INTRODUCTION
Certain Christian circles insist that modern day Jews are literal Edomites — the living descendants of Esau — Jacob/Israel’s older twin brother. And many of those who hold this view generally agree that Edomites became synonymous with modern day Jews around 150 BC when John Hyrcanus — the Hasmonean high priest leader of Judea — offered them citizenship on condition that they submit to circumcision and practice Hebrewism — the dominant religion in Judea at that time.
We will give a brief summary of the history surrounding this view, scrutinize the evidence, and then elaborate on it.
HISTORY OF EDOM IN JUDEA
During the second temple period, around 168 BC, Israel came under the power of the Seleucid Empire — ruled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes — and underwent a period of great trouble. As a result of that trouble, Israel resisted and began what is known as the Maccabean revolts. Simultaneously — in the success of the revolts — this began the Hasmonean dynasty, which was a series of high priestly rulers.
These events can be seen in the Scriptures in Daniel 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 — along with the apocryphal books of the Maccabees.
During that time, after casting off their Seleucid rulers in Jerusalem, Israel — under the Hasmonean dynasty — began to steadily retake the lands around them. In 150 BC, the high priest ruler John Hyrcanus, conquered the land of Edom — known by its Greek name “Idumea” — during that time, and decreed to the Edomites that if they wanted to remain in their land, they were to be circumcised and convert to the Israelite religion and culture. Flavius Josephus wrote,
Hyrcanus took also Dora, and Marissa, cities of Idumea; and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews. And they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living. At which time therefore this befel them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.
Antiquities of the Jews, book 13, chapter 9, section 1
Around 69 BC, there was civil conflict over Hasmonean rulership between the Hasmonean brothers, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. The Romans under Pompey the Great intervened and took Jerusalem, henceforth causing Judea to be a Roman state. Judea was then reinstated to Hyrcanus II. That same Hyrcanus had an adviser by the name of Antipater, who was an Idumean — an Edomite — by birth.
Around 47 BC, when Julius Caesar defeated Pompey the Great, he instated Antipater — who was in his good graces — as governor of Judea. Antipater instated his own son — later know as “Herod the Great” — as governor of Galilee. Then in 40 BC the Parthians invaded Judea and briefly reinstated the Hasmonean dynasty under Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II.
Herod then promised to reconquer Judea under the authority of the Romans, who agreed and made him king of the area. When Herod marched on Jerusalem and camped outside of it, Josephus records the following exchange,
And as soon as he [Herod] had pitched his camp on the west side of the city, the soldiers that were set to guard that part shot their arrows, and threw their darts at him. And when some sallied out in a crowd, and came to fight hand to hand with the first ranks of Herod’s army, he gave orders, that they should in the first place make proclamation about the wall; that “He came for the good of the people; and for the preservation of the city; and not to bear any old grudge at even his most open enemies: but ready to forget the offences which his greatest adversaries had done him.” But Antigonus, by way of reply to what Herod had caused to be proclaimed, and this before the Romans, and before Silo also, said, that “They would not do justly if they gave the Kingdom to Herod; who was no more than a private man, and an Idumean, i. e. an half Jew: whereas they ought to bestow it on one of the royal family: as their custom was.
Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, chapter 15, section 2
In the end Herod succeeded in his military conquest, and thus began the Herodian dynasty — which was a series of Rome-sanctioned positions of rulership over the Israelites in varying capacities under the Herodian family, who were Edomites by patrilineal descent.
Therefore, Herod the Great who massacred the children around Bethlehem, Herod Antipas who had John the Baptist murdered and Herod Agrippa to whom Paul spoke in the book of Acts were all related Edomite men.
Many Christians insist that those Edomites conquered by John Hyrcanus — as well as those of the Herodian dynasty — were not pure, Adamic people — but rather they were allegedly racial “bastards” per Deuteronomy 23:2 — meaning mamzers or mixed bloods. And because of that, they were forbidden from entering Israelite congregations or marriages.
They contend that despite the clear Scriptural prohibition against allowing “bastards” into Israelite congregations, John Hyrcanus — the Hasmonean-Israelite high priest of Judea — allowed these alleged mixed-blood Edomites to convert anyway in violation of Deuteronomy 23:2 — and thus became “Jews” as we know them today.
As Christians, we would do well to follow Paul’s sage advice in 1 Thessalonians 5:21,
Prove all things; hold fast all that which is good.
In this light, we will endeavor to investigate what the Scripture actually says — and doesn’t say — about the Edomite people — and so we will start at the very beginning.
ESAU’S WIVES – THE CANAANITES
Those adhering to this view of the Edomites as racially impure will readily acknowledge that their patriarch — Esau — was a pure Adamic man — as they cannot do otherwise, given that he has the same father and mother of Jacob himself. And so their contention that the Edomites — Esau’s descendants — were not racially pure naturally begins with Genesis 26:34-35:
34 When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35 and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah.
Their assertion that Edomites could not be a pure Adamic is based on their presumption that the Hittite people with whom Esau inter-married were not pure Adamic. And naturally, if the Hittite women whom Esau took as wives were not Adamic, then their children would not be Adamic either.
Their contention that the Hittites are not racially pure is that they are descendants of Canaan (Genesis 10:15) — and they also allege that all the Canaanites are not a pure Adamic people — despite the fact that Canaan’s descendants are listed in Scripture as legitimate members of the Genesis 10 nations.
The Scriptural “proof” they will offer that the Canaanites cannot be a pure Adamic people is that God commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites — and commanded Israel not to intermarry with them.
They use passages like Exodus 33:23-24,31-33 in support of this view,
23 For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. 24 You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their memorial stones in pieces… 31 I will set your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates River; for I will hand over the inhabitants of the land to you, and you will drive them out from you. 32 You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. 33 They shall not live in your land, otherwise they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it is certain to be a snare to you.”
Note that God here explains the exact reasons why he commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites — and none of those reasons include the charge that the Canaanites were mamzers — or racially impure.
However, those who insist the Canaanites are not pure completely ignore these explicit qualifying statements by God, while drawing our attention to a reason which God does not give — that Canaanites are not pure. In other words, we are told to ignore what Scripture clearly states and instead to focus on what it does not state.
Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is also often given in support of this view,
1 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to take possession of it, and He drives away many nations from before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, 2 and when the Lord your God turns them over to you and you defeat them, you shall utterly destroy them. You shall not make a covenant with them nor be gracious to them. 3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them: you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4 For they will turn your sons away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. 5 But this is what you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, smash their memorial stones, cut their Asherim to pieces, and burn their carved images in the fire.
In this example — once again — the qualifying reason for the conflict is explicitly given — but ignored again because it’s not racial. Again, we are expected to ignore what is stated but focus on what is not stated.
We should point out that those who insist that the Canaanites were not a pure Adamic people also say that Israelites being turned away from God is the natural result of being with non-white Canaanites.
However, this circular logic demonstrates that they have merely begged the question.
They have insisted that Canaanites are non-white because they would turn Israel from serving God. And then they insist that Canaanites would turn Israel from serving God because they are non-white. The premise and the conclusion in this argument are one and the same — a textbook example of a logical fallacy.
There is nothing in the Scripture stating categorically that all the Canaanites were mamzers or racially impure; however, there were a few Canaanites around the city of Hebron known as the “Sons of Anak” (Numbers 13:22, Deuteronomy 2:11), who had mixed with the Rephaim (giants). By virtue of their size — being mixed with giants — the Scriptures always record these physical features when meeting these giant-Adamite hybrid mongrels.
However, no such physical evidence of hybridization is given with the children of Heth — the Hittites.
Further, there is also Deuteronomy 20:16-18:
16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave anything that breathes alive. 17 Instead, you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they will not teach you to do all the same detestable practices of theirs which they have done for their gods, by which you would sin against the Lord your God.
For a third time — a third witness — when God commands Israel to destroy the Canaanites, He also gives the reason — the qualifying statement which is consistent with the rest of the qualifying statements in the context of destroying the Canaanites. We should conclude by now that this has to do with the evil which the Canaanites practiced and has nothing to do with them being racially mixed or impure.
THE KENITE/CANAANITE CONNECTION – OR LACK THEREOF?
To further prove that the Canaanites were not a pure, Adamic people, they will often claim that they mixed with Cain — one of the sons of Eve — who dwelt in the land of Canaan — and that Cain is the physical son not of Adam but of Satan, who — they claim — is the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
However, from the very start this theory about Cain is on very shaky ground — as Genesis 7:19 says of the destructive Flood,
And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
If all of the mountains under heaven — which is to say all of them on the planet, as the whole planet is under the heavens — then how is it that Cain’s descendants — who were not on the Ark — could have survived?
Let us for a moment hypothetically concede that Cain could have somehow survived the Flood — even though no such reason is offered in Scripture. How then could Cain be the physical son of the serpent when Genesis 4:1 clearly states,
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
Of course those who insist that Cain is the literal son of the serpent have no choice but to claim that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupted verse — and is basically unintelligible in the “original” Hebrew. They merely presume that the uncorrupted original would have supported their theory that Cain is the natural born son of the serpent — with no proof that it would have. One could just as easily conjecture that the uncorrupted verse would have affirmed that Cain was Adam’s natural born son.
However, there is a very simple way to resolve this — we can look for another witness in sources such as the Septuagint, which is the Greek rendering of the Old Testament.
The beauty of having the Septuagint is that where the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint are close, they can be compared to get the most accurate translation possible. We could also look at the more recent Dead Sea Scrolls, but unfortunately they have not found a scroll which corresponds to Genesis 4:1. So we are left to compare the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint.
In the original Septuagint Greek, Genesis 4:1 stands as follows,
Αδάμ δε (And Adam) έγνω (knew) Εύαν (Eve) την γυναίκα αυτού (his wife) και (and) συλλαβούσα (conceiving) Έτεκε (she bore) τον Καϊν (Cain) και (and) είπεν (said) Εκτησάμην (I acquired) άνθρωπον (a man) διά (through) του θεού (God)
As is evident, this is how the vast majority of translations render this passage — because most translations do, in fact, use the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls combined as far as possible. To go directly to the Masoretic text and use it to critique modern translations doesn’t do justice to the modern translation process of the Old Testament.
It should be clear then that Cain was indeed the son of Adam and Eve — not of Eve and the serpent. However, let us again hypothetically concede — contrary to evidence — that Cain was the son of the serpent and somehow survived the flood. In the next piece of the argument, those who hold the view that Cain is the son of the serpent will cite Genesis 15:18-20,
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 the land of the Kenite, the Kenizzite, the Kadmonite, 20 the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.”
They contend that the Kenites are physical descendants of Cain merely on the grounds that the word for “Kenite” comes from the word “Cain”— in the same way that the word “Hittite” comes from the word “Heth”. Thus, when the Kenites mixed in with the Canaanites, the Canaanites allegedly became racially mixed.
However, we can easily demonstrate that the Kenites here in Genesis 15 are not physical descendants of Cain — despite the origin of the word “Kenite”. The first reference we have of the Kenites — other than Genesis 15 — is when Balaam is prophesying about the peoples in the region — and says of the Kenites in Numbers 24:21-22,
21 And he looked at the Kenite, and took up his discourse and said, “Your dwelling place is enduring, And your nest is set in the cliff. 22 Nevertheless Kain will suffer devastation; How long will Asshur keep you captive?”
This passage clearly states that the Kenites dwell in cliffs — and that they will be captive under Asshur — son of Shem (Genesis 10:22) — which is the Scriptural reference to Assyria. Let’s keep note of that for now.
The next reference we have of the Kenites is in Judges 1:16:
Now the descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of palms with the sons of Judah, to the wilderness of Judah which is in the south of Arad; and they went and lived with the people.
Here we can see that traveling along with Israel was a group of Kenites who were also descendants of Moses’ father-in-law. These Kenites were with Israel even after they had begun their conquest of the land of Canaan. Scripture tells the story of when these Kenites joined Israel in Numbers 10:29-32:
29 Then Moses said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, “We are setting out to the place of which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will do you good, for the Lord has promised good concerning Israel.” 30 But he said to him, “I will not come, but rather will go to my own land and relatives.” 31 Then he said, “Please do not leave us, since you know where we should camp in the wilderness, and you will be as eyes for us. 32 So it will be, if you go with us, that whatever good the Lord does for us, we will do for you.” 33 So they moved on from the mountain of the Lord three days’ journey, with the ark of the covenant of the Lord going on in front of them for the three days, to seek out a resting place for them.
