eyes as a flame of fire has his vesture dipped in blood because of the revenge that He has unleashed on the enemies of God through the sharp sword of His mouth, treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Those who find such words too "gruesome" or "unChristian" will be surprised when they stand before the presence of the Lord and realise how fiercely they fought Him, His revenge, and everything that He planned for man, even as they claimed to bear His Name and believe in Him.

 

From all of the above, we can conclude that "Ashkenaz" speaks of man "sprinkling" the flaming fire of God's catastrophe-inducing revenge through the sharp-sword judgements emanating from his eyes and mouth. This fire is an angelic, anti-pastoral, destructive fire from hell, just like the fire that was "sprinkled" on (Canaanite-Girgashite) Sodom and Gomorrah by the 2 angels and brought about its destruction.

 

The revenge cycle

Now that we have meditated on the 3 names in Jeremiah 51:27 individually, we can discern the overall process represented in the 3 names combined. "Ararat" speaks of when we release God's curse on those who unrepentantly defy God, which places an unavoidable cloud of God's revenge on them. "Minni" then speaks of when we separate ourselves from the objects of God's revenge, and "Ashkenaz" speaks of when God's revenge is eventually manifested in fullness and in a very public way over them, as the cloud we left over them begins to rain destructive Sheol fire over them.

 

In a sense, these 3 names also point to the horses of the Apocalypse. "Ararat" refers to the conflictive red-horse rider who exposes the Church's matriarchal leadership, causing a curse cloud to be placed on it. "Minni" refers to the black-horse rider who separates himself the matriarchy and goes into the wilderness, from where he continues to launch a barrage of invisible apostolic-prophetic judgements, causing the cloud to accumulate in judgement. "Ashkenaz" then refers to the green-horse rider who dies in sacrificial death, descends to Sheol, and eventually rises from Sheol to bring Death and the fire of Sheol on the objects of God's revenge. This is why it is no coincidence that Jeremiah 51:27 ends with the phrase "cause the horses to come up as bristled young locusts".

 

The fact that the Spirit of God exhorts us to "call together the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz" against Babylon means that we are to proactively forge God's revenge cycle. In other words, Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz do not simply show up on their own. The cycle represented by them does not simply "happen". It requires "soulless" angels who forge that revenge as ministers of flaming fire and who are not uncomfortable about getting blood on their white robes ().

 

As a parenthesis, it is worth mentioning that the names Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz also point to the 3 nations that shall serve as the focal points of the latter-rain revival and the toppling of the pastoral matriarchy in Europe. Britain shall be Europe's Ararat, the place from which the Noah curse of destruction is issued. Italy shall be Europe's Minni, forging separation between Europe's matriarchal structures and those who love righteousness, and Germany shall be Europe's Ashkenaz, literally and spiritually, raining down the fire of destruction on the matriarchal structures in order to nullify and annihilate them once and for all.

 

Ashkenazi Germany

Now that we have studied the only verse in Scripture that makes an explicit reference to Ashkenaz outside of listing him as a son of Gomer, the question becomes, who does Ashkenaz represent in Japhethite Europe? To answer this, we must consider how the word "Ashkenaz" is used in the present day.

 

As some of you may know, the term "Ashkenazi" is used to refer to Jews who settled along the Rhine River in Germany during the Jewish Diaspora. This group of Jews developed the Yiddish language, which, as indicated on Wikipedia, is a Germanic language with elements of Hebrew and Aramaic. Because of this, "Ashkenaz" became associated in Jewish culture with northern Europe and with Germany in particular. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Ashkenaz refers to Germany and the Germanic peoples in modern times.

 

Sadly enough, as shown on blueletterbible.org, Gesenius' Lexicon says the following in its entry for the word "Ashkenaz"

"The modern Jews understand it to be Germany, and call this country by this Hebrew name, which is only to be attributed to their wonderful ignorance of geography."

