This is ​Item 4 from the 'Further Research Required' section of the Last First and The First Last paper. Health warning – This represents a prospectively large body of future research. 

The Stones

Again, we are about to see the value of carrying out this ‘Last First’ research in its wider context of improving the LW understandings related to the twelve tribes. The verse in focus is the following one related to the setting of the twelve stones in the breastplate of judgement with the clear meaning for ‘הָאֶחָד’  being ‘first’ of four:

17 And thou shalt interweave with it a texture of four rows of stone; there shall be a row of stones, a sardius (ruby), a topaz, and emerald, the first row. (Exodus 28 LXXb)
17 וּמִלֵּאתָ בוֹ מִלֻּאַת אֶבֶן, אַרְבָּעָה טוּרִים אָבֶן:  טוּר, אֹדֶם פִּטְדָה וּבָרֶקֶת--הַטּוּר, הָאֶחָד. (Exodus 28 MM)

Consequently, we find ourselves looking at the other three rows of settings:

18 And the second row, a carbuncle (garnet), a sapphire, and a jasper.
19 And the third row, a ligure (jacinth), an agate, an amethyst:
20 and the fourth row, a chrysolite, and a beryl, and an onyx stone, set round with gold, bound together with gold: let them be according to their row.
21 And let the stones of the names of the children of Israel be twelve according to their names, engravings as of seals: let them be for the twelve tribes each according to the name. (Exodus 28 LXXb)

First off, the gemstones in parentheses are my own addition for clarity. The various bible translations seem generally to be unclear as to the proper descriptions of some of the various gemstones. I found the Septuagint (LXXb) translation to be the version with most clarity but even there I believe I needed to add my own further clarification. The main driver for this was that some of the translations did not have each gemstone being unique on the breastplate which they clearly need to be given that each one represents a different tribe of Israel. Given the ‘Last First’ motivation, we thought the sequence of stones should match some relevant sequence to the brethren/tribes.
 

The Birth Sequence

Next we looked at the birth sequence of the twelve brothers:

32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben. For she said, Because Jehovah hath looked upon my affliction. For now my husband will love me.
33 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and said, Because Jehovah hath heard that I am hated, he hath therefore given me this [son] also. And she called his name Simeon.
34 And she conceived again, and bare a son. And said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons. Therefore was his name called Levi.
35 And she conceived again, and bare a son. And she said, This time will I praise Jehovah. Therefore she called his name Judah. And she left off bearing. (Genesis 29 ASV)

So from Leah we have the birth sequence of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and then Judah. Then we have the first of Rachel/Bilhah’s progeny:

6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.
7 And Bilhah Rachel's handmaid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.
8 And Rachel said, With mighty wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. (Genesis 30 ASV)

Here we see there was considerable rivalry between Rachel and Leah regarding their production of Jacob’s offspring. By prevailing with the birth of Naphtali, it would seem that Rachel’s two sons trumped the first of Leah thereby making Dan the second and Naphtali the third-born son of Jacob giving us the birth sequence thus far of Reuben, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi and then Judah. Next, we have Jacob’s progeny from Leah’s handmaid:

10 And Zilpah Leah's handmaid bore Jacob a son.
11 And Leah said: 'Fortune is come!' And she called his name Gad.
12 And Zilpah Leah's handmaid bore Jacob a second son.
13 And Leah said: 'Happy am I! for the daughters will call me happy.' And she called his name Asher. (Genesis 30 JPS)

This then extends the birth sequence to Reuben, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi,  Judah, Gad and then Asher. This is then followed by two more sons born to Leah:

18 Then Leah said: God has given me a hireling's wages, because I have given my maidservant to my husband. So she called his name Issachar.
19 And Leah became pregnant once more and in time bore a 6th son to Jacob.
20 Then Leah said: God has endowed me, yes, me, with a good endowment. At last my husband will tolerate me, because I have borne him 6 sons. So she called his name Zebulun. (Genesis 30 NWT)

This further extends the birth sequence to Reuben, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi,  Judah, Gad, Asher, Issachar and then Zebulun. Then Rachel bore another:

24 and she called his name Joseph, saying, Jehovah add to me another son. (Genesis 30 ASV)

From which we then have the birth sequence of Reuben, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun and then Joseph. Then finally we have Rachel’s birth of Benjamin to make the full set of twelve sons of Israel in the birth sequence of Reuben, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi,  Judah, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and finally Benjamin:

18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. (Genesis 35 KJV)

Now, it is a source of wonderment to me that this birth order does not seem to be acknowledged by any other commentators that I have examined on this topic. The birth order normally accepted seems to be the order in which the brethren’s births are sequenced in the bible account. Rachel’s comment in Genesis 30:8 of 'having prevailed against her sister' is either ignored or commented upon as ‘not making sense’ (https://www.thetorah.com/article/how-the-israelite-family-was-put-together-the-twelve-sons-of-jacob). So, whilst ‘last being first’ does not quite cut this ‘resequencing’ of birth order, it certainly demonstrates the power of the LW’s understanding of the True Bible Code. It seems that no other bible researcher, outside of the LWs, has been able to reach this meaning from the scriptures. However, despite this apparent ‘superior’ understanding, I am afraid it still does not pass the ‘so what?’ test. I am not sure what this resequencing means so. in itself, this represents a further aspect for later research.

However, this is not the end of the story. If we look at Genesis 49, in which Jacob gives his blessings/prophecies to his twelve sons, we get yet another sequence. This all needs to be unravelled. Whilst not obviously directly relevant to the ‘Last First’ matter at hand, my first question was ‘Why were Simeon and Levi ‘blessed’ together?’. Let us look at the relevant scriptures:

33 And she conceived again, and bare a son: and said, Because Jehovah hath heard that I am hated, he hath therefore given me this [son] also. And she called his name Simeon.
34 And she conceived again, and bare a son. And said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons. Therefore was his name called Levi. (Genesis 29 ASV)

21 And afterwards she bare a daughter, and called her name Dinah. (Genesis 30 ASV)

So, Simeon and Levi were the second and third sons born to Leah, and Dinah was their younger sister.

1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. (Genesis 34 KJV)

Whilst it may well have been consensual, in those times to take an unmarried virgin without the proper parental consent being given, and especially since an uncircumcised male had been involved, this was taken as an afront to Jacob and his household:

25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. (Genesis 34 KJV)

Whilst Jacob was prepared to take a more even-handed approach to the matter, Simeon and Levi took it upon themselves to slaughter the whole of the city of Hamor. As a result of this we have Jacob’s comments treating Simeon and Levi as close brothers in their joint act of vengeance for their sister’s violation. This was more of a curse than a blessing I think:

5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; Weapons of violence are their swords.
6 O my soul, come not thou into their council; Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hocked an ox.
7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel. (Genesis 49 ASV)

As a direct result we see that there was no tribe named by Moses as Simeon later in Deuteronomy 33; Levi was a different matter. Levi lost his land inheritance but, presumably because of his faithful progeny, the tribe of Levi became the source of the Levitical priesthood:

8 At that time Jehovah set apart the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, to stand before Jehovah to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.
9 Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; Jehovah is his inheritance, according as Jehovah thy God spake unto him.) (Deuteronomy 10 ASV)

Consequently, Judah rose up through the ranks to number 2 in the pecking order of the tribes. Let us have a look at the status of Reuben’s tribe. Certainly Jacob’s son, Reuben, was admonished for his defiling of his father’s bed by sleeping with Jacob’s concubine, Bilhah:

22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: (Genesis 35 KJV)

3 Reuben, thou [art] my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou [it]: he went up to my couch. (Genesis 49 KJV)

However, compared with Simeon, Reuben's tribe was to continue although, according to Moses, that tribe was small in numbers at that time:

6 Let Ruben live, and not die; and let him be many in number. (Deuteronomy 33 LXXb)

However, it looks as if Reuben’s place as the first-born was to be replaced by one of the sons of Joseph, according to the prophecy of Jacob. In that regard Joseph’s tribe was to be replaced and increased by the two tribes of his sons Ephraim and Manasseh which were to take over from Reuben and Simeon. However, that is not evident from the Deuteronomy 33 naming of the tribes:

5 And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, [are] mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. (Genesis 48 KJV)

By the time it came for Moses to divide up the land amongst the Children of Israel, those two tribes had been established:

4 For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, save cities to dwell [in], with their suburbs for their cattle and for their substance. (Joshua 14 KJV)

13 Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: This shall be the border, whereby ye shall divide the land for inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph [shall have two] portions. (Ezekiel 47 ASV)

And then we have Moses’ blessing to the tribes of Israel: yet another sequence with Simeon missing. I found this different sequence explanation: ‘First, each passage lists the tribes in a different order. Genesis follows the birth order of Jacob’s sons (see Gen 29–30), while the order in Deuteronomy is harder to understand, though some scholars have suggested geographic location as a key feature (east to west among the southern tribes, then among the northern tribes, then among the maidservants’-children tribes)’ from: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-two-blessings-of-the-twelve-tribes-varying-perspectives-similar-function. This website also contains further information on the brothers/tribes that support their treatments and sequencing as I have described above.  Again, another matter for further research.