The first striking fact we can see is that here Moses’ father-in-law is referred to as a Midianite — while in Judges 1:16 he is referred to as a Kenite. Midian was the son of Abraham and Keturah, which seems to be a genetic designation in the case of Moses’ father-in-law. But how could Moses father-in-law be a Kenite and a Midianite simultaneously?
The only reasonable explanation is that one designation is genetic and the other refers to something else. We have no genealogical origin of the Kenites in this context, but we do have genealogical origin of the Midianites. It seems more likely that Moses’ father-in-law is a physical descendant of Midian, son of Abraham.
Why is he also called a Kenite then? There are some theories, but ultimately the Scripture never explicitly tells us. It may have referred to some profession — a way of living — or the geographical location itself.
Speaking of geographical locations, the Kenites do seem to be fixed to one area originally, despite some of them moving around with Israel. After convincing the Kenites to join them, Numbers 10:33 states, “So they moved on from the mountain of the Lord.” It makes sense that Moses would speak with the Kenites there because that is where they lived. Exodus 18:5 says,
Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was camped, at the mountain of God.
Here again — at the mountain of God — Moses is meeting with his father-in-law, the Kenite. Even earlier than that, when Moses was living a pastoral life with his father-in-law and family, Exodus 3:1 says,
Now Moses was pasturing the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
It seems very clear by this point that the Kenites live very close to Horeb, which is a mountain. Now we should recall that Numbers 24:21 says of the Kenites,
And your nest is set in the cliff
Again, this makes sense because they live next to a mountain — Horeb — which must necessarily be located on what is now called the Sinai Peninsula — given that Israel camped there in Exodus 17 soon after crossing the Red Sea in Exodus 14. Then Numbers 24:22 says,
Nevertheless Kain will suffer devastation; How long will Asshur keep you captive
In the Assyrian conquests, they moved all the way through the Sinai Peninsula and into Egypt, which is fulfillment of this prophecy — and is another corroboration of the fact that the home of the Kenites is in the Sinai Peninsula. Why is all of this important? Remember how Genesis 15:18-19 says,
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 the land of the Kenite, the Kenizzite, the Kadmonite…
Genesis 15 tells us that the Kenites dwell somewhere between the river of Egypt — which is presumably the Nile — and the Euphrates — an area that easily includes the Sinai Peninsula, the home of the Kenites. Therefore, the Kenites of Genesis 15 and the Kenites who are Moses’ father-in-law’s people are one and the same people. If Moses’ father-in-law was a Kenite, then the Kenites cannot be a non-white people — and least of all, the physical descendants of Cain.
Incredibly, we are asked to ignore the fact that Cain is actually Adam’s son, and that the Flood wiped out his descendants — and that the Kenites are part of Moses’ own family — in order to believe that Cain or the Canaanites could be a non-Adamic people.
Given all this evidence, there is no reason to believe that the daughters of Heth — whom Esau took as wives — were racially impure as a result of their lineage as Canaanites, as many contend.
REBEKAH’S GRIEF
Those who still insist that the Canaanites were not a pure Adamic people offer as additional evidence that Rebekah — Esau and Jacob’s mother — was distraught over the wives whom Esau took. Genesis 27:46 says,
And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth like these from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?”
Conversely, Isaac commanded Jacob not to take wives from the Canaanites, as Genesis 28:1-2 tells us,
1 So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and commanded him, saying to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother.
They claim that Rebekah’s distress over Esau’s Canaanite wives — and Isaac’s command for Jacob to go to Rebekah’s family to find a wife — must have been because Canaanites — unlike Rebekah’s family — were racially impure. They also claim that this could not have been for religious or spiritual reasons because Rebekah’s family members were pagan.
After taking wives — Leah and Rachel — from his uncle Laban’s daughters, through a series of events Jacob perceives that he no longer has favor with Laban. Jacob tries to leave secretly, but Laban pursues him and catches up with him, laying the following accusation in Genesis 31:30,
Now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house; but why did you steal my gods?
Because Laban had pagan idols in his house, some have categorically claimed that the family must have been pagans. Therefore, in their view, Rebekah’s desire for Jacob to find a wife among them could not have been a religious or spiritual consideration — but this is a great oversimplification of the matter.
In the time of Abraham and afterward, monotheism was actually somewhat rare — seen only in a few instances in the Scripture before the law of Moses was given to Israel. In fact, it was the law of Moses which institutionalized monotheism amongst the Israelites themselves, given that they seemed to have been mired in pagan ways even in Egypt. Leviticus 18:3-5 says,
3 You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. 4 You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them; I am the Lord your God. 5 So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which, if a person follows them, then he will live by them; I am the Lord.
Even though Israelites were pagan in Egypt, they still served the true God of Israel as well. The point is that serving God and being pagan was not necessarily mutually exclusive in those times, even though it should have been exclusive, as we well know. The law of Moses — as Leviticus 18 would make clear to them — was about to make their religious life very exclusive and monotheistic.
Despite their pagan idols, there are tell-tale signs that Rebekah’s family still knew the God of Israel — and they were better mannered than the pagan people of Canaan. Following the story of Laban looking for his idols in Genesis 31, verses 34-35 relate,
34 Now Rachel had taken the household idols and put them in the camel’s saddlebag, and she sat on them. So Laban searched through all the tent, but did not find them. 35 And she said to her father, “May my lord not be angry that I cannot stand in your presence, because the way of women is upon me.” So he searched but did not find the household idols.
As we can see, Rachel excuses herself for not standing in the presence of her father — a practice commanded in Leviticus 19:32,
You shall stand up in the presence of the grayheaded and honor elders, and you shall fear your God; I am the Lord.
While pursuing Jacob, Laban had a dream in Genesis 31:24:
However, God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night and said to him, “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad.”
In spite of his anger, Laban concedes to this dream in Genesis 31:29:
It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.’
Laban well knew the God of Jacob’s father even when Abraham’s servant had come to find a wife for Isaac. Genesis 24:31 says,
And he [Laban] said, “Come in, blessed of the Lord! Why do you stand outside, since I have prepared the house, and a place for the camels?”
Where the passage says “Lord,” the Hebrew says “Yahweh,” which is a specific identifier for the God of Israel. Although the name of “Yahweh” was only revealed at the burning bush hundreds of years later in Exodus 3:15, evidence in Genesis clearly demonstrates that Laban knew the true God.
Laban and his family repeatedly show good will and hospitality to those around them — as Rebekah gave Abraham’s servant and his camels water when he came to look for a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24:18. She then invites Abraham’s servant to stay with them in Genesis 24:25, and Laban helped with the reception in Genesis 24:32. Laban shows Jacob the same welcome in Genesis 29:13. This is also a statue which Israel received later in Leviticus 19:34,
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.
It seems that this family also guarded the virginity of their women, as it says of Rebekah in Genesis 24:16,
The young woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had had relations with her.
Laban’s daughters — Leah and Rachel — were also virgins when they were each married to Jacob. Jacob had to work seven years for each of them — a tall price to pay for a wife if her virginity was not something to be guarded. It also speaks to the fact that they held the sanctity of marriage in high regard.
That Laban deceived Jacob into sleeping with Leah first implicitly reveals to us that Laban believed that the act of sex itself was tantamount to marriage itself. On the other hand, compare Laban’s behavior with how the Hivites — who also were Canaanites — treated the daughter of Jacob in Genesis 34:1-2:
1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land. 2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her and raped her.
This stands in quite a contrast to the social norm presented to us in Laban’s family. We can see in the examples of Scripture that Laban and his family were indeed more conservative in their values — and more “spiritual” than the people of Canaan.
Now recall Deuteronomy 7:3-4 which we quoted earlier:
3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them [Canaanites]: you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4 For they will turn your sons away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
The people of Israel are given an explicit command not to marry the Canaanite peoples — specifically because they would turn the Israelites away from following the true God of Israel. Consider a similar command which Abraham gives to his servant when told to look for a wife for Isaac in Genesis 24:3-4:
3 and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live; 4 but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac.
Jacob receives the same command in Genesis 28:1-2:
1 So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and commanded him, saying to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother.
The commands quoted in Genesis 24 and Genesis 28 are awfully close to the one given in Deuteronomy 7:3. Although Genesis 24 and 25 don’t have any qualifiers provided along with them, given what we have already presented here — and their closeness to Deuteronomy 7:3 which is given qualifiers — it would seem reasonable to conclude that the qualifiers are indeed the same.
The Lord says of Abraham in Genesis 18:19,
For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.
One of the purposes of Abraham’s family was to be a righteous and just people — and in order to maintain that righteousness, his descendants would need to make a concerted effort to choose appropriate wives — and not just in a racial sense. To expect Isaac or Jacob to have righteous families by default — simply by taking pure white, Adamic wives — goes against many examples in Scripture where pure white, Adamic people sin without any help from non-whites.
Given that Abraham instructed his family in ways of righteousness, it makes sense that Esau would look to Abraham’s family as it says in Genesis 28:8-9,
8 So Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan displeased his father Isaac; 9 and Esau went to Ishmael, and married, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth.
We presume that Rebekah would know the spiritual destiny of her family in light of Genesis 18:19 — and that this destiny seemed to be failing if her son, Esau, had taken wives from unrighteous people — and that her grandchildren would follow in the same steps. In light of this, we wouldn’t blame her for saying, “I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth like these from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?”
WAS ESAU SEXUALLY IMMORAL?
Another passage oft-quoted by those who believe that Esau took non-white wives is Hebrews 12:14-17:
14 Pursue peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that even afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
They claim that Hebrews here is asserting that Esau was a profane person and sexually immoral — and that the sexual immorality that he was engaging in was sleeping with women who were racially impure. If indeed they weren’t white, we would agree that this would be sexual immorality.
In the saying, “that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal” (Hebrews 12:16), we must acknowledge the inherent ambiguity of this statement — even in the original Greek. We freely admit that grammatically, there are two possible interpretations to the statement:
- We must not be sexually immoral or godless, like Esau was sexually immoral and godless
- We must not be sexually immoral, and we must also not be godless like Esau was godless
Make no mistake, either are possible, but only one can be true. For the first option to be true, we must make an assumption — Esau was sexually immoral. For the second option to be true, we do not need to make any extra assumptions, because we do not need to prove Esau was sexually immoral. The writer also contextualizes the meaning of being “godless” by saying that Esau “sold his own birthright”. Given that there are two viable options — the second of which can be true on its own, we must then prove the assumption that Esau was sexually immoral in order for the first option to be true — or even a contender.
As we have already shown, Esau did not commit any sexual immorality — and the account in Genesis does not reveal any sexual immorality either. There’s nothing in the entire Scripture stating that Esau was sexually immoral, unless one merely assumed Esau was sexually immoral. Therefore, their contention that Esau was sexually immoral is an example of having again begged the question.
The logic of their position is reduced to, “Esau was sexually immoral because Canaanites were not white. Canaanites were not white because Esau was sexually immoral.” Even this ignores the fact that — as we have shown — there is nothing in the passage in Hebrews which necessarily states that Esau was sexually immoral — at least not without evidence that he was sexually immoral.
Given that nothing in the Scripture states that Esau was sexually immoral, Hebrews 12:16 is actually not ambiguous at all. The writer of Hebrews appears to use Esau as an example of what would happen to someone in whom the root of bitterness springs up. Earlier Hebrews 12:1 says,
Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let’s rid ourselves of every obstacle and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let’s run with endurance the race that is set before us
When speaking of the root of bitterness, Hebrews is actually quoting Deuteronomy 29:16-18:
16 (for you know how we lived in the land of Egypt, and how we passed through the midst of the nations through which you passed; 17 moreover, you have seen their abominations and their idols made of wood and stone, silver and gold, which they had with them); 18 so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.
Both Hebrews 12:1 and Deuteronomy 29:16-18 are exhortations to remove all unrighteousness from our lives — of which sexual immorality seems to be one thing with which the Hebrews were struggling. They are again exhorted not to be sexually immoral in Hebrews 13:4:
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.
