Monthly Archives: May 2017
The Scriptures use a number of different methods of encoding meaning. There exists the literal meaning, the spiritual meaning, and the typological meaning. However, one form of meaning that is often overlooked is that meaning which is encoded into names.
I do not speak merely of meaning encoded into single names. Certainly that exists, especially among the old testament patriarchs, or even the name of YHWH Himself. However, this article will primarily concentrate on messages encoded into multiple names, such as specific biblical blood lines. We will be primarily using two resources in our examination, namely A Dictionary of the Proper Names of the Old and New Testament Scriputres by J. B. Jackson and Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon by James Strong.
The Line of Seth:
Let’s begin by exploring the meaning of the names of the pre-flood descendents of Adam, passing down the line of his righteous son, Seth.
Adam: Man, or red earth. Some have speculated this may mean that Adam had a ruddy, Mediterranean complexion.
Seth: Appointed, put, or substituted. This refers to the fact that Seth was a substitution for Abel following his murder by his brother, Cain.
Enosh: Mortal. This likely points to the mortality of man.
Cainan: Most sources suggest the meaning of Cainan is smith, fabricator, or possession. However, some sources claim that Cainan means sorrow, so I took a closer look. Cainan (also Kenan) is really “qeynan” in Hebrew. Another word, “qiynah,” means a sorrowful dirge or lamentation. Qiynah is used to refer to the Kenites, and is derived from the name Cain. The etymological similarity is far too close to ignore, and so I think we can safely conclude that Cainan also means sorrow.
Mahalelel: Praise of God, or the blessed God.
Jared: To come down, descend, or descender.
Enoch: Initiated, dedicated, train, or teach.
Methuselah: Man of a dart, they died, or his death shall bring. The name Methuselah is the combination of two verbs: Mat (or mut) and shalah. Mat means man or mankind, but mut means death, or to kill by violence. Shalah means to bring, or send. Interestingly, if you do the math you will find that Methuselah died the same year as the flood of Noah, so his death truly did bring the flood.
Lamech: J.B. Jackson’s Dictionary of the Proper Names of the Old and New Testament Scriptures lists the meaning of Lamech as “why thus with the” or “unto bringing low,” but I do not know from where he arrived at the first conclusion. Strong’s Concordance says that Lamech (lemek) is “From an unused root of uncertain meaning.” Thus, if we are to accurately determine the meaning of the name, we must break it down.
Lamech may be a combination of “le” and “muk.” Le means to, or towards, and muk means to be low, or depressed. Some have compared lamech to the english word lamentation, suggesting that despairing may be a good definition for Lamech. However, considering it comes from an unused root, we may never know for sure what it means, precisely.
Now that we have the meanings of these various names, let’s put them together into a single paragraph. Man is appointed mortal sorrow. The blessed God shall come down, teaching. His death shall bring the despairing rest.
Here we have a messianic prophecy encoded into the names of the antedeluvian patriarchs, thousands of years before the time of Jesus. Of course, the more picky among us may take issue with the meaning of Lamech’s name, but even if we substitute despairing with low or depressed, the meaning of the prophecy remains the same. If the Sethite bloodline contains just such a message, it begs the question: What about the line of Cain?
The Line of Cain:
Cain: Maker, fabricator, smith, or sorrow. Very similar to Cainan.
Enoch: Initiated, dedicated, train, or teach. See above.
Irad: Fugitive, A wild ass, or city of witness.
Mehujael: Smitten of God, or blot out that Jah is my God.
Methushael: Man who is of God, or they died enquiring.
Lamech: Why thus with the, unto bringing low, depressed, or despairing. See above.
Now, when putting together the names of the line of Cain a message does emerge, but the children of Lamech, for some reason, don’t seem to be part of it, so I left them out. The message is as follows: A fabricator dedicated a wild ass to blotting out that Jah is my God. They died despairing.
I think we can safely conclude that these names are not mere coincidence. If God encoded messages in the names of the antedeluvian patriarchs, what about other names from scripture? What about the name of God himself, YHWH?
