The Scarlet Wool Midst The Thorns

Barnabas 7:11
But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? It is
a type of Jesus set forth for the Church, since whosoever should desire to take
away the scarlet wool it behoved him to suffer many things owing to the terrible
nature of the thorn, and through affliction to win the mastery over it. Thus, He
saith, they that desire to see Me, and to attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold
on Me through tribulation and affliction.
Barnabas 7:6 Attend ye to the commandments which He gave. Take two goats,
fairand alike, and offer them, and let the priest take the one for awhole burnt
offering for sins. Barnabas 7:7 But the other one–what must they do with it?
Accursed, saith He,is the one. Give heed how the type of Jesus is revealed.
Barnabas 7:8 And do ye all spit upon it and goad it, and place scarlet wool
about its head, and so let it be cast into the wilderness. And when it is so
done, he that taketh the goat into the wilderness leadeth it, and taketh off the
wool, and putteth it upon the branch which is called Rachia, the same whereof we
are wont to eat the shoots when we find them in the country. Of this briar alone
is the fruit thus sweet.
7:9What then meaneth this? Give heed. The one at the alter, and the other
accursed. And moreover the accursed one crowned. For they shall see Him in that
day wearing the long scarlet robe about His flesh, and shall say, Is not this
He, Whom once we crucified and set at nought and spat upon; verily this was He,
Who then said that He was the Son of God.
Barnabas 7:10For how is He like the goat? For this reason it says the goats
shall be fair and alike, that, when they shall see Him coming then, they may be
astonished at the likeness of the goat. Therefore behold the type of Jesus that
was to suffer. Barnabas 7:11 But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in
the midst of the thorns? It is a type of Jesus set forth for the Church, since
whosoever should desire to take away the scarlet wool it behoved himto suffer
many things owing to the terrible nature of the thorn, and through affliction to
win the mastery over it. Thus, He saith, theythat desire to see Me, and to
attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold on Me through tribulation and affliction.
This James (or Jacob, for these names were once interchangeable) was the son of
Hans Ulrich Rosemond, born 1623, a weaver; who was a son of Hans, a weaver, born
1581; who was a son of Fred Rosemond, born 1552, a weaver, member of town
council and a local captain; who was the son of another Hans whose date of birth
is not known, but he too, was a weaver and became a citizen of Basle in 1534.
His father was Erhart de Rougemont who bought in 1495 “the house called
Rebleuten-Zunft in Basle in the Freistrasse.'”

The Red Branch (from Old Irish: Cróeb Ruad meaning “dull red branch”; alternatively, from Old Irish: Cróeb Derg meaning “bright red branch”) is the name of two of the three royal houses of the king of Ulster, Conchobar mac Nessa, at his capital Emain Macha (Navan Fort, near Armagh), in the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology. In modern retellings it is sometimes used as the name of an order of warriors, the Red Branch Knights.
The names of two of Conchobar’s houses can be translated as “Red Branch”, as Old Irish had two words for “red”: derg, bright red, the colour of fresh blood, flame or gold; and ruad, dull or brownish red, used for the colour of dried blood or red hair.[1] The Cróeb Ruad (modern Irish Craobh Rua, “dull red branch”) was where the king sat;[2] its name has survived as the townland of Creeveroe in County Armagh. The Cróeb Derg (modern Irish Craobh Dearg, “bright red branch”) was where the severed heads and other trophies of battle were kept. His third house was called the Téite Brec or “speckled hoard”, where the heroes’ weapons were stored.[2]