The Hebrews writer himself never mentions “race-mixing” throughout the work — and we can see that he contextualizes sexual immorality as specific to marriage — at least in the scope of this epistle. Furthermore, it’s probably a stretch to assume the Greek word “pornos” (G4205) — “that there be no sexually immoral [G4205]” — could ever refer to “race-mixing.” Suffice to say, one would need to prove it very specifically within the context of the use of the word.
In this way, Esau stands as prophetic precedent for what would happen to those in whom the root of bitterness would spring up — and in whom unrighteousness is found. When Esau realized his fault, he sought his own birthright, but at that point it was too late. In this way, he has fulfilled what the writer of Hebrews says, “See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God.”
Just as Deuteronomy 29:20 tells what will happen to the one in whom the root of bitterness is found,
The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His wrath will burn against that person, and every curse that is written in this book will lie upon him, and the Lord will wipe out his name from under heaven.
Hebrews concludes similarly in 12:28-29,
28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
With this in mind, we would argue then that a far better interpretation of Hebrews 12:16 is not simply to reduce it to something which is not explicit in the Scripture — and which is not even necessarily true from a grammatical standpoint. Rather Hebrews here is highlighting sexual immorality as particularly bad among all the exhortations given in Hebrews 13:1-5 — and if they continue, they will find themselves in a similar position to Esau who regretted his actions but found no recourse to undo them.
Just as it says of those same people in Matthew 13:42,
and they [the lawless] will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
They will weep and gnash their teeth because — like Esau — understanding their fate, there will be nothing left to be done — despite wishing that there were something which could be done. Their past actions which led them to the situation they find themselves in will seem wasteful and senseless.
EDOM IN THE LAW
Next, we would like to address a topic which seems to be ignored by some unspoken agreement within certain Christian circles — and that is Deuteronomy 23:7-8:
7 You shall not loathe an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not loathe an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land. 8 The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.
This single passage stands out as a powerful exoneration to the genetic purity of the Edomite people. It states emphatically that the Edomites in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord. And it is inconceivable that the high priest John Hyrcanus was not aware of this verse when he offered the Edomites Judean citizenship and conversion to the religion of the Hebrews.
Why would Edomites be allowed into the assembly of the Lord if they were not pure and unmixed, Adamic people? After all, they would have been excluded by Deuteronomy 23:2, which states that mixed breeds may not enter the assembly of the Lord. The simplest answer is that the Edomites were not mixed breeds.
This prima facie Scriptural proof that Edomites were indeed a pure Adamic people forces those who believe otherwise to dismiss Deuteronomy 23:7 outright — by hypothesizing that it was actually some kind of “scribal error” — and that the scribe meant to write the Hebrew word for “Asshur,” or Assyria, instead of similar word for Edomite.
The Septuagint confirms, however, that Deuteronomy 23:7 is indeed referring to the Edomites. And the Dead Sea Scrolls — both scrolls 4Q36 and 4Q45 — confirm that it is referring to Edomites. The Septuagint, the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls all seem to agree that the verse is referring to Edomites — not Assyrians. That’s three witnesses against the “scribal” error hypothesis.
In case that weren’t convincing enough, consider that Esau was Jacob’s literal brother — and so it would make sense to give this designation to the Edomites. The father of the Edomites — and the father of the Israelites — were twin brothers from the same mother and the same father. Deuteronomy 2:4 says,
…are going to pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau, who live in Seir…
Deuteronomy 2:8 says,
So we passed beyond our brothers the sons of Esau…
Numbers 20:14 says,
From Kadesh Moses then sent messengers to the king of Edom to say, “This is what your brother Israel has said…”
The book of Obadiah, which concerns the Edomites, says in verse 10,
Because of violence to your brother Jacob
Verse 12 says,
Do not gloat over your brother’s day
The Edomites are the only people in the entirety of the Scripture who are referred to as Israel’s brother — so to claim that Deuteronomy 23:7 is referring to a people who are not Edom seems to be quite a stretch, to say the least.
It is worth noting that Mark 3:8 casually mentions people from Idumea — the Edomites — coming to see the Lord, and yet Mark never makes any special note of it. We are not saying that the Lord paid special attention to them, as His mission at that time was only for the Israelites.
But we do have precedent for non-Israelites coming to see Him with the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) and the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10). Note how in Luke 7:3-4 the Judean elders had to urge the Lord to speak to the Centurion — given that he was not an Israelite.
Then there are the Greeks who come to the Lord in John 12:20-24 — where He states that His death will produce “much fruit,” as it will bring about His glory to the Genesis 10 nations.
One would think that with all of these non-Israelite Adamic people — including the Idumeans — coming to see the Lord, somewhere it would have been mentioned that they were racial mongrels — or that they were physical children of Satan — who should be spurned.
Instead, these events are only ever related in a positive light, including Mark 3:8.
EDOM IN PROPHECY
Those who maintain that the Edomites are modern day Jews often turn to prophecy to justify this view. We will not be covering all the prophecies concerning Edom, but will settle for covering one of their go-to “favorites” for now — Obadiah 1:15-18:
15 “For the day of the Lord is near for all the nations. Just as you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head. 16 For just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink to the last drop, And become as if they had never existed. 17 But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape, And it will be holy. And the house of Jacob will possess their property. 18 Then the house of Jacob will be a fire, And the house of Joseph a flame; But the house of Esau will be like stubble. And they will set them on fire and consume them, So that there will be no survivor of the house of Esau,” For the Lord has spoken.
They interpret this passage as referring to the evils which the Jews have done to the true Israel of Scripture. They will say that it was Jews who drank on the holy mountain — and that it is Jews who will become as if they had never existed. They also contend that it is Israel who will destroy the Jews — and be a fire towards them.
We would certainly agree that the Jews will be destroyed by the coming of the Lord, but when we allow prophecy interpret prophecy, we will see that Obadiah is not referring to the destruction of modern Jewry specifically.
And so, we will do a short study on Obadiah’s prophecy, and hopefully reveal a more comprehensive and less reductive interpretation. As usual, the Edom-Jewry proponents completely ignore the prophecy’s explicit qualifying statements in Obadiah 1:10-12:
10 “Because of violence to your brother Jacob, Shame will cover you, And you will be eliminated forever. 11 On the day that you stood aloof, On the day that strangers carried off his wealth, And foreigners entered his gate And cast lots for Jerusalem — You too were as one of them. 12 Do not gloat over your brother’s day, The day of his misfortune. And do not rejoice over the sons of Judah On the day of their destruction; Yes, do not boast On the day of their distress.
This passage has stated that there is a specific reason why this prophecy has been made. As is often the case with punishments against the nations, it is because of some evil act which the Edomites had committed. Obadiah mentions nothing about Edom’s genetic make-up here as a contributing factor — or justification — for the punishment — nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Scripture as we have already demonstrated.
Psalm 137:7 states the same thing of Edom,
Remember, Lord, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Those who said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare To its foundation!”
Ezekiel 25:12 refers to this qualifier as well,
The Lord God says this: “Because Edom has acted against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and has incurred great guilt, and avenged themselves upon them”
Note that in Ezekiel 25 four nations — Ammon, Moab, Edom and the Philistines — are condemned for the same reason given in Obadiah — their treatment of Israel — which sets the precedent that even in the context of Obadiah, the pronouncement against Edom is not unique to them.
Amos 1:11 also stands as witness,
This is what the Lord says: “For three offenses of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke its punishment, Because he pursued his brother with the sword And stifled his compassion; His anger also tore continually, And he maintained his fury forever.”
Ezekiel 36:5 confirms it,
therefore the Lord God says this: “Certainly in the fire of My jealousy I have spoken against the rest of the nations, and against all Edom, who appropriated My land for themselves as a possession with wholehearted joy and with contempt of soul, in order to make its pastureland plunder.”
Obadiah tells us explicitly why he prophesied against Edom — and why Edom’s destruction is justified — during the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions, Edom took part in the destruction of Israel. When Israel was vulnerable, Edom took advantage of them — took vengeance on them and plundered them.
Yet don’t these prophecies stand in stark contrast to the words of Deuteronomy 2:4-5?
4 and command the people, saying, “You are going to pass through the territory of your brothers the sons of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful; 5 do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even as much as a footprint, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.
There was a point in time when Edom was even protected by the Lord — where He warned the Israelites not to make trouble with them. The qualifying statement is given — “because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.” Why would the Lord give Satan’s supposed physical children or mamzers a valuable possession — and why would the Lord care for them — even to the exclusion of Israel occupying that land?
The reason, of course, is rather simple — which agrees with the Scripture — the Edomites were a pure, Adamic people.
Why then would the Lord’s anger turn toward Edom when at one point He had even protected them? The answer is rather obvious in the qualifying statements we highlighted in Obadiah and elsewhere. The Lord’s hatred toward Edom — which wasn’t always there — was retributive justice toward them for their wrongs against Israel.
However, the Lord’s justice toward all the nations is retributive, and His justice is restorative only toward Israel — between Himself and Israel. After all, Genesis 27:29 must be fulfilled,
May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.
Justice toward the nations never cares for the continuation of those nations but seeks only to bring them into proper subjection to the nation of Israel. Justice toward Israel always seeks to bring Israel — with Israel’s continuance as a nation a given — in line with the ways of God. Deuteronomy 10:5 says,
Yet the Lord set His affection on your fathers, to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, you over all the other peoples, as it is this day.
Paul confirms the continuity of the promises when he says in Romans 11:29,
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Therefore every nation must be brought into subjection to Israel. This is even confirmed in Obadiah, as the prophecy against Edom is extended to all the nations in verses 15-16,
15 “For the day of the Lord is near for all the nations. Just as you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head. 16 For just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink to the last drop, And become as if they had never existed.
Here the prophecy mentions this in the context of “the day of the Lord” — that all the nations will drink and become as if they had never existed, not just Edom. The “day of the Lord” is a prophetic reference to the return of the Lord Jesus, as it says in Joel 3:14-15,
14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. 15 The sun and moon have become dark, And the stars have lost their brightness.
This heavenly sign of the sun, moon and stars also connects us with the Lord’s second coming, as He says in Matthew 24:29-30,
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Yet Joel 2:31 speaks of a similar — but separate event:
The sun will be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
This one seems to be the same — except the moon is like blood instead of being darkened. It is referred to in Revelation 6:12,
And I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became as black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood;
This allows us to compare the passages between Joel 2:31 and Joel 3:15 with the passages between Revelation 6:12 and when the Lord returns in the Revelation.
Joel 2:31 begins the time of the Lord’s wrath against the nations — whereas Joel 3:15 is the conclusion of His wrath and the return of the Lord. Reading Joel 2:31 to Joel 3:15, the Lord is about to execute judgement on the nations based on a controversy between Israel and all nations — not just Edom.
Directly after Joel 2:31, it says in Joel 2:32,
And it will come about that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Will be saved; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, Just as the Lord has said, Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.
This shows that during the time of destruction against the nations, there is a promise of escape for those nations. Yet, going back to Obadiah — after the promise to the nations that they will “become as if they had never existed,” verse 17 offers a qualifier,
But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape, And it will be holy. And the house of Jacob will possess their property.
Incidentally, Paul quotes Joel 2:32 — which is so linked to Obadiah 1:17 — in his discourse regarding the nations in relation to Israel in Romans 10:13.
So even though all the nations are promised destruction, there will be those who escape that destruction — providing they are in submission to Israel through the Lord Jesus. Isaiah 14:1-2 speaks of that possession mentioned in Obadiah 1:17,
1 When the Lord has compassion on Jacob and again chooses Israel, and settles them on their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. 2 The peoples will take them along and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will make them their own possession in the land of the Lord as male and female servants; and they will take their captors captive and will rule over their oppressors.
Those from the nations who escape will be brought in line to their proper place in relation to Israel. It is stated quite explicitly in Amos 9:12, especially in relation to Edom,
“So that they [Israel] may possess the remnant of Edom And all the nations who are called by My name,” Declares the Lord who does this.
It is repeated in Zephaniah 2:9, even in relation to other nations,
Therefore, as I live,” declares the Lord of armies, The God of Israel, “Moab will assuredly be like Sodom, And the sons of Ammon like Gomorrah — Ground overgrown with weeds and full of salt mines, And a permanent desolation. The remnant of My people will plunder them, And the remainder of My nation will inherit them.”