 

Describing the Jews' association of "Ashkenaz" with Germany as an act of "profound geographical ignorance" reveals that Gesenius fell prey to the same stupid mistake that most Biblical "scholars" make when they try to decipher what nations or peoples a particular Biblical nation refers to. That mistake boils down to assuming that all nations and peoples have been sitting in the same geographical location since the beginning of time. The mere possibility that entire peoples may have migrated over large distances over a period of many centuries seems to escape their thinking. Even when they are willing to accept the "Garden of Eden" story, these scholars seem to believe that all Germans moved to modern-day Germany immediately after Adam was kicked out of the garden of Eden (which was around modern-day Iraq) and that the sons of Japheth never spent more than a couple of days in the Middle Eastern part of the world. To these fools, therefore, the very thought of an early German, Nordic, or Celt living in Turkey or Uzbekistan at some point is not even an option worth considering. Therefore, even when the connection between "Ashkenaz" and "Germany" had been alive and well for 700 years, and even when that connection had been made by peoples who had actually lived there for centuries (as opposed to ivory-tower scholars reading about the place in a textbook), a "Biblical critic" such as Gesenius simplistically laughed off this connection and used as an opportunity to throw a jab at the Jews, thereby revealing that he was, in actuality, the ignorant one.

 

Having said all of this, it is somewhat ironic that the foolish statement made by Gesenius, who was a German, actually reinforces the very legitimate connection between "Ashkenaz" and the Germanics. This becomes evident when one considers one of the things that Germanics are known for in modern history: the Holocaust.

 

German revenge fire

Even though no matriarchal would ever admit this in public, it is a well-accepted (but often hushed) fact that the Holocaust "sounds very much" like the curse that God declared would fall on the Jewish people in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 if they separated themselves from Him, and it is also accepted that the Holocaust "sounds very consistent" with the curse that Yeshua prophesied to the Jewish people as He was on His way to be crucified at Golgotha (Luke 23:27-31). Dear reader, if you are not familiar with the curse of Deuteronomy 28 (the 54 verses of cursing after the 14 of blessing), we strongly urge you to read through it very carefully, and, as you do, you will see how it sounds almost like a blow-by-blow description of the Jews' persecution throughout the centuries and their eventual Holocaust. Therefore, any believer with an ounce of intellectual honesty (and who accepts the validity of Scripture) will have to conclude that the Holocaust was indeed a judgement from God on the Jewish people because of what they had done to their Messiah, the Son of the Living God. When Yeshua declared a curse on the Jewish nation on His way to Golgotha, He was acting like an "Ararat", establishing a "curse cloud" that began to follow the recalcitrant Jewish people wherever they went. This is why, no matter where they were dispersed to, hatred and savagery would befall them. After pronouncing this curse, Yeshua and those who followed Him spiritually separated themselves from the Jewish nation ("Minni") even when most of them were Jewish themselves. For 1800+ years, this separation endured, and the cloud of obliterating judgement hovered over the Jewish people. Even when they were able to survive (and even thrive) because the natural blessing of Abraham was also over them, there was no way that they would be able to escape the fullness of Yeshua's curse over them, despite the fact that they had apparently done so for over 18 centuries. When the time finally came, the literal Ashkenaz stepped up and fulfilled the 3rd phase (the "Ashkenaz" phase) of God's revenge process, sprinkling fire over the Jewish people, literally burning them to near extinction in what is properly known as the "Holocaust" (i.e. burnt offering). After the fullness of God's curse had been manifested, the wrath of God and Yeshua against the Jewish nation receded, and the sacrifice that had been paid through the Holocaust served as the seed for the rise from the ashes of the nation of Israel.

 

Despite the fact that the Holocaust was God-enabled, it must be emphasised that the full price has been paid, and any anti-Semite (Palestinian or otherwise) who would dare to claim that the "Holocaust" must continue deserves to be placed in the same fiery Dachau ovens that they wish on the Jewish people. Even when the Jewish people have remained stubbornly resistant to Yeshua since the end of the Holocaust, their collective judgement as a people is over, and all that we are awaiting is for the Gentile Church to wake up from its stupid matriarchal slumber in order to manifest the fearsome God of Israel, which will stir the Jewish people to jealousy (Romans 11:11-12) and lead to their sincere, earth-shaking conversion towards Yeshua and the God of Israel who opened the Reed Sea for them ("Reed", not "Red", is its name in Hebrew).