At this point British-Israelite theory must return to the division of the Birthright between the Houses of Joseph and Judah, where the themes of “Scepter and Lawmaking”, the “Lineage of the Scarlet Thread”, the “House of David”, and the “Call of Jeremiah” can be found. Until this point, the brunt of the theory has focused on the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and the birthright promises given to it by Jacob. From here, the theory turns its focus to the kingly role of the House of Judah, the division of the kingship between Judah’s twin sons, Zerah and Perez, and the eternal establishment of the Throne of David over both Judah and Israel.
British-Israelism’s line of argument is fairly straightforward, though its weaving back and forth between scriptural and psudo-historical texts is often confusing. Essentially, however, the course of events is easily told, and begins with the Themes of Scepter and Lawmaking, and of the Scarlet Thread. Following the death of Joseph in Egypt, and in accordance with Jacob’s splitting of the birthright, the descendants of Judah–Zerah and his sons, the children of the Scarlet Thread–began to rule in northern, or Lower Egypt. Eventually, the Zerahite Kings were overthrown by a Pharaoh of Upper Egypt who “knew not Joseph”, and the descendants of Judah through Zerah, were forced to flee. They left, by ship, north through the Mediterranean Sea to settle in Greece, Troy, and on the Iberian peninsula. Eventually, in multiple waves and through many different routes, the House of Judah through Zerah would establish itself in the British Isles as the High Kings of Ireland, the royal family into which the Davidic dynasty would be grafted at a later date. Meanwhile, back in Egypt, the rest of the Hebrews are made slaves, and would eventually leave under Moses.

Because British-Israelites opposed the spiritualization of scripture, both covenants were viewed as actual. Indeed, if the Christ covenant is actual, then the multitudinous seed covenant must also be actual. In this way the veracity of British-Israel’s claims, as viewed in their understanding of the first covenant, is based upon the same authority as the promise of Christ in the second covenant. Hence, if their birthright thesis is false, then Christ’s initial coming must also be viewed with skepticism. In addition, the eventual return of Israel to the “family of God” will be tied to this promise and the original coming of Christ which it predicts. By the combination of these factors, and with the perspective of historicity in prophecy which British-Israelites gave to these promises, another tenet of British-Israelite biblical hermeneutics is maintained–that “God’s will has been, and forever will be, perfectly fulfilled according to the letter of the scripture.”


Jacob received the birthright from his father, Isaac, as a single blessing. God confirmed this blessing, making additional remarks and bestowing a few refinements such as the name “Israel”, but it had basically remained the same since the days of Abraham. With Jacob, however, the simple passing of the birthright, as a single package, from one descendant to the next would end; instead, a division occurred.
According to the ancient law of primogenitor Reuben, Jacob’s first-born son, should have received the birthright promises. However, like the two preceding generations in the line from Abraham, the elder son failed to meet the qualifications and was passed over for a younger son–indeed, thanks to Reuben’s sins with his father’s concubine, Bilhah, the birthright was re-directed to two of Israel’s younger, but more prominent sons, Joseph and Judah. This division is an important point for Br itish-Israelism because much of their terminology, and thus their hermeneutic, stems from their conception of the identity of Israel in opposition to the nature of being a Jew. Put succinctly:
When the term Israel was used in contradistinction to Judah it referred to the northern kingdom of the ten tribes only. The people of the ten-tribed northern kingdom were never called Jews: the term Jew referring exclusively to people in the small southern kingdom of Judah . . . Thus every Jew was also an Israelite, but every Israelite was not a Jew, in the same way as every Scotsman is a Briton but every Briton is not a Scotsman.
Hence the important dichotomy of Israel and Judah is established, one which will make greater sense once

In connection with the record of the fact that the “high,” or ruling, Prince of Judah has been uncrowned and dethroned, and that the “low” has been crowned and placed on the throne, we find that a royal prince, a royal princess and the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel are all together in the same country, also that this royal pair are united and placed on a throne, and are ruling over the kingdom of Israel.
These facts are recorded in the seventeenth chapter of Ezekiel in the form of a riddle and a parable, which, together with their explanation, make up the subject matter of the entire chapter, which opens as follows: “And the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; and say, Thus saith the Lord God, etc.” The Hebrew word which is here translated riddle is defined as “A puzzle; hence a trick, conundrum, dark saying, hard question,” etc.� These definitions corre�spond to our English thought of an enigma, or some�thing proposed which is to be solved by conjecture; a puzzling question; or an ambiguous proposition.� A parable, on the other hand, is more like a fable or an allegorical representation of something which is real in its relation to human life and thought, and is repre�sented by something real in nature.

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.