Once again Isaiah 11:14 says of Edom and others,
They will swoop down on the slopes of the Philistines on the west; Together they will plunder the people of the east; They will possess Edom and Moab, And the sons of Ammon will be subject to them.
This is also seen in Revelation 21:24-27, when it describes the holy city which descends from heaven:
24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; 27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 21:24 is quoting Isaiah 60:3, and Revelation 21:26 is quoting Isaiah 60:5. Revelation 21:25 is quoting Isaiah 60:11, where in Isaiah 60:12 — the very next verse — it says,
For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.
Isaiah 60:4 — which is between Isaiah 60:3 and Isaiah 60:5 mentioned above — says,
Raise your eyes all around and see; They all gather together, they come to you. Your sons will come from afar, And your daughters will be carried on the hip.
The nations which attach themselves to Israel are referred to as Israel’s children — because Israel was bereaved in its time of punishment, as it says in Isaiah 49:20-21,
20 The children you lost will yet say in your ears, ‘The place is too cramped for me; Make room for me that I may live here.’ 21 Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who has fathered these for me, Since I have been bereaved of my children And cannot conceive, and I am an exile, and a wanderer? And who has raised these? Behold, I was left alone; Where are these from?’”
The whole of Isaiah 49 encompasses God’s plan for Israel and the nations, so a full reading is encouraged.
Note also how Revelation 7:16-17 is quoting Isaiah 49:10. Revelation 7 is also a chapter which shows a multitude from the nations — Israel’s “spiritual children” — of whom Israel has taken possession — whose nations themselves are destroyed.
This reveals how the nations are a “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all the tribes, peoples, and languages” (Revelation 7:9), in relation to the final remnant of Israel — a mere 144,000. Isaiah 49:20-21 says,
20 The children you lost will yet say in your ears, ‘The place is too cramped for me; Make room for me that I may live here.’ 21 Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who has fathered these for me, Since I have been bereaved of my children And cannot conceive, and I am an exile, and a wanderer? And who has raised these? Behold, I was left alone; Where are these from?’”
Isaiah 54:1-3 confirms,
1 “Shout for joy, infertile one, you who have not given birth to any child; Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor; For the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous Than the sons of the married woman,” says the Lord. 2 “Enlarge the place of your tent; Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, do not spare them; Lengthen your ropes And strengthen your pegs. 3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left. And your descendants will possess nations And will resettle the desolate cities.
Who are these peoples from the nations — and why do they deserve a place under Israel?
Revelation 7:13-14 describes them,
13 Then one of the elders responded, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Revelation 6:9,11 says,
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been killed because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained… 11 And a white robe was given to each of them; and they were told that they were to rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers and sisters who were to be killed even as they had been, was completed also.
These men and women from the nations have escaped to Israel because they have died for the testimony of our Lord Jesus. If they have displayed such great faith to our Lord, then we should welcome them and love them — because they have loved our Lord in Spirit and in truth.
Paul calls this “the fullness of the nations” in that same discourse on Israel and the nations in Romans 11:25. Luke refers to it similarly in Luke 21:24. John alludes to it as well in John 10:16. The Revelation also alludes to the entire controversy — almost quoting Luke 21:24 (but it is unity in the Spirit) — in Revelation 11:2.
Hopefully we have revealed at least in part that Obadiah is referring to a great, end time fulfillment, which makes reducing it to a superficial interpretation of modern Jewry look rather insignificant in comparison. The entirety of prophecy is a systemic web which all points to the same thing — the restoration of Israel and the nations subjection to it.
Obadiah is no exception, being just one strand in the web.
Like with all prophecy — with few exceptions — Obadiah also represents a more immediate and already concluded fulfillment of events. Edom was indeed conquered by Israel twice since Obadiah was written — first by Judas Maccabeus, and second by John Hyrcanus. Edom as a nation never recovered from that second conquering by Hyrcanus — and so the prophecy in some way was fulfilled around 150 BC.
Although prophecies which have immediate fulfillments usually have yet greater fulfillments later as well, as we have covered in the case of Obadiah. In the context of that greater fulfillment — and the bigger picture of prophecy — to reduce Obadiah to simply the future destruction of Edom does not do it justice.
It is crucial as with all aspects of Scriptural study to have a view of the bigger picture of the prophets before coming to conclusions over specific prophecies. When sifting through the prophets, looking for prophecies over matters which suit our interests, we can tend to get lost in the woods, so to speak.
We need to understand Peter’s words in 2 Peter 1:20-21,
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Prophecy is not something to be used to support personal interpretations of the Scripture. We cannot find a prophecy which in isolation seems to agree with our view in a superficial interpretation.
There are a good deal of prophecies concerning Edom — many of which are cited by those who claim that Edomites are the modern Jews of today. However, we would propose that these prophecies are not particularly special or unique as they relate to Edom in the greater scope of prophecy — as we have shown with Obadiah. The prophecies concerning Edom fit a pattern which can be applied to many other prophecies concerning other nations.
If the pattern of prophecy concerning Edom can be applied to all the nations, then how could we possibly apply prophecy concerning all nations to an isolated case like Jews? We honestly cannot — and so it doesn’t make sense to do so.
We are are not suggesting, however, that the modern-day Jews are not in prophecy, but simply that prophecy concerning Edom doesn’t necessarily apply to them. We will leave the topic of modern-day Jews in prophecy for another day.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE HIGH PRIESTS DURING THE LORD’S TIME ON EARTH
Returning to the time of the Lord Jesus’ time on earth, there are those who claim that even the high priests and the Pharisees at that time were mostly Edomite racial mongrels. We will show how this cannot be true.
While the Lord was growing up, some political changes had taken place in the region. With Herod the Great’s death, Herod Archelaus — his son — had taken over reign in Judea as ethnarch — as is recorded in Matthew 3:19-22:
19 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, 20 “Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child’s life are dead.” 21 So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee…
Archelaus’ reign lasted only 10 years, as related by Josephus,
But in the tenth year of Archelaus’s government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria; not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them; accused him before Cesar…
Antiquities of the Jews, book 17, chapter 13, section 2
The deposition of Archelaus was successful — all of his wealth was confiscated, and he was banished from Judea. With that, the more direct Roman governance of the province of Judea began with a Roman by the name of Coponius (Antiquites 18, 1, 1).
Coponius would appoint high priests as proxy rulers as it suited him — and the title shifted a few times during his governance. As will become evident, there were more than a few men in Judea who were of high priestly descent to choose from. In this way the Romans seemed to appease the Judeans who chose it to be this way — however a single individual was allowed to reign as high priest only so long as he was able to maintain the peace.
Some years later, Coponius was replaced by Marcus Ambivius, who appointed Annias Rufus as high priest. Some years later Annias was deprived of the high priesthood — and in quick succession the following three high priests were also deposed. The high priest appointed after that was none other than Caiaphas (Antiquities 18, 2, 2). This is important because these two are none other than the same Annas and Caiaphas who are referred to in John 18:13,
and brought Him to Annas first; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
Luke slightly disagrees with Josephus, as he says in Luke 3:2,
in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness.
Suffice to say that even though Josephus states that Caiaphas was officially the high priest, there must have been some dynamic in which the office was shared. It is probable then that even though Annas was deposed officially, he must have still retained some authority with the ruling priests of the time. Luke attests to this — and again attests to the high priestly office these men held in Acts 4:6,
and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.
The above verse is really very critical to our understanding here. According to Luke, these men were of legitimate high priestly descent — as a high priest needed to be a descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses (Exodus 29:9,44, Numbers 18:7).
Luke was very close to Paul — who himself was very close to these men, being a Pharisee himself (Philippians 3:5) who learned at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) — the very same Gamaliel who was “a Pharisee… a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council” through whom the Lord saved Peter and John’s lives from being executed by the Council in Acts 5:34.
Paul was even present among them when Stephen was executed (Acts 7:58) and approved with them of Stephen’s execution (Acts 8:1). Paul knew these men very well — and claimed perfect righteousness in accordance with the Law (Philippians 3:6).
If both Luke and Paul approved that these men were of legitimate high priestly descent, why would anyone seriously contend with them unless they stood in the way of a personal agenda? Does anyone seriously think that they know better than Paul in this matter? Keep in mind that Paul never once criticized or questioned the “race” of the men who held the high priestly office according to Deuteronomy 23:2.
This is even confirmed by John who attests that the very same Caiaphas prophesied purely by virtue of being in the office of high priest in John 11:51,
Now he [Caiaphas] did not say this on his own, but as he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation.
DID CHRIST THINK THE HIGH PRIESTS WERE EDOMITES?
In Matthew 21:33-36, Mark 12:1-12 and Luke 20:9-19, The Lord tells the parable of the vine-growers — in which a certain landowner set up a productive piece of land, where Matthew 21:33 quotes Isaiah 5:2,
He dug it all around, cleared it of stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it, And also carved out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones.
The landowner rents out the land to tenants, and he repeatedly sends servants to collect a portion of their labor. However, the tenants only abuse and shamefully treat the servants. Then the landowner sends his own son, thinking they would not abuse him. To the contrary, the tenants abuse the son all the more, killing him. The Lord concludes the parable — laying the accusation before the chief priests and Pharisees — by quoting Psalm 118:22-23,
22 A stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. 23 This came about from the Lord; It is marvelous in our eyes.
When these words were written, King David was relating his own experience in his ascent to rulership over Israel. The current ruler — Saul — and his followers were rejecting David from being king — in spite of the facts that David had already been anointed as king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13) and Samuel had already told Saul that his kingship was being taken away (1 Samuel 15:28).
In the end, David was the one who united Israel and defeated its enemies by the will and help of the Lord. Saul in his capacity at that time as current ruler resisted the one who was destined to do these things. Saul and his followers rejected the chief cornerstone, which was David. This is one of many ways in which David is a type or shadow of the Lord Jesus.
Notice then, how David has referred to Saul and his followers as “builders.” They are the ones who ought to have been building Israel up, but instead — as 1 Samuel 15 shows — Saul was more committed to his own interests than the Lord’s interests.
In the context of the first temple, the “builder” of the temple was Solomon, an Israelite and king of all Israel at that time.
What David did not realize when he wrote Psalm 118, was that he was referring to the spiritual temple which was to be built, as it states in 1 Peter 2:5,
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
This spiritual building is also attested to in the second temple era prophets, like Zechariah 4:6,9,
6 Then he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the Lord of armies… 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house, and his hands will finish it. Then you will know that the Lord of armies has sent me to you.”
Zerubabbel was the ruler at the time, and in that capacity it was his role to build the temple. The command was given to all the rulers — governor and high priest — where they are rebuked for not building the temple in Haggai 1:1-2,
In the second year of Darius the king, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the Lord came by the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying, 2 “This is what the Lord of armies says: ‘This people says, “The time has not come, the time for the house of the Lord to be rebuilt.”
Here again, these second temple era rulers are “builders” — but more importantly, they are Israelites. In the context of himself when David wrote Psalm 118, and in the context of the first temple, and in the context of the building of the second temple — all shadows or types for the spiritual temple — the builders were Israelites.
In the Lord’s accusation towards the chief priests and Pharisees, He is referring to them as the “builders” — and the Lord makes this more sure when He says in Matthew 21:43,
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit.
In this context, consider how Isaiah 5:3-4 elaborates on Isaiah 5:1-2 which the Lord already quoted,
3 “And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?
There are three aspects to this parable which make it sure that the people whom the Lord is accusing are Israelites.
Firstly, they are the “builders” who are always Israelites. They are the ones who did build — or who ought to have been building. If those accused were Edomites — or physical descendants of Satan — they would not be “builders.”
Secondly, Isaiah 5 — which is the context of this parable — is an accusation against the people of Israel, the “inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah.”
Thirdly, the parable itself accuses the current rulers of the people as being responsible for the death of all the rest of the prophets. In other words, those servants who were sent to the vineyard are the prophets who came before the Lord Jesus. This is confirmed by the Lord’s words in Matthew 23:29-36,
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 and you say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You snakes, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
We know as a matter of fact that it was Israelites — not Edomites — who murdered the prophets of old — at least during the times of the Israelites. As an example, the Lord gives an example of Zechariah son of Berechiah — and we will give an example of Zechariah son of Jehoiada — a different Zechariah, which is told in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22,
20 Then the Spirit of God covered Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest like clothing; and he stood above the people and said to them, “This is what God has said, ‘Why do you break the commandments of the Lord and do not prosper? Because you have abandoned the Lord, He has also abandoned you.’” 21 So they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the house of the Lord. 22 So Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had shown him, but he murdered his son. And as Zechariah died he said, “May the Lord see and avenge!”