When God came to Moses in the form of a burning bush in the third chapter of Exodus, he named himself “I AM.” The Hebrew word for “I AM” is spelled YHWH, and is referred to by scholars as the tetragrammaton. The tetragrammaton appears in scripture more than 6,000 times, and is usually incorrectly translated as “the Lord.” In Hebrew, not only names, but also individual letters and numbers have meaning. So what do the letters which make up the name of God mean?
Y: Yod, meaning hand. Symbolizes power.
H: He (or hey), meaning behold.
W: Vav (or waw), meaning hook, peg, or nail.
Thus, the name of God is spelled Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey. Reading right to left as the Hebrews did, this does not make much sense, but if we read it in reverse, we get “behold the nail, behold the hand.” It is not much of a stretch to say that this is a reference to the crucifixion. Moreover, the tetragrammaton identifies YHWH as the “right hand” of the Father, the one on whom the fate of the human race “hangs”. That being said, the tetragrammaton appears in scripture as early as the Torah and the book of Job. The Torah was written by Moses during his exile in Midian 15 centuries before the time of Christ, and the events recorded in the book of Job are thought by many to have occurred before the flood of Noah, itself a thousand years before Moses. Such clear and sophisticated foreknowledge makes it very difficult for atheists to argue that scripture is merely the result of the imaginations of a bunch of primitive, superstitious men.
Scripture is filled with nuggets of information such as these, if we have the wit to find them. If you are interested in searching for such encoded knowledge, I suggest using E-sword with Strong’s Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon. Both E-sword and Strong’s Concordance are free and readily available on the internet. J. B. Jackson’s Dictionary of the Proper Names of the Old and New Testament Scriputres is likewise free in PDF form, and each can be downloaded from the links below:
A Dictionary of the Proper Names of the Old and New Testaments:
- Jackson, J. B. A Dictionary of the Proper Names of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, Being an Accurate and Literal Translation from the Original Tongues. 1908.
- Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1890.
- “Behold the Nail, Behold the Hand – The Secret (Sacred) Name of God – YHWH.” YouTube, uploaded by Offgrid Life, 18 February, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2ZqRCipX4
If you want to learn something unique and powerful about humanity, study war. War is unlike anything else within the human experience. Indeed, it is the most basic rule of human behavior that we only do that which reinforces us. We eat that we may have strength, we sleep that our bodies may renew themselves, we drink that we do not become thirsty, and we have children that we may pass ourselves on beyond our years.
But no so with war. War is fundamentally contrary to the natural order of man. War serves no purpose for the combatant, rather it destroys all purposes. War is the most profound form of waste ever conceived of. It destroys the health of men, it degrades the character of nations, it destroys the wealth that we work so hard to accumulate, the assets that keep us and our children alive, and it extinguishes unique sparks of life that will never come again, at least in this age. Some go into war thinking to take the wealth of others, but it never works out that way. To carry out war on one’s neighbors is to consume one’s own self.
So what is this thing we call war? One might say that it is the pitting of one people group against another, one nation against another. But why? Only an idiot would shoulder a rifle and step out onto the front line thinking that he would in some way profit from the experience, especially once he saw his comrades meeting grisly ends. Some might say that we fight wars in order to eliminate those we hate, but does the hate that we feel not come from the hostilities themselves, and not some a priori cause? Is it not the war itself that we hate, rather than the specious caricature of an enemy we conjure up in our minds to make the killing more palatable? If both opposing parties loath war so, why do they carry on the slaughter? Why do they not simply quit the war, and go home?
What is the fundamental, irreducible nature of war? Is it not a group of men fighting another group of men, many behaving as one just as many fish behave as one school? But there is no such thing as a school of fish, just as there is no such thing as a forest, merely a dense group of trees. The school or the forest are abstractions, concepts we wield in order to better understand the world outside of ourselves. Do not make the mistake of thinking that there is any object within the material world that we can call armies, schools of fish, or forests. If we want to understand the forest, we study trees. If we want to understand schools, we study fish. If we want to understand wars, we must study men.