 

{As a parenthesis, it is now worth going back to the misguided comment in the Gesenius's entry for Ashkenaz. Even though the statement was stupid, matriarchal, and not "God-enabled", it is a reflection of the anti-Jewish sentiment that Germany (the real Ashkenaz denied by that very comment) would carry to the hilt less than 60 years later.}

 

The connection between the "Ashkenaz" sprinkling of revenge fire and Germany is also emphasised by a fact that most matriarchals would attribute to mere coincidence. As you may know, the word "Ashkenazi" in English ("Ashkenazim" in Hebrew) refers to anything related to Ashkenaz and its people. Hence, it is interesting to consider that the word "Nazi" is at the end of "Ashkenazi". As you may know, the Nazi party was actually the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", Nationalsozialitische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German, and the word "Nazi" is made up from "Na" in "National" and "zi" in "sozialistiche". The fact that a German party would have its name reduced to a word that matches the second half of a Hebrew name (that is so related to it) is no coincidence.

 

It is also no coincidence that, on the very day that the words above were typed (May 26), a massive fire ripped through Europa Park, the biggest theme park in Germany, with gigantic flames going as high as 50 ft. As indicated on thesun.co.uk and sputniknews.com, the fire in Europa Park (i.e. "Japheth Park") in the southwestern town of Rust, Germany started in a warehouse and grew into a major fire that took over 200 firefighters and 2 and a half hours to control. Interestingly enough, the part of the park that suffered the most damage was the Scandinavia-themed portion. This correlates with the fact that Ashkenaz is portrayed as a son of Gomer, who, in turn, is the father of Scandinavian Nordics.

 

It is also worth considering that the Nazi party rose to prominence in Germany as a result of the Reichstag Fire, which, as described on Wikipedia, was an act of arson against the Reichstag building that housed the German Parliament. This arson was committed on 27 February 1933, exactly 4 weeks after Hitler had been sworn in as German Chancellor. A Dutch communist was blamed for the fire, giving Hitler the door to suppress civil liberties and imprison Communists, stripping them of their seats in Parliament. This allowed the Nazis to go from plurality status to majority status, thereby consolidating them in a state of uncontested power. Contrary to popular belief, the Nazis were not a "right-wing" party, as shown by their very name, "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (would a right-wing party ever use such a name for themselves?). The Nazis were a left-wing party that believed in big-government socialism, and their vicious attacks against communists were motivated not so much by a "hatred of extreme socialism" but more by a desire to eliminate their greatest competition and to nullify the party that was dividing their support amongst left-wing Germans. In neutralising the Communist Party, the Nazis were also eliminating a party with strong international allegiances (i.e. fellow Communists around Europe, especially in the Soviet Union), thereby eroding the Nazis' "German-centric" message.

 

The Nordic connection

Having said all of the above, the following question remains: If Tubal, son of Japheth and brother of Gomer, is the father of the Germanics (as we shared in the previous word), why is Ashkenaz, who is so strongly linked to Germany, a son of Gomer and not Tubal? To answer this, we must consider the fact the Nordics and the Germanics are so physically similar and closely linked in people's minds that the vast majority of people see them as part of the same "racial" European group. Hence, it is evident that, though different, Nordics and Germanics must have experienced some sort of "mixing", both biologically and spiritually, at some point in time. Thus, we can conclude that Ashkenaz, son of Nordic Gomer, was Gomer's "point of entry", shall we say, into the Germanic sons of Tubal. Through Ashkenaz and his descendants, Gomer made his biological and spiritual imprint into the Germanics (as the descendants of Tubal merged with the descendants of Ashkenaz), thereby ensuring that they would reflect the apostolic and angelic qualities inherent in Gomer.

 

Dear reader, as a side note, if you now have or were already having doubts about the separation of the Nordics and the Germanics into two separate European sub-groups, consider the cultural differences between, say, the Nordic countries and Germanic countries. This writer feels emboldened to declare that a large majority of the people who have visited both Norway and Germany, for example, will be quick to tell you that, even though both countries are wealthy, modern, "clean", and orderly, Nordic Norway has a more sombre, law-centric (apostolic) quality to it, whereas Germanic Germany has a more pragmatic (teacherly) quality to it. This writer believes that the same thing can be said, in varying degrees, when comparing any two Nordic and Germanic countries such as Sweden and Switzerland or Denmark and Holland. Having said this, this writer would also dare to say that the most Nordic of all Germanic countries is Germany itself.

 

{God willing, we shall share more on the sons of Gomer (and Japheth) in a future posting.}