Again, these were all Israelite men who murdered Zechariah. It is made even more sure when Zechariah says, “[the Lord] has also abandoned you.” If these were Edomites — or physical children of Satan — then how was the Lord ever with them in the first place that He would have abandoned them?
Furthermore, Nehemiah explicitly puts the murder of prophets at the feet of Israelites when he says, “And [the Israelites] killed Your prophets who had admonished them” (Nehemiah 9:26). Therefore, when speaking to the chief priests and Pharisees, the Lord is confirming that they are indeed Israelites, because it is their fathers — also Israelites — who murdered the prophets.
Some would like us to believe that when the Lord says, “you snakes, you offspring of vipers,” He is actually accusing them of being literal snakes — descendants of the literal serpent who allegedly had sexual intercourse with Eve. They will insist on this interpretation seemingly oblivious to the fact that being called a “snake” is understood even today as being an accusation of danger and deviousness. Luke 13:31-32 says,
31 At that very time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away and leave this place, because Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox…”
Herod was a literal Edomite, and yet the Lord has called him a fox. Does that mean that Herod is literally a fox, or the son of a fox? Obviously not — the Lord is calling him a devious person, which is exactly the same thing as calling someone a snake.
The Lord confirms again in Matthew 23:37-39 that it is Israelites — not Edomites — who are at fault,
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
He says that He was willing to gather them together as a hen gathers her chicks — a metaphor showing love, affection, and a genuine care for the well-being of the people. However, Jerusalem was “unwilling” to be gathered. This “gathering” is the sending of the prophets whom the Israelites murdered. Likewise, they were about to murder the Son of God — and demonstrated their unwavering unwillingness.
To those same people, He speaks of the desolation they were going to face, as He says in Luke 21:20,22,
20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near… 22 because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled.
Yet He also gives the promise of His return when Israel finally turns to Him in repentance when He says, “you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
When in Acts 4 Peter and John have an audience with the high priests — who are attested as being of actual high priestly descent in Acts 4:6 — they quote Psalm 118:22 — which the Lord quoted — again. They are leveling the same accusation which the Lord gave to the same people — Israel. Acts 4:10-11 says,
10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief cornerstone.
Paul lays the same accusation at the feet of Israel when he says in Romans 9:31-33,
31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
Paul here is quoting Isaiah 8:14-15 which says,
14 Then He will become a sanctuary; But to both houses of Israel, He will be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 Many will stumble over them, Then they will fall and be broken; They will be snared and caught.
The Lord confirms He is also referring to this verse in the parable of the vine-growers when He quotes Isaiah 8:15 in Matthew 21:44:
And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.
When Paul speaks in Romans 9, he says, “Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.” Paul is referring directly to Israel — not Edomites or supposed physical descendants of Satan. Likewise, Isaiah 8:14 literally says, “But to both houses of Israel, He will be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence”.
By everything we have quoted above, the Lord is laying the accusation directly at Israel as well — who were the chief priests and Pharisees at the time. This again confirms that the chief priests and Pharisees were Israelites.
Peter ties this all up very nicely when he says in 1 Peter 2:6-8,
6 For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.” 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers, “A stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief cornerstone,” 8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this they were also appointed.
Peter clearly states that they rejected the chief cornerstone because they were unbelievers — not because they are “mamzers” or racially impure. He states that they stumble because they were disobedient to the word of God! They did not stumble because they were Edomites — or because they were physical descendants of Satan. This is made all the more clear by John, firstly in 1 John 3:4,8,10,
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness… 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil… 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.
If one is lawless and practices sin in disobedience to the word of God and unbelief, they are spiritual children of the devil. Hebrews 3:17-19 even connects unbelief with sin and disobedience, just as Peter did,
17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
And so, the Lord says in John 8:44,
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father…
He is literally laying the exact same accusation to the exact same people, who are Israelites. He is saying that they are children of the devil because they are unbelievers, disobedient, lawless and sinners!
However, those who believe that the priests whom the Lord accused were Edomites and the physical children of Satan, which is why — they claim — the Lord called them such in John 8:44. But doesn’t that interpretation of John 8:44 now seem incredibly banal?
In the end, our interpretation bears no shame under the historical reality of the genetically Edomite reign of the Herodian dynasty — as well as the Idumean/Edomite people who became subject to Israelite custom in order to be able to stay in their territory.
The Edomites weren’t involved in the controversy between the Lord Jesus and the ruling priestcraft because Jerusalem and Judea were under the rulership of Rome and the chief priests who were Israelites. Even so, the Edomites weren’t racial mamzers anyway — as the actions of the high priest John Hyrcanus toward them attest to.
However, we are supposed to believe that when John the Baptist reprimanded Herod Antipas — tetrarch of Galilee — a separate province to Judea — in Luke 3:19, that John didn’t know Antipas was a physical child of Satan, or that John didn’t really mean what he said.
We know by Romans 5:20 and Galatians 3:19 that by knowledge of the law, sin is accounted to a man who hears it. Antipas knew very well the law of Moses — and John the Baptist counted that sin against him — reprimanding him for it. The fact that he wasn’t an Israelite was irrelevant because he knew the law.
We are also supposed to believe that when Paul wished for Herod Agrippa to become a Christian in Acts 26:29, that Paul didn’t realize that Agrippa was a physical child of Satan — or that Paul really didn’t mean what he said.
Agrippa was a white man — and Paul, being a messenger of the gospel to the nations, simply wanted him to become a Christian as well.
SO ISRAEL KILLED CHRIST — “WHAT ARE WE TO DO?”
One of the tragic consequences of believing that Jews are literal Edomites who can be blamed for all evil in the world is that the true Israelites of today don’t think that Israelites are evil enough to be responsible for the murder of the Lord Jesus. In fact, the true Israel of today’s time seems to think it is not capable of much wrongdoing at all — and has followed the example of the Jews by portraying themselves only as victims of the actions of others.
When they are shown their wrongdoing, they react with derision, imagining themselves to have somehow been personally wronged. They react with cries that they have been condemned — or that those who seek to help them are actually being cruel and merciless towards them — or slander them as “Jews.”
In truth, how indeed could someone who rejects his own people’s culpability in the death of their Lord see any wrong within themselves? They can’t — and they do not. When they deride and accuse those who want to help them, it only serves to hurt themselves.
With this in mind, consider Acts 2:22-23, where Peter is addressing the Israelites in Jerusalem,
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Peter has literally accused Israel of the death of Christ. He did not lay it at the feet of Edomites, or the physical seed of Satan, but Israelites. This is completely in line with everything which has been explained so far because it was Israelites who killed Christ. The Israelites respond in verse 37,
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what are we to do?”
They have tacitly admitted to being responsible for the Lord’s death. This is crucial — as repentance is not possible unless one acknowledges one’s own guilt and one’s own sin. After this, what did those who heard Peter do? It says in Acts 2:42,
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
In light of this knowledge — to the true white, Adamic Israel of these latter days — let us continually devote ourselves to the apostle’s teaching, and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Edom most certainly has become a byword for enemies of Israel, which is not entirely inaccurate — as Edom was literally an enemy of Israel. However, Edom doesn’t even exist as a recognizable national entity or people anymore. If we were to apply this term as the prophets describe Edom, it is no more than a figure of speech toward the true Israel’s white, Adamic enemies of the Genesis 10 nations.
Make no mistake, Israel has such enemies to this day — and the Jews are certainly among those. But if today’s Jews have any Edomite ancestry, it is mixed in with many other ethnicities — such as the Khazars — that they have acquired over the millennia as itinerants. Some of the descendants of the Israelite Judeans may very well have become race mixed after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
As we have shown, the Herodians in Judea established their Edomite identity by patrilineal descent — while today’s Jews, by their own admission, became a matrilineal racial group sometime around 200 AD — clear evidence of race mixing in that period of their history.
With a true knowledge of the Scripture, we can understand what our place is toward them — and that when the Lord returns, He will make all things right — not any sooner.
Wouldn’t reducing this lesson’s greater fulfillment to a literal corrupted bloodline surely act as a stumbling block — and cause us to lose out on what the Scripture is trying to tell us?
By not seeing Edom for what it is, has Israel not shifted the blame for the death of their Lord Jesus the Christ — contrary to Peter’s address of the Israelites in Acts 2?
Therefore, let us rightly handle the word of truth — having no need to be ashamed (2 Timothy 2:15). Let us serve with a “pure heart” and “good conscience” towards the Scripture — and with a “sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5) allowing it to speak to us, rather than trying to force it to bend to our own agendas.
Zeph
Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt verse that is worthless. The original would literally say that Eve had a kid with Yahweh as it is…
This whole idea that Edom has nothing to do with Cain and that Canaanites did not mix with Cain is disproven by the simple connection that Christ said, The blood of the prophets shall be required of this race from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias. It is a undeniable connection between Edomites and Cain…
Christ also tells them their father was a murderer from the begining. Another Cain connection…
CFT
Zeph wrote, “Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt verse that is worthless. The original would literally say that Eve had a kid with Yahweh as it is…”
Scholars may agree that Genesis 4:1 contains some sort of corruption, but that doesn’t mean that it’s “worthless” as it is rendered. Also, why would you presume the original uncorrupted verse would “prove” that Cain is not Adam’s son? You could just as easily presume that the original “confirmed” that Cain was Adam’s son.
Zeph
Good job ignoring all the other points and making up a new baseless view of the discussion. Genesis 4:1 is the only proof you people have. Every other proof says otherwise…
CFT
Zeph, we don’t need to “ignore” the other points. If gist of Genesis 4:1 is true, that Cain is Adam’s son, then your whole theory comes crashing down, and you know it, so you have no choice but to claim that the scribal error proves your point, which it doesn’t because you merely presume it does, not knowing what the original says.
You refer to Luke 11:50 as if it is self-evidently about Edomites, but it says no such thing:
“That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”
Christ here is rebuking the Pharisees for the persecution of the prophets and His apostles, and killing many of them. Paul, before his conversion, is an example of the type of Pharisee that Christ here rebukes — Paul was complicit in killing the prophets of Christ. Yet no one accuses Paul of being an Edomite. The Pharisees were Israelites, like Paul.
They called for the death of Christ, which is why Israelites, not Edomites, are held responsible:
“Men of Israel, Jesus the Nazarene you nailed to the cross.” (Acts 2:22-23)
If what you claim is true, then why doesn’t this verse say, “Men of Edom, Jesus the Nazarene you nailed to the cross”?
As far as John 8:44 is concerned, it says the devil, not Cain, was a murderer from the beginning. Satan brought death into the world, making him a murderer from the beginning:
“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Zeph
We know that the last prophet killed was by Edomite and that this generation would be responsible for Abels blood too. You deny their connection to Cain yet Christ says it clearly. Many of the Pharisees were Edomites and you know that, it is self evident that this is Edomites because ISRAEL DID NOT KILL THEM it was always the Canaanite bastards and their Edomite kin.
The only witness to Cain being Adam’s son is a corrupted verse that we can get no information from. You lose.
It doesn’t matter if it is Cain or Satan who you want to link, I would link Cain and most people would agree with me. Even if it was Satan, for me it doesn’t matter because it’s all the same blood line. You people want to spiritualize all the uncomfortable and slanderous if not literally true attacks on evidently Edomite Pharisees and Sadduccees.
Zeph
Romans 9:6-7
6 Not, however, that the word of Yahweh has failed; since not all those who are from Israel are those of Israel: 7 nor because they are offspring of Abraham all children: but, “In Isaac will your offspring be called.”
1 John 2:18-19
18 Little children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the Antichrist comes, even now many Antichrists have been born, from which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They came out from us but they were not from of us. For if they were from of us, they would have abided with us, but so that they would be made manifest that they are all not from of us.
westwins
Zeph,
You wrote — “… Many of the Pharisees were Edomites ….. ”
Interesting theory.
Do you have Scriptural Evidence to back such a claim?
