By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)
Imagine the shocker when you think that you have prophecy all figured out to only find out that you missed that one crucial word which crumbles not just your understanding of prophecy, but your entire theology. Next time you run into someone who acts as if they figured it all out when they throw a verse or two at you, have them do a search of these nine lethal words in the Bible which renders their entire theology, modern commentaries they use, historic revisions and centuries of reformation theology to become completely obsolete.
What you are about to read will blow you away:
THE FIRST LETHAL WORD IN PSALM 132: “AND”
You might consider the word “and” insignificant until you run into Psalm 132 when David says that the Ark of the Covenant is assumed to heaven with God:
“Go up Lord, to the place of your rest [heaven], you and the ark of your might!”. (Psalm 132:8)
Do you see this “and”? This one word alone renders countless interpretations, books, websites, reformations and commentaries that claim that the Ark is Christ becomes worthless.
None of these commentaries can answer a simple Jesus-style question: how do you paint the Ark as symbolic of Jesus if both, this Ark and Jesus went up to heaven?
This word “and” leaves no room to maneuver. The only option is that God assumed into heaven a literal box called “the Ark of the Covenant”.
But this is impossible, especially when Revelation 21:2–3 declares that “the dwelling place of God is with man.” God in heaven does not dwell with a box anymore. That plus the whole context of the Book of Hebrews and Jeremiah 3:16 was that God was done with such things.
Some might argue that this prophecy pertains to the literal Ark and that David is simply going together with the Ark to the Temple in Jerusalem’s Mount Zion.
But this too is impossible. The text clearly puts this matter to rest:
“Because Lord Jehovah is pleased in Zion and he chose it a dwelling place. This is my rest to an eternity of eternities; here I shall sit because I desired it.”
There is no question this is the heavenly not earthly Mount Zion where the Ark resides. The Bible even confirms this:
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament (Revelation 11:19)
Is this mount Zion on earth? Never.
But it even gets better when we examine translations of Psalms 132:8 from the Septuagint:
Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified [made holy, sinless]. (Psalm 132:8)
All this leaves us with only one option: the Ark is not Christ or a box but the Woman Who housed Christ in her womb.
Why then would it make any sense to accept the Ark-Box and reject the Ark-Mother?
Even the first living savior of Israel, Moses, came in an “ark” (Exodus 2:5) and in Noah’s day, who mocked his mighty Ark where the ones consumed by the flood.
How one can find truth is simple: see what the world abhors the most and you will find what God loves the most. God sent angels to the most abhorred of society, poor shepherds, and chose to be born in a lowly place: Bethlehem.
But within the same Psalm lays more lethal words no one pays attention to:
THE SECOND AND THIRD LETHAL WORDS IN PSALM 132 ARE “EPHRATAH” AND “YA’AR”
Protestant commentaries are mystified about this Psalm since the Ark was never placed in Bethlehem. But the text insists it was in a strange place called “Ya’ar”:
“Lo, we heard of it [the Ark] at [Bethlehem] Ephratah: we found it in the fields of Ya’ar” (Psalm 132:6)
Hearing about the Ark being in “Ephratah” and then discovering about it in “Ya’ar” is unheard of. Scholars attempt to solve the riddle. Barnes Notes is stunned:
“There is no mention in the history of the fact that the ark was “heard of” at Ephrata, or that it was ever there. The name Ephrata – אפרתה ‘ephrâthâh – is applied”.
Then Cambridge Bible links Kiriath-jearim as this “Ephrathah” and that “Ya’ar” is in the neighbourhood of Kiriath-jearim where the Ark had rested for many years in the house of Abinadab (1 Samuel 7:1-2).
But this is impossible, Kiriath-jearim is way too far north of Jerusalem and it is not Ephratah. That plus Kiriath-jearim is on a hill where the text strictly says that Ya’ar is in the “Fields of Ya’ar” a field not a hill.
In fact, what most do not know is that Psalm 132 was speaking of the angelic annunciation of the birth of the Savior according to Luke’s gospel. During my youth I spent all my summers in the Fields of Ya’ar which was known from the time of St. Helena who marked it.
I shall show with pin-point accuracy that it was Mary (not a box) Who finally rested in Bethlehem Ephratah to give birth. The moment the child was born at the dawning of the day, the angels pronounced this birth at the fields of Ya’ar.
This place was known throughout history as the Fields of the Shepherds (Shepherd’s Fields).
This is where an angelic host announced to the shepherds instructing them at dawn (when it was still dark) to go up to Bethlehem Ephratah to see the birth of Christ where they also found His Ark (Mary).