Now the Law of Moses had something to say about the inheritance order where two wives of a man produced his off-spring. It seems that this was tailor-made to ‘correct’ Jacob’s decision-making on the subject since Jacob was not under the Law when he pronounced his blessings to his twelve sons:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his. (Deuteronomy 21 KJV)

So, according to the Law, Jacob was not correct in giving Reuben's first-born rights to Joseph. Equally the doubling of portions was not given to Reuben but was awarded to Joseph’s sons albeit by Moses not Jacob. However, we clearly have the mitigating circumstance of Reuben's defiling his father's bed, so I guess that situation was not covered by the Law anyway? Ezra confirms that Reuben (also Simeon by omission) lost his birth-right to Joseph’s sons. Furthermore, he also confirms the rise of Judah through the tribal ranks to become top dog:

1 And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he [was] the first-born; but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be counted according to the birthright;
2 for Judah prevailed among his brothers, and from him [was] the chief ruler, but the birthright [was] Joseph's) (1 Chronicles 5 GLT)

So, going back to the original thesis, we can see that the first row of three stones/sons in Reuben, Simeon and Levi lost their original birth-right arguably becoming the last? Whoops, this represents Genesis 29/30 sequence not the LW sequence! Perhaps the stones were meant to represent the Genesis 29/30 sequence? And what of the last row becoming first? More research required!

Anyway, here it all is in a table for clarity (mine as well as my reader!): 

​​** Simeon and Levi shared the same ‘blessing’ from Jacob. 

That’s probably enough for the moment on the rankings of the twelve sons/tribes; let us return to the main theme of the rows of gemstones!
 

Sequence of Tent Pitching of The Twelve Tribes

For this we need to look at Numbers Chapter 2:

3 And those that encamp on the east side toward the sunrising shall be they of the standard of the camp of Judah, according to their hosts: and the prince of the children of Judah shall be Nahshon the son of Amminadab. (Numbers 2 ASV)

5 And those that encamp next unto him shall be the tribe of Issachar: and the prince of the children of Issachar shall be Nethanel the son of Zuar. (Numbers 2 ASV)

7 [And] the tribe of Zebulun: and the prince of the children of Zebulun shall be Eliab the son of Helon. (Numbers 2 ASV)

So, here we have the tribes of Judah, Issachar and Zebulun lining up on the east side as the first row of three stones/tribes. Then on the south side we have:

10 On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their hosts: and the prince of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur. (Numbers 2 ASV)

12 And those that encamp next unto him shall be the tribe of Simeon: and the prince of the children of Simeon shall be Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. (Numbers 2 ASV)

14 And the tribe of Gad: and the prince of the children of Gad shall be Eliasaph the son of Reuel. (Numbers 2 ASV)

So, next we have the tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Gad lining up on the south side as the second row of three stones/tribes. Then on the west side we have:

18 On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their hosts: and the prince of the children of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud. (Numbers 2 ASV)

20 And next unto him shall be the tribe of Manasseh: and the prince of the children of Manasseh shall be Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur. (Numbers 2 ASV)

22 And the tribe of Benjamin: and the prince of the children of Benjamin shall be Abidan the son of Gideoni. (Numbers 2 ASV)

So, here we have the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin lining up on the west side as the third row of three stones/tribes. Then on the north side we have:

25 On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan according to their hosts: and the prince of the children of Dan shall be Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai. (Numbers 2 ASV)

27 And those that encamp next unto him shall be the tribe of Asher: and the prince of the children of Asher shall be Pagiel the son of Ochran. (Numbers 2 ASV)

29 And the tribe of Naphtali: and the prince of the children of Naphtali shall be Ahira the son of Enan. (Numbers 2 ASV)

So, finally we have the tribes of Dan, Asher and Naphtali lining up on the north side as the fourth and last row of three stones/tribes.

Bear in mind that this whole exercise started off with the first row of stones not the first son. So, by looking at the various sequences of presentation of the twelve brothers, this is the first occurrence I found of the four rows of three stones being shown as to represent the four encampments each of three tribes.