Personally ………………. I’m sort of neutral on this debate mainly because I don’t see why this is such an important topic. Interesting for sure. But I don’t see how it impacts my life as a Christian and my desire to see God’s Will fulfilled on earth as it is in Heaven. Let’s say we all agree with you ………….. what now? How does it impact my personal relationship with the Creator?
I once believed Cain was not Adam’s son. But today, I don’t really care because I don’t see how the answer has anything to do with how we live our lives daily in the service to our Father in Heaven. One thing I know for sure — Eve did not have literal sex with the devil or some other beast.
But again ……………. why does all this matter???
There is that certain faction of Christian Identity that seem willing to die on this hill. I don’t understand why.
How does it change our own personal relationship to Jesus Christ?
In summary — What Scriptural proof would you submit proving your claim that “many” Pharisees were in fact Edomites?
And lastly ………….. why does it matter?
Thank you.
CFT
Zeph, you say it’s “obvious” that the Pharisees are “Edomites”, but if it were truly obvious or self-evident, the word “Edomite” would be used at least once in the New Testament, but it is not. Not once. Therefore, nothing you claim is “self-evident” or “obvious”. It’s all “written between the lines”, and has to be “interpreted” or “inferred” to suit your pet doctrine.
The one time Idumea is mentioned is Mark 3:8, which says Christ’s followers came from Judea, Jerusalem, and Idumea. This verse suggests that some of His sheep came from Idumea, which completely contradicts your theory.
Unless you can provide one single verse from the New Testament with “Edomite” in it, we will just have to conclude that this is all in your head, not in the Bible.
CFT
westwins wrote, “How does it change our own personal relationship to Jesus Christ?”
Well, that’s what’s at stake here, right? Does a doctrine that tells all white people that they are automatically saved just because they are born white have an affect on their relationship with Christ?
We’ve seen it have an effect, and not a good one. They often become abusive toward anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They’ve found the gnostic “secret” to the Bible that no one else knows about, and they don’t want you to take away their “specialness.”
Their doctrine means that you don’t have to even accept Christ as your savior in this life in order to enter the Kingdom in the next because, they claim, “every knee shall bow” and accept Christ eventually. So they have no motivation to change in this life or truly seek Christ. That’s a problem, no?
westwins
“….So they have no motivation to change in this life or truly seek Christ. That’s a problem, no? …….”
Yes, absolutely this is a major problem. It is simply — “another gospel” — 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.
I guess I didn’t realize that their position on Cain was the driver to their belief that their skin will save them and nothing more.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
Gavin
John 8:33 ssys:
“They answered him, “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”
No Israelite could make that claim because the Israelites had been in bondage THREE TIMES, to the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians.
Yet only 11 verses later, I’m John 8::44, Jesus condemned them as bring “of” (Greek ‘ek’) your father the Devil.”
Jesus was clearly not saying that Israelite Judahites were “of” the Devil, but the Edomites, who had “cursed be Canaan” blood in their veins, were of the Devil, which was why God was justified in wiping them out in the Promised Land. Had the Canaanites NOT been called then the Israelites and the Judahites and the House of David would have been exterminated, which was why King David all but wiped them out at God’s behest.
Malachi said that God had “indignation” against Esau/Edom/Edomites “forever”. What part of forever do you not get?
Jake boy
because Romans nailed him to the cross bro.
Jake boy
He says exactly who he addresses this to so it may help if we study the preceding verse.
Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,c 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
CFT
Jake boy:
Acts 2:9-10 refers to dispersed Judeans who lived in surrounding areas but who had come to Judea for Pentecost. This does not refer to any mixed race multitude. Note how despite dwelling in all these different areas, they all spoke the same language. Any “converts” referred to here must be legitimate converts from the Genesis 10 nations, Adamic peoples.
And to claim that “Romans nailed him to the cross” completely contradicts the straightforward, unambiguous words:
“Men of Israel, Jesus the Nazarene you nailed to the cross.” (Acts 2:22-23)
Note worthy
Gavin, try reading your Bible a little more carefully, or at all. It clearly states in a number of places that the Edomites had been in bondage.
The Edomites had been enslaved many times — to the Israelites (1 Samuel 14:47–48; 2 Samuel 8:13–14, Amos 9:12), and the Babylonians (Ezekiel 25:12–14), and later the Nabateans (Malachi 1:2–5), and then under Israelite Hyrcanus, so if the Pharisees were Edomites, why would they deny they were ever enslaved? That makes no sense.
What say you? How do you refute these facts?
Jake
1 Samuel 14:47 shows no such connection
2 Samuel 8:13-14 Doesn’t either. It shows garrisons.
Amos 9:12 Is given as a future prophecy.. Much could be said about this that directly confirms the opposite of what you are saying
“For I will give the command, and I will shake the people of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground.”
Ezekiel 25:12–14 Proclaims militarily conquest and destruction not bondage.
Malachi 1:2–5 Pertains to crushing and not Bondage once again.
which is further confirmed in the following verses
“crush”
“They may build, but I will demolish. ”
All of the above citations do not prove the culture of the edomites would have been privy to their own history of “bondage”. Rather that they had lost many battles and at times been under the suzerainty of other nations. The Americans were at time under English, the East Germans were under the soviets, and the native Americans were crushed by the Anglo Saxons. The saying “Under bondage” literally implies forced labor to some extant rather than political dominion, especially in the the context of first century Judea, for they were all (edomite or not) under the rule of Rome. So the fact that a certain pharisee mentions never being under bondage makes the contrast extra poignant. Because the entire national story of the real Israelite’s was predicated on the pride of being rescued from literal bondage by God.
jake boy
Zeph is correct. The bible states that ” It is the Glory of God to conceal a thing, and the honor of a king to discover it”. Modern Christians confuse a bunch of things regarding this subject. This confusion causes them to react wrongly to these types of discussions.
The first mistake they make, sometimes subconsciously, is to assume that this view (race preeminence view) must particularly favor certain individuals in regards to salvation. This cannot be shown to be the case, neither do most who hold RPV view insist this. We do however insist that RPV does hold to the preeminence of these lineages primarily for the fact of prophetic destiny. Prophetic destiny, from very root of the current human diaspora, is Something that Christians should take seriously.They currently struggle to understand all of prophecy because of this omission.
Was it not from the first that Noah prophesied curses over Canaan and his posterity after “uncovering his nakedness”. Was it not also that he prophesied the future of Shem and Japeth in that same instance? So from a very early point the destiny of Canaan is set forth in opposition to his brothers.
Another prophetic instance in the same vain , which I think will enlighten many, is the array of the armies set forth in the valley of Siddim (gen 14). The first recorded war in the whole of scripture. At this junction four kings set out against five. And what arrangement have we ? We have 5 Canaanite kings versus 4 kings of Shem Ham and Japeth. They are set to destroy these Canaanites, who by their prophetic destiny bear a curse, and have enraged the nations. The part we find especially prophetic in this account is found in the aftermath of the battle. After all is said and done, the Canaanites defeated but loot saved by Abraham’s desire to procure his nephew Lot, Abraham meets a man named Melchizedek. In plain English: the final battle will be an array of armies against those who bear the curse (who may have within them a protected diaspora (ie Lot)), followed by the return of Christ (Melchizedek). Now I will proceed as to not wear out the point.
Many modern Christians assume that the RPV is considered “fringe” in the whole of Christianity. Which is not true. Even the popular reprint of Josephus’s Histories from the 1700 describes this position with a fair and open representation in the margins. That is to say throughout history some very “mainstream” sources have considered and endorsed such views. These sources are not scarce and represent the opinions many conservative, and not fringe, Christians. These Christians endorsed such views because they understood that they pertained to the prophetic destiny of the races and not individual salvation.
Lastly modern Christians are controlled by their fear of being racist (by the modern definition) , and therefore are afraid the implications of God’s word as it is. Does not “eating the fruit of the tree” imply anything?…. Especially considering the direct result of this sin had direct bearing on covering ones private parts? How much harmony we find when we interpret things simply. Is not the sin of Ham in “uncovering the nakedness of his father” another reference. A reference in which Noah’s proclamation of a ceaseless curse upon the progeny of Ham only finds justification and textual unity under sexual circumstances. The Canaanites connection to the Kenenites is indeed a mystery, but the curse of Canaan through history is really not.
CFT
Jake boy:
So in a roundabout way, you’re claiming that “cursed” races can be saved?
jake
They are prophetically cursed. In the broadest sense we are all under some prophetic curse. If, as many suggest, Cain has melded with Esau, then we can see one of the “broader” and original curse combining with the more specific later curse of Esau. Just the same, if “the tribes” have been scattered among “the nations”, then those as well might have some combination. The following verse may actually contain mercy toward non-Israelite races:
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” What about after that tenth generation?? Keeping that in mind we should be pretty humble about the salvation of others, though maybe not so much the prophetic destiny. Do we really know from a modern genetics standpoint where God currently stands? Especially considering the tribes themselves were dispersed and Indo-europeans (albeit at an earlier period) were combined with other races. It could be that we have also lost a great part of that “superior Adam”. I’m speaking a bit out of my understanding here but overall I’m surprised on the one hand that modern Christians pretend there is zero genetic connection when the bible explicitly says “Esau is the end of this world, and Jacob is the beginning of the next” and “his seed will bruise your heal… ect”, and on the other hand we have those who are as blind to thing a black man cannot be a christian. Ludicrous. A black man helped bring me to God in the first place in accordance with the example of his faith. This opinion is the most cursed thing I have ever heard, and bears all the marks of a reactionary movement and not an intellectual one. In “Africa Being An Accurate Description..” (1670), John Ogilby simultaneously maintains the lineage of the white race to Adam, as well as giving some merit to the idea of Christian missions to other nations.
West
Jake (or Jake Boy)
Jake — you wrote — ……They are prophetically cursed……………”
Huh? Who is prophetically cursed — Black Peoples?
If YES ………….. where do you think black people come from? Do they come from Adam and Eve in your Theology?
Curious…………
Jake
CFT. Requesting permission to eventually help out. For instance. You should have a synopsis of each book in your library. So people can read an overview. Also it would be good if you had a plan to share your information with the churches and make it “non-offensive”. Maybe a list of educational resources that walk Christians through this stuff. For instance, after 6 years of study, I just came to the realization that Christians of the centuries before the 20th did not refer to themselves as “Gentiles”. Maybe video courses or something. I also think you library is brilliant but the books should have a short paragraph describing the contents
Note Worthy
The correct reading of Deuteronomy 23:7-8:
“Thou shalt not abhor a Syrian; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”
Strong’s Concordance
“ #130 … Edômîy, … Edôwmîy, ed-o-mee’; patronymic [derived from father’s name] from 123; an Edomite, or descendant from (or inhabitant of) Edom:— Edomite. See 726.”
“ #726 … Arôwmîy, ar-o-mee’; a clerical error for 130; an Edomite (as in the margin):— Syrian.”
HaroldWakefield
Even if that were true, which it is not, it still doesn’t prove today’s Jews are Edomites or that Edomites are not Adamic, if that’s what you are getting at. Your comment remains obscure.
Note Worthy
You never heard of Strong’s concordance.
The Secrets of the Hittites—“The Hittites were short and stout, yellow in color with black hair and beardless”
1When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
HaroldWakefield
Yeah, I’ve heard of Strong’s, but no translations of the Bible translate Adomi in Deuteronomy 23:7 as “Syrian”. Even if in rare instances Adomi is a scribal error for Arowmiy does not conclusively prove this applies to this verse. Strong’s translates this verse as Edom, as do the Masoretic texts. Either way, a scribal error proves nothing about the identity of Edom. And in case you didn’t know, there were two different peoples called “Hittites”. Look it up.
CFT
Note Worthy, we address this view in the very article you are commenting on. Taken from the above article:
We’re going to have to ask you to pay more attention when you read — and to read the articles we’ve requested that you read — before you continue to debate the matter. Nothing personal, but it’s just a waste of your and our time if you don’t read what we’ve written first.
Zeph
The fact that this verse being as “Edomite” would contradict so many other verses is evidence enough that it is a scribe error and if you looked at the manuscripts you would know that it is indicernible which word they are trying to write…
Jake
Note that in deutoronomy its says a “bastard” can be in the congregation after 10 generations, while in deut 23:8 it says and edomite after three generations. “Do not despise an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you lived as a foreigner in his land. 8The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD. ”
deut 23:3
“No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.”