Today anyone can visit the village of Beit Sahar (House of the Dawn, my own birthplace) in the vicinity of Bethlehem to the east. Beit Sahar (today pronounced Beit Sahour) is just a stone throw east of the Nativity where Christ was born and where our clan Shoebat owned land. This can even be confirmed from the municipality of Beith Sahour:
This site is known locally as “Isyar” [Is-Yaar] and is located 1 km north of the Greek Orthodox Shepherds’ Field … over a cave in which it is believed the shepherds’ lived.
Here’s a tour where you can see the the wooded area just as the text demands “fields of the woods” including the caves of the Shepherds:
But the name of this place today has a prophetic significance since the Ark was carried at the Dawn in Hebrew is “Sahar” (to stay up till the Dawn) signifying the victory over Israel’s enemies when Joshua went roundabout at Dawn circumambulating around Jericho seven times as the text states: “they rose early, at the dawn of day, and marched around the city in the same manner seven times” (Joshua 6:15).
But this time, this Ark (Mary) signified victory over sin and at dawn, while still dark, victory was announced at the Fields of Ya’ar because Christ was announced to the Shepherds “we heard of it at Bethlehem” in the Field of Yaar, translated as ‘Field of the Forrest‘. The King James renders it this way: “Lo, we heard of it at Ephrathah: we found it in the fields of the woods.” We from Bethlehem can even pin-point it. Its the only little forestry area in the Fields of the Shepherds in Beit Sahour, Bethlehem-Ephratah.
The place was marked by St. Helena the mother of the future Emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306–337). In the fifth century a Byzantine monastery at the forrest woods of (Ya’ar) we find a Franciscan chapel and a cave where the Shepherd’s would stay at which I attended daily during summer at the nearby YMCA as a member of the Young Men’s Christian Association (I’ve been destined to become “Christian”).
Ya’ar means ‘forrest’ and the name still stands “Esh-Yaar” (IsYaar) just as our village municipality renders the name which is preserved till today and is known since St. Helena as the place where the Shepherds heard of Mary [the Ark] being in Bethlehem Ephratah and discovered about it in the fields of Ya’ar. Esh-Yaar would mean the Fire of Yaar David’s mighty warrior from Bethlehem.
The names passed down by tradition, the archeological site and its history makes a compelling case this is speaking of Mary giving birth to Christ. By this, Psalms 132 becomes a prophecy regarding the announcement of the birth of the savior, something no modern commentary even considers. But once Psalm 132 is cross-referenced with the rest of scripture it becomes a compelling case that the Ark was Mary and now the Apocalypse becomes clear as we shall see.
But there is even more, Psalm 132 speaks of Mary’s womb as this Ark.
THE FOURTH LETHAL WORD IN PSALM 132: “WOMB”
But Psalm 132 even packs more secrets, something no modern commentary even considers. It declares the Ark bringing forth the Messiah will be coming from “David’s womb” and not “David’s loins” as Protestant bibles translate. Author and expert, Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD brought to my attention the major mistranslation in Psalm 132:11:
“The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.” (Psalm 132:11 KJV)
But the Hebrew word they translate as “body” is “Beten” (Womb) and since men do not have wombs they translated it “of the fruit of thy body,” or “of the fruit of thy loins“.
Only the Catholic Douay Rheims translates it correctly:
“The Lord hath sworn truth to David, and he will not make it void: of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne.” (Psalm 132:11, in DRB is 131:11)
But again, the Hebrew word they translated for ‘body’ or ‘loins’ is “Beten” which can only mean “womb”.
Beten can never mean “body” or “loins”! Impossible. Not in a million years.
The verse mystified translators. Even Strong’s could not escape it explaining that Beten is “the belly,” “especially the womb” “as they are born, within, womb” “being female member” yet they apply the wrong translation.
Anti-Catholic translators wanted nothing to do with a Psalm that revealed the Ark had a literal womb.
The verse was not speaking of a descendant in the male line, but in the female line.
Next time you talk about the ‘lying media’ think of the ‘lying commentaries’ and the ‘lying translations’ most run to for the womb of their comfort.
No modern commentary can escape this lethal flaw. Throughout scripture when it came to men, God used “loins”: “kings shall come out of thy loins” (Genesis 35:11), “thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins” (1 Kings 8:19), “For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him” (Hebrews 7:10), “thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins” (1 Kings 1:19) …
And when it came to women God usually used “womb”: “And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb” (Genesis 25:23), “he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren” (Genesis 29:31), “loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb” (1 Samuel 1:5), “of my mother’s womb” (Job 1:21) …
Except of course only when it came to Psalms 132, God strictly used womb only for King David because this was the virgin birth and is why the ancient Jews recognized this and translated “virgin” instead of “maiden”.
Now the prophecy is not only the announcement of the birth of Messiah by Mary, but it is also a prophecy of the virgin birth and the assumption of Mary that so many reject.