But why do so many men come together to fight as one, especially when they hate war with burning passion? The vast majority could not possibly have fewer incentives to spill the blood of strangers. Certainly there are those within society, those few who either by virtue of some neurological dysfunction or delinquent personality, who enjoy war. The career general who craves dominance, both of his own men and the enemy, or the tortured man who inflicts violence on others because it is the only way he knows to silence the chaos of his own mind. But these men are few and far between. Most men dream of the war’s end, not its continuation, when they can go home and create life instead of snuffing it out.
So why do men fight wars? The easy answer is to say that it is because their neighbors attacked them first, or because they were conscripted. The first answer will not do as it does not explain why the neighbor attacked in the first place. The second is much more revealing. Men fight in wars because they are afraid of what will be done to them if they do not. Armies are more like prisons than anything else. Men are herded together, trained to kill, their heads filled with visions of inhuman beasts, then armed to the teeth and thrown at other men who have also been likewise prepared. In the beginning, most men on either side truly do not wish to risk their own lives merely to enjoy the opportunity of ending the life of another man. But what happens when men refuse to fight? In the best case, what freedom they have left is taken away and they are subjected to social shunning. They are called traitors and cowards, and women of any respectability will have nothing to do with them, precluding the possibility of children and family. But in the case of total wars, wars in which the survival of nations are at stake, these soldiers are executed. Whether they are caught by other soldiers to be killed later, or they are mowed down Soviet-style as they retreat from a losing battle, the consequence for not fighting is death. Their choice is between possible death by the hand of the enemy, and certain death delivered by their own people. Soldiers are slaves.
But who delivers this death? In many cases, other soldiers. But they do not act of their own will. These enlisted men are ordered by their officers, who in turn are ordered by higher ranking officers. Those higher ranking officers are giving their orders according to a doctrine they most likely had nothing to do with writing. The highest ranking flag officers take their orders from the civilian leadership of the government, the politicians who were elected under the assumption that they would serve the interests of those who elected them in the first place. Each man in the chain of command follows his orders under fear of losing his life, his freedom, or his future, but if all of them simply ignored their superiors, no war could possibly occur.
Is it then politicians who are responsible for wars? Do they cast some kind of spell over a nation? What is the nature of their power? Certainly, if we all simply choose to disobey our politicians, nothing would happen to us. We would not drop dead in our tracks, we would not be dragged by some unseen force to prison, and the sun would rise in the east the next morning. Life would go on.
But what about the politicians? What are their interests and incentives? Are their election campaigns not financed by mega-corporations and banks, each institution ruled by the same overlapping corporate directorships? Are they not marionettes, string puppets who do the bidding of the masters who funded their ascension to power in the first place? Politicians live and work under the cloud of potential ruination, as those same wealthy interests who funded their elections may choose to run the next campaign against them, in favor of their opponent. They are nothing more than the middle management employed by mysterious powers such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and the United States Federal Reserve, to name but a few. We did not elect these financial institutions. We do not benefit from their manipulations of our economy, our government, or any other domain of our lives. And yet, somehow, each and every time this unseen force, this shadow government, this deep state decides that there is profit to be had in the devastation of some distant nation, fools line up by the millions to see it done. They line up to see themselves and their own children destroyed.
All wars are banker wars. Banks are the only bodies who profit by them, the only party with any incentive to start them, or to continue them after the once innocent populace realizes their terrible mistake. Do not think that the answer to ending war is to hold rallies or to elect different politicians. These are not the root cause of the nightmare. It is ultimately the banks that profit by the shedding of innocent blood, so it is the banks that we must address. They cannot be reformed to remove this incentive, therefore they must be destroyed. Remember that when you are wondering why we are still in Afghanistan, 16 years later. Remember that when you see a Syrian father carrying the lifeless corpses of his children through the streets. Remember that when a cloud of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons begin to rain down on Seoul, launched by a desperate tyrant whose only means of staying in power is the sword.