So here we see that a Ammonite (which was a descendant of Lots almost certainly Canaanite daughters) are more seperated racially than the Edomites, which makes sense. Because the edomites are at least half of the blood of Isacc. Where the Ammonites are not even the blood of Abraham and the promise directly.
Gavin
1. Malachi says that God has “indignation” against the Edomites “forever.”
2. Opponents of two seedline are in the unenviable position of having to believe that the “seed” of the “Woman” is literal (Jesus, they say) while the “seed” of the “Serpent” has to be “spiritual” and that it just means naughty people.
So they make a mockery of God, as if He would resort to mixing physical and spiritual within Genesis 3:15, a ludicrous and insulting accusation.
Gavin
Well said.
This article is a very slippery and frankly Jewish supporting article.
The Israelites were clearly told by God NOT to miscegenate with those of other races. That included the Edomites who God commanded King David to genocide out of existence.
As I wrote earlier, those who Jesus condemned, in John 8 were those who admitted that they had never been “in bondage to any man”.
They were clearly NOT Israelites.
These guys can make all the specious Jewish arguments in favour of miscegenation and multiculturalism that they like and can twist as many Scriptures as they like too, none of it will change God’s “everlasting” Abrahamic Covenant with the “seed of Abraham”, alone.
The Apostle Paul made it crystal clear in Romans 9 that that did NOT include Ishmael’s or Esau’s offspring.
You can try to squeeze them into the Kingdom as much as you like, but count me out.
The tribes of Israel are separated from ALL other tribes in Revelation 7, and that includes the Edomite Jews.
CFT
Gavin…..
If the Pharisees were Edomites, they could not claim they were never enslaved:
The Edomites had been enslaved many times — to the Israelites (1 Samuel 14:47–48; 2 Samuel 8:13–14, Amos 9:12), and the Babylonians (Ezekiel 25:12–14), and later the Nabateans (Malachi 1:2–5), and then under Israelite Hyrcanus, so if the Pharisees were Edomites, why would they deny they were ever enslaved? That makes no sense.
Mark
Whether the Pharisees are Israelites or Edomites is irrelevant to this passage. Context is everything, and most people ignore the context of John 8:32 where Christ says “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
The Pharisees take these words of Christ literally, not metaphorically which is how they are meant. Thus the Pharisees believe that Christ is telling them that they are literally in bondage at that time, and the Pharisees, being literal minded, say “No, we’ve never been in bondage.”
Of course, technically speaking, in their lifetimes, the Pharisees had never been in bondage, but by responding the way they did, they show how incapable they are of understanding the true meaning of Christ’s words.
“My sheep hear my voice.” The Pharisees cannot hear His voice, nor do they understand His parables, for the same reason. They are lost in the literalness of the Law. That’s the meaning of this entire exchange.
Those who interpret this passage as revealing the Pharisees being Edomites or Israelites are just like the Pharisees. They don’t understand the true import Christ’s words. They are too literal minded to understand because of their agenda.
Robert
So…Does CFT agree that Origin is Destiny? Or do you guys think God created non-White Hominids? Just curious.
banastile
Some claim that God did not create non-Adamic people, or that Satan did, but Satan has no creative powers, only God does. The Bible shows that there are “people” outside the Adamic creation, referred to as “beasts” in a number of instances. The archeological record shows that there were “people” who pre-dated Adam, whom some refer to as “pre-Adamites”.
Then the issue comes down to the Flood. Mainstream Christians believe that somehow all people today descend from Noah, but since Noah and his wife were of the same kind — Adamic — they could produce only their own kind. If that is the case, then we are faced with two scenarios:
If the Flood was worldwide and killed off all life, where did the non-Adamic people come from if not from Noah? It should be noted that Genesis 7:23, we are told that “man” or “human” was destroyed, and these words were translated from “adam” in the Masoretic texts. So all Adamic people outside the ark were destroyed.
If that’s the case, then there must have been another creation after the Flood to account for the non-Adamic people. Genesis 9:12 seems to suggest that there are “living creatures” that are not “with” Noah who are outside the covenant God made with Noah. This could be a veiled reference to non-Adamic biped creations or creatures. But the Bible isn’t about them, so it doesn’t explicitly account for them.
Gavin
The word “eretz” is “land” not “world” as in the whole planet. That’s just a ridiculous deceptive Roman Universalist interpretation that proves the links between the miscegenation-promoting Jews and the miscegenation-promoting Roman Catholics. The Protestants are still just as Universalist as Catholicism and have never stood up to the mother of all heresies,
“spiritual Israel”.
CFT
Robert, “Origin is Destiny” relies heavily on “human experience” as a barometer for what constitutes a “person.” In other words, the world has had our consciences seared into believing that if a hominid has an intellect approaching that of white European intellect, then it must be a “person” — and that groupings of such “people” must constitute “nations, peoples, tribes and tongues” — because on an intellectual and emotional level they experience reality similar to how white people do. We have addressed this idea in part in our essay, Who Are ‘The Nations’ In Scripture — And Who They Are Not — And Why It Matters
We do not hold this view — and “human experience” is something to be rejected — not embraced — even for white people. True religion and faith transcends “human experience” into conformance with the “divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and that we must “put on the new self, which is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created it.” (Colossians 3:10) The Lord Jesus said that “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit” (John 6:63) — and “human experience” is merely biological — an thus as an extension of our flesh it “provides no benefit.” Our series on Romans 7 & 8 might help to shed some light on this view of ours.
“Origin is Destiny” also relies heavily on the idea that all of God’s creation needs to be preserved. However, this view is not internally consistent, because many plants and animals are definitely not preserved — unless they will be resurrected at some point — which we do not find in the Bible.
Furthermore, the idea that all of God’s creation needs to be preserved is not consistent with the Bible. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3 the heavens and the earth will be destroyed. Revelation 20:11 tells us heaven and earth will flee, while Revelation 21:1 tells us of a new heaven and earth. Hebrews 12:26-27 tells us rather explicitly,
Ultimately then, we find that non-Adamic hominids must be a part of the animal creation for a few reasons:
* Genesis 3:1 tells us that the serpent was a cunning “animal of the field.” Though we are not sure whether a pre-cursed serpent could be considered a “hominid,” it will suffice to prove that intellect does not define what it means to be an Adamic man.
* Deuteronomy 7:22 tells us that Israel — a force of 600,000 men (Numbers 11:21) — ran the risk of being overwhelmed by “animals of the field.” Deuteronomy 2 tells us how the nations were necessary to hold back the rephaim, who we presume were non-Adamic hominids when combined with the below reasons.
* Prophecy tells us “animals of the field” will be used to punish Israel (Leviticus 26:22) — referred to more generically in Deuteronomy 32:24, Ezekiel 5:17, Ezekiel 14:21 and Revelation 6:8. This could not be fulfilled unless we consider non-Adamic hominids as animals of the field.
* Leviticus 18:23 strongly implies that intercourse with animals may produce offspring — and Adamic people were able to reproduce with the rephaim. Again, we cover this in Who Are ‘The Nations’ In Scripture — And Who They Are Not — And Why It Matters
We do not find this view dependent on any particular view on the flood. Was it worldwide? Was it local? It doesn’t really matter. Noah may have brought them along on the ark — and we’d expect that a “righteous man, blameless in his generation” who “walked with God” (Genesis 6:9) would know to regard them as no more than “animals of the field”.
Robert
Hello Thank you for the Reply, I have a lot of research I have to do I will read that article, this will take quite a lot of research before I can reach any conclusion. Reading this article (edom-iin-the-old-and-new-testaments) is interesting and a lot of good criticisms of Dual-Seedline are raised, however my only disagreement is the idea of a world wide flood, Charles Weisman did good work in his Book “Facts & Fictions Regarding Noah’s Flood”, as did Bertrandt Comperet, but as for these other claims, you guys raise good points and I’ll look into it more myself and pray Christ can reveal the truth. As the Truth is all I care about, I’m tired of the lies taught by the churches, academia, and Jews.
CFT
Yes, we even host Weisman’s book in our online library. What he does manage to do is highlight some ambiguity within the wording of the flood account — yet he fails to actually prove a local flood within the Bible itself. He bemoans a literal interpretation, but he must beg the question to arrive at his own conclusions — because the Bible never explicitly describes a local flood — and showing how the wording may be ambiguous doesn’t prove it either.
He must beg the question because he has already concluded that the flood must have been local — because his own brand of “science” demands it — and he makes light of a raging debate about the “science” of the flood. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.” Truth be told, one cannot gain an appreciation of all the work that has gone into the geological investigation merely by reading one paper by one highly biased man. He doesn’t really seem to be aware of many “creationist scientists'” arguments — but his perception of creation science becomes a kind of accidental straw-man to the lay — or ignorant — reader.
His argument also seems to overuse a “naturalistic” angle. For example, he argues that there could not have been enough water on the planet to cover the mountains of the earth. Thus he doesn’t actually explain how “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.” (Genesis 7:19) No, he merely disagrees with it. Yet he writes as if merely disagreeing with Genesis 7:19 on a naturalistic basis constitutes proof that the Bible describes a local flood. He presumes God’s power had no part to play in the flood — as if we could also disprove that the Lord Jesus was conceived in a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit merely because such a thing is “scientifically” or “naturistically” impossible.
Furthermore, Weisman has needlessly bought into the idea of “races” of “humankind” — the lie that all hominids are related due to their similarities. This cannot be proven out of the Bible — and once again he presumes the truth of his own belief in his exegesis. All in all, he tries to see the Bible through his preformulated views — and he engages in constant ad hominem attacks against those who would like to formulate their views from within the Bible. He calls them “creationists” and “fundamentalists.”
The Bible says God created the earth — fact. With that in mind, to engage in such excoriating ad hominem critique of “creationists” — as Weisman does — betrays a certain lack of self-awareness. When we don’t have much substance to our Biblical argument we often find ourselves having to bring in extra-Biblical sources — like “science” — and engage in ad hominem attacks — because that’s all we have at the end of the day.
Ultimately, because he is trying to see the Bible through his own worldview, he paints himself into a doctrinal corner. He hangs his doctrinal hat on the necessity of a local flood — and the same goes for Dual-Seedline. Truthfully, Dual-Seedline hangs its hat on many things as we highlight in the article — creating a veritable house of cards.
In the above article, the point we’d like to convey is that if anyone wants to hang their doctrinal hat on a local flood, then they need to have a good answer for Genesis 7:19. Weisman may go to great lengths to highlight ambiguity of wording on concepts like “face of the earth,” but he fails to do so with Genesis 7:19 — only offering his naturalistic argument to disagree with it. As such, we picked out Genesis 7:19 very carefully.
As mentioned previously, our view does not require a local or a global flood — and we do not necessarily begrudge anyone who believes either way — because we don’t have an agenda either way. We simply want to understand the Bible for what it says — not what we might want it to say. Maybe it’s telling that New Testament authors only teach us Spiritual truths of the flood — without ever commenting on whether it was global or local.
Hopefully these thoughts will be of some help for you. As a parting thought, Psalm 111:10 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; All those who follow His commandments have a good understanding.” The Lord says in John 14:15, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Seek His commands and “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) — then He will grant you all wisdom and knowledge you need. Good luck with your studies, take your time (Proverbs 19:2) and feel free to check out our writings: CFT Bible Studies.
CHRIST IS KING
I agree with what you’ve written CFT and Robert. Good on you, Robert, for wanting to study and praying for Truth from God! So many people I meet just want answers straight away, right now, this minute… no one is born wise, not even King Solomon.
Also, most folks get really angry if ya call the other “races” animals or beasts. Let me just say that it’s not a negative name for them. People equate the terms beast and animal negatively when given to a “person”; but why? Who would hate a tiger, dog, cat, monkey, cow, sheep, etc, if I called it a beast or an animal? I don’t hate other “races” because of what God classified them as. All animals can be good and bad, and some are cleverer than others. All fill a roll that God made them to do 🙂
Herr Voice Of Germany
Hello. I’m from germany and since it’s not possible to discuss topics related to jews in a critical way in my language i found this site. I’ve read some books from the 1920’s and 30’s where i found interesting stuff which has never been translated to english. Das Goldene Buch Der Menschheit – the golden book of mankind – by Frenzolf Schmidt tells a story of the Aryans of Atlantis and their downfall. The archenemy was a people of a half-breed – the sons of Kaiana (Cain?) who killed his brother Solveig and was sent to the woods – and a female ape named UDUMU. They were damned by god and created an own god – a god of hate whom they called JAWEI.
jake boy
Very interesting. How is the theological and political outlook there? You guys got screwed and people realize it.