Below I reproduce the diagram of the tribe divisions to be found on the True Bible Code website from Understanding 151 - Revelation 7 Decoded and Understanding 192 - Matthew 20: 5 Calls to work in the householder’s vineyard. The Householder left the Vineyard 5x to hire a new set of workers, a new true church congregation:

Jewish Lords' Witness

The Setting of Stones in the Breastplate of Judgement

Now, I have to confess that I do not understand the allocation of the four TCCs (True Christian Churches) to the four encampment sides. This is covered in U192 under the section entitled ‘Word Symbolic meaning relating to the designation 'householder'’. This is a matter that I have reviewed with Gordon and, as a result, we uncovered an error in U192. This will be a matter for Gordon to correct. However, as far as U192 is concerned, I was drawn full circle back to Matthew Chapter 20:

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.
6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?
7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, [that] shall ye receive.
8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them [their] hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
9 And when they came that [were hired] about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
11 And when they had received [it], they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take [that] thine [is], and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20 KJV)

So, in this parable we have five categories of labourer: those called in the early morning, and those called in the third, sixth, ninth and eleventh hours. As a parable and therefore as an analogy it would seem to be more than reasonable to interpret these calls in terms of the True Bible Code as calls into the Jewish faith followed by the four True Christian Churches (TCCs) of the Catholics, Gnostics, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Lords’ Witnesses respectively and temporally.

However, we have five categories of labourer but U192 fits this into four camps/churches; this feels a little like force-fitting since the first is the Jewish call and the last is the LWs. So let us examine Matthew chapter 20 in a little more detail. In looking at the ‘last first and first last’ principle thus far, we have considered only the transposition of the two. But, in this case, is it a viable option to consider merging the first with the last thereby retaining four entities or groups? Verse 12 talks about making the first and the last ‘equal’. Also verse 14 confirms that the reward for the last will equal that for the first. So, this merging of the two groups would seem to me to be valid, at least in this case.

So which groups are we talking about in the greater meaning? The LWs (TCC4) and the Jewish patriarchal faithful perhaps? They have one thing in common: they do not taste the first death. Arguably both were/will be raptured into Eden2 (Understanding 54 - Eden2 and Eden3: Star Trek is a Reality: Where was David resurrected to?) possibly via the Ark? Neither class will be resurrected from Hades. But first I need to consider the following scripture:

28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out. (KJV)
28 ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, ὅταν ὄψησθε Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ πάντας  τοὺς προφήτας ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους ἔξω. (OGB)
29 And they shall come from the east, and [from] the west, and from the north, and [from] the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. (KJV)
29 καὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. (OGB)
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. (Luke 13 KJV)
30  καὶ ἰδοὺ εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι οἳ ἔσονται πρῶτοι, καὶ εἰσὶν πρῶτοι οἳ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι. (Luke 13 OGB)

So, is this telling us that the interpretation of Eden2 (U54) (or Eden3?) is that it is going to be the Kingdom of God on Earth? If I am correct then I do not think we will need Eden3. Verse 29 seems to be telling us that all four groups will be going there. But then we have the last first and first last statement. This will need some unravelling! But then we have Matthew telling us that only the east and west groups will join the Patriarchs:

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 8 KJV)
11  λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ  Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· (Matthew 8 WHO)

So, comparing Luke 13:29 and Matthew 8:11, the latter tells us that only those from the east and west will sit down ‘with’ (μετὰ) the patriarchs. Luke tells us that those from all four encampments will sit in the Kingdom but not ‘with’ the patriarchs. Also the sequence of encampment sites is different between Numbers 2 (E, W, N, S) and Luke 13 (E, S, W, N).

Some weeks after the original writing of this sub-section, I discovered yet another different sequence of the tribes in Ezekiel 48 in regard to the gates to the four sides of the prospective city to be built. Furthermore there are 'portions' allocated to the tribes again in a different sequence described in the earlier verses of Ezekiel 48. Again I cannot yet make out the relation between the gates and the portions. I reproduce the biblical references to the gates: 

31 And the gates of the city [shall be] after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.
32 And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.
33 And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures: and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun.
34 At the west side four thousand and five hundred, [with] their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali. (Ezekiel 48 KJV)

Having discussed all the above with Gordon, we currently do not have a full greater meaning to all of this as at the time of writing, but it certainly seems that there is one awaiting further investigation.

Date of Original Publication: 20th December 2023