The Septuagint which was held by Jews at the time to be “more inspired” than the Hebrew text, because of the miracle of its translation by devout men empowered by the Holy Spirit translated Beten correctly as “womb”. These added depth and specificity to the prophecy of Isaiah and in the Psalms to indicate a virgin birth and is why St. Jerome translating from the Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate had no issue with writing “she shall crush your head“.
The NETS translation of the book of Psalms based primarily on the edition of Alfred Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis from the Septuagint is another good translation of the Psalms which even pronounces the names as I am accustomed to in Bethlehem where David is properly pronounced Dauid (Dawid). Most are unaware that the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet is a “w/u” and not a “v”:
The Lord swore to Dauid [Dawid] the truth, and he will never annul it: “Of your belly’s fruit I will set on your throne.” (Psalms 132:11 NETS)
Here too it is not ‘loins’, the Hebrew Beten (womb) is very clear. For centuries even King David’s name is mispronounced.
Even Elizabeth’s famous description of Mary’s son Jesus in Luke 1:42, it says: “the fruit of thy womb” which perfectly matches the Septuagint version in Psalm 132:11:
ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου—Luke 1:42 “blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (to Mary)
ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς κοιλίας σου—Psalm 132:11 LXX “of the fruit of thy womb” (to David)
This is why Mary sang a psalm of praise to God. This would have been Psalm 132. This is why in Revelation 11:19 the Ark of the Covenant is seen in God’s temple and then immediately following (Rev 12:1) it describes a pregnant woman clothed with the sun and moon under her feet.
And since David has no womb, signifying a virgin birth of a Messiah born of a daughter of David, an Ark that is ‘sanctified’ (sinless) and while a box-ark never rested in Bethlehem, but that a virgin gave birth in Bethlehem, to even hint at the angelic announcement in Luke and then this Virgin (Ark) is assumed to heaven as a separate being from the Messiah, makes Psalm 132 to be the most significant messianic prophecy in the entire scripture.
Yet no Protestant quotes it. None.
The laws of probability would make it impossible to have all this by mere chance. I did not convert to Catholicism easily. It took years worth of struggle and much painstaking digging for wells in the Word of God. In the end I found wells.
The ancient translators of the Septuagint where not Catholic either, but they knew better and is probably why they translated Almah (maiden) as “virgin” in Isaiah since they linked the seed of the woman (not man) with Psalm 132:11 ‘a womb of David’s descendant’.
All this explains why when it comes to Genesis 3:15 Catholics are content with the following: ‘I will put enmity between your seed [Satan] and the seed of the woman [Eve]. She will crush your head [Mary] and you will strike her heel.’
But Scripture reveals that the crushing of Satan’s head is through Christ. However, King David lodged a stone pellet into Goliath’s head and while ultimately this was brought about by the power of Jesus it is likewise done through Mary David’s descendant.
In a sense, God is saying to Satan, “while you thought you triumphed over a woman [Eve], it is through a woman [Mary – the New Eve] that I will crush your head” and is why the Old Testament includes stories of women who foreshadow this head-crushing blow ; Judith 13:4-9 we read of Judith cutting off Holofernes’s head, Judges 4:21 Jael kills Sisera by driving a tent peg through his temple; Judges 9: 50–55 Abimelech is killed when a woman drops a millstone on his head.
Just one word “Beten” renders all translations except the Septuagint as ‘found wanting’.
Mary is of David. This cannot be denied. As Fr. Kelley elaborated:
“None can say that St Irenaeus did not know the Scriptures! The “New Shoot” from the “stump of Jesse” is through David’s son, Nathan. None from that line had ever sat upon the Throne of Daivd in Jerusaelm. Maryam’s line from David is through Nathan (– named for the Prophet who caught David in his sin)! (Lk. 3:31) “Heli” appears to be a “nickname” form of Joachim, her father, who is thus the “father-in-law” of Joseph (cf. Lk 3:23). Of course, St Elizabeth declared, “blessed is the Fruit of thy Womb” to Maryam, when she came to visit (Lk 1:42). She then uses an expression that will escape many who do not understand the Jewish reverence for the Sacred Name: “Why is this [privilege] granted to me that the Mother of my LORD should come to me?” (1:43) A Jew of that time would never use the term, “LORD”, except for God. Elizabeth is declaring plainly that MARYAM is the MOTHER OF GOD, come in the Flesh, within her Womb. [See also 2Sam.6:9 – where David asks a similar question — in reverent fear!] Maryam stays “three months” in the home of the priest Zachariah & his wife Elizabeth (certainly long enough to care for her in childbirth, and attend St John’s Circumcision). (Lk 1:56)