Azariah Brand
Shalam Brothers. My Names Gunner I’m a German Scottish Israelite. The Truth is that Racial Purity IS THE MOST important Attribute to The Most High, AHAYAH. It is above Morals to AHayah. 2 Esdras 6:56 says: 56As for the other people, which also come of Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, but be like unto spittle: and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel. 57And now, O Lord, behold, these heathen, which have ever been reputed as nothing, have begun to be lords over us, and to devour us. 58But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn, thy only begotten, and thy fervent lover, are given into their hands. 59If the world now be made for our sakes, why do we not possess an inheritance with the world? how long shall this endure? Those oth Adamits are the Edomite/Jew. The White race is the Chosen Race of our Creator and the reason His son, Our savior Y’shaya came and died for US. He ONLY came to save Israel, Ethnic Europeans only. our creator is racist & HATES MIXING even down to our clothing. So was Y’shaya Racist, He called the non-israelite woman begging him to heal her daughter a dog and that it is not fair to give the children’s bread (Blessings for white Israelites) to the dogs (dark-skinned races). The jews are who are oppressing and Killing us still to this day, King David HATED them, Y’shaya HATES them, Ahayah HATES them, John the baptist HATED them. Thats what it means to pick up your cross and follow Y’shaya. NAME THE JEW JUST LIKE Y’SHAYA DID 2000 years ago.
Edward I
Azariah, it sounds like you’ve never read — or if you’ve read, you didn’t understand — Paul’s epistle to the Philippians, chapter 3, which completely refutes what you are claiming. Unlike you who can merely claim to be an Israelite with no proof, Paul had the proof, and he tells us that without faith in Christ his racial purity as an Israelite counted for nothing. Yes, racial purity is important, and it merely allows you the opportunity for salvation, but it doesn’t guarantee it. Read Paul’s words carefully:
“If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness in the law, faultless.
7 But whatever was gain to me I count as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ,a the righteousness from God on the basis of faith.
10 I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to Him in His death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
For those like yourself who have so much “confidence in the flesh,” there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Read:
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-do-i-know-im-an-israelite/
Jas
Azariah: You say that Jesus Christ came to save only Israel? What about all the rest of the Genesis 10 nations? Or do you just ignore Matthew 25:32? “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”
Speaking of which, if you are referring to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28, the same woman is called a “syro-phoenician” woman in Mark 7:24-30, so clearly she is a White Adamic woman, not a mongrel. And, no, she is not demonized as a “dog” for being a racial mongrel. The woman was called a “kuon” (Greek for “dog”) — like a household pet you’d throw scraps from the dinner table to. Clearly, this is a metaphor for the gospel first going to Israel, then the people of the Genesis 10 nations, whom Israelites like Peter disdained and saw them as spiritual dogs or predators.
Note Worthy
He told the woman she was not part of the children of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
John 10:26 (talking to pharisee jews)
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you….
You are either a sheep or a goat. That’s it.
westwins
Note Worthy,
Is it your belief that there were NO White Adamic peoples during the time of Christ?
Or ……………………. is it your belief that White Adamic peoples have no inheritance into the Kingdom of Heaven?
Which is it?
CFT
Note worthy, in our comment here we requested that you read a few articles: https://christiansfortruth.com/johns-baptism-of-repentance-and-why-all-israel-will-not-be-saved/#comment-96316
We already addressed this argument in Did Christ Come Only For The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel — And What Does That Mean For Prophecy?
You need to understand that we are familiar with most, if not all of the arguments you are making.
Chesterton
One look at these pictures of the ruins of Petra, the capital of Edom, should convince you that “Jews” did not build this ancient civilization. “Jews” have no history of building anything, and certainly nothing this sophisticated or beautiful:
https://toldinstone.com/in-the-rose-red-city/
birnie
CFT well done this is a concise article that covers many issues – Absolutely brilliant! Still most people place too much emphasis on who is or is not Adamic. Your valued and precise points speak volumes to those that can hear and read. Perhaps we need more emphasis on the idea of race and nation. Having read a load of your work I get the impression you repented at times. This is a great credit to your honesty. Sometimes I listen to old sermon by a black man Marshall Kebel. I myself find it impossible to declare this man a beast. Yet still I endeavor to be courteous and methodical to listen to others speak from scripture.
Again well done!, so very many issues made simple and plain by the holy writ.
4ntioch
The idea that ‘offspring’ is metaphorical …that to be the offspring of a serpent is metaphorical, well that is the same as the jewdeo churches and their ‘spiritual Israel’ idea. I think the Bible uses terms such as ‘offspring’ and ‘forefather’ literally. And the part in John 8 “we were not born of fornication” supports such a conclusion also.
The Greek preposition Ek, translated ‘of’ … OF your father the devil. That is a “A primary preposition denoting origin”, according to Bible dictionaries. In the way that a son if of his father. I do not think they were students of satan. 1 John 5 also discusses being BORN of God, and I dont believe in ‘spiritual Israel’. Rather I would cross-reference that to Malachi 2:10 where the prophet asks “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” and we find that Judah married the daughter of a strange God and made abominations.
Back to Matthew 23:33, the offspring of vipers, well the word translated as offspring there is ‘genema’ and it has racial implications. It can justly be read ‘race of vipers’.
At Ezra 9-10 we find that the Israelites had sinned by taking wives from the people of the land. The very tribes esau married are mentioned. How could this be a sin if they were Adamic, Israelites were allowed to take Adamic wives and they could enter the congregation after a few generations.
Lastly I would ask how Christ could hold His adversaries as being responsible for the blood of Abel if they are not of Cain? The descendants of Seth, such as Israel, cannot be liable for the blood of Abel. Christ would not make a false accusation.
Luk 11:51 from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias who was killed between the altar and the house. Yeah, I say to you, it shall be required from this race!
Isolde
4ntioch wrote, “I think the Bible uses terms such as ‘offspring’ and ‘forefather’ literally. And the part in John 8 “we were not born of fornication” supports such a conclusion also.”
You think? Or you prefer to think? When people use the expression, “You are a son of a gun,” or “You are a son of a b**tch,” do you understand that literally too? Are people really sons of guns? Are you serious? You choose to take this metaphor literally because it suits your agenda, which you’ve made abundantly clear. You have more in common with judeo-Christians than you would like to believe — unlike anyone here.
Did you read the essay on Malachi addressing you points? Doesn’t sound like it. Read it.
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-prophecy-of-malachi/
Your dubious claims about “spiritual Israel” were thoroughly addressed in the following essay. Read it again. Don’t repeat yourself, as you brought up many of these points already and ignored the answers that were given to you:
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
This essay specifically addresses Ezra 9. Why do you ignore it? Refute its evidence, please.
Zacharias was killed by Israelites. Do you read your Bible or only your Pope of two seedline?
4ntioch
Who was the murder from the beginning if not Cain!? John 8:44.
Johan
4ntioch, the whole serpent seed idea has been blown out of the water already. Genesis 4:1, the Kenites, the Canaanites, the Edomites, the Pharisees… Everything has been explained as being not possibly referring to serpent seed. Genesis 4:1 alone destroys the whole argument.
With that in mind, your conjecture as to the nature of Cain is stubborn and not useful, unless you want to address the specific arguments made as to the points I mentioned above.
You said, “Who was the murder from the beginning”
The Bible says, “He was a murderer from the beginning”
Big difference. There’s nothing in this statement that specifies which beginning He is referring to, unless you already assumed which beginning He is referring to. In the original Greek, there is actually no definite article “the” in front of “beginning”. The meaning would be better conveyed with, “He was a murderer from beginning”, but that doesn’t exactly work in the English language given how we use nouns. Ancient Greek didn’t have that limitation.
You believe “the beginning” must be Cain, because it fits your view. You are begging the question, which is revealed by how you inserted that one specific definite article “the” where it wasn’t even in the Scripture. Saying that “the beginning” was with Cain only assumes the beginning was with Cain and doesn’t support the idea that the beginning was with Cain.
All we can really conclude from the statement the Lord made is that from Satan’s own beginning, he was a murderer. When was that beginning? It doesn’t say. The only context we have to define what that beginning was, is the preconceived notions we already have about when Satan’s own beginning was. The only thing within John 8 itself which provides context as to Satan’s beginning, was that at his beginning, he was a murderer. If we wanted to discuss when Satan’s beginning was, we’d have to compare that with a search outside of John 8, where Genesis 4:1 has already nullified your own view.
In the context of John 8 specifically, do we need to know when that beginning was? No, we don’t. All we need to know — and the meaning the Lord is conveying — is that from the start of Satan’s own beginning, he was a murderer and a liar. With John 8 in isolation, that’s all we can say for sure.
CFT
Note Worthy, we addressed this view in the very article you are commenting on. Taken from the above article:
Moreover, literally not one Biblical author claimed this doctrine about Cain. Not even Josephus made any mention of it.
We’re going to have to ask you to pay more attention when you read — and to read the articles we’ve requested that you read — before you continue to debate the matter. Nothing personal, but it’s just a waste of your and our time if you don’t read what we’ve written first.
Danae
4ntioch wrote, “Who was the murder from the beginning if not Cain? John 8:44″
Well, let’s look at it, shall we?
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him….” (John 8:44)
This verse is saying that “The devil….was a murderer from the beginning.” Not Cain, but the devil. How do you squeeze Cain into that verse? If Christ had wanted to reference Cain here, he would have said, “Ye are of your father, Cain, who committed the first murder.” But that’s not at all what He said, is it? He doesn’t mention Cain at all.
Also, this verse is not describing someone who committed just one murder, as Cain did, but rather a “murderer” over a period of time, “from the beginning.” Murder is the work of the Devil/Satan, as a vocation, which makes him a “murderer” in the historical sense, throughout time. This certainly does not describe someone like Cain who committed murder once.
Johan
4ntioch wrote, “Yeah, I say to you, it shall be required from this race!”
With the usage of “genea” (Strongs G1074) multiple times in Matthew 1:17, people seriously need to stop categorically applying the word “race” to its meaning…
Chesterton
Yes, the whole concept of race was not invented until the 17th century or so. To impose that arbitrary concept on the Bible is not only anachronistic but self-serving. The Bible is about one people, the Adamic creation, so to introduce other “races” into the Bible is disingenuous because it’s not about them.
A few other hominid “peoples” are mentioned because they interact at times with the Adamics and Israel, but they are hardly center stage as the two seedliners contend. What they have done is look at how Jews dominate our society today and then turn around and impose that model on the Bible, especially the NT. It’s a classic example of post hoc projection.
Kevin
There are just some assumptions made from the outset of your argument, 4ntioch. I made these assumptions too in the past at times, but not anymore. Following one man’s work devotedly can blind.
For instance, in Matthew 3 where John says “race of vipers” he also says he has come to bring waters for repentance. He urged them to bring forth fruit fit for repentance.
Why would a prophet of God waste his time rebuking beasts? Does it not say in proverbs that only a foolish man rebukes the wicked?
It makes better sense, I think, that by “vipers,” John is referencing the serpent in the garden, who had knowledge of good and evil and, just like the pharisees, was yet unable to bring forth good fruit. The letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.
The serpent lied and deceived children of God, just as the pharisees had.
As for your presumptions about John 8. The greek for “devil” there is diabolos, which doesnt denote race at all, but a slanderer or false accuser, a serpent even. And yes it is a presumption to assume the serpent was a beast.
As for G1537 ‘ek’ it clearly states thar it can be literal or figurative, and since the pharisees and saducees practiced the tradition of the elders, and because like the serpent they used the knowledge of good and evil to appear wise; to deceive and to kill, then it makes perfect sense to relate the origin of their craft to the serpent or ‘devil.’
The fact that the saduccees in john 8 mentioned fornication to defend themselves is brought to light when Christ “even because you cannot hear my words.” They think He is talking about race, but He is talking about their fruits. Fruits alone tell the tale. A man sinning continually is of the devil, like we are told. His fruits are of the devil, not God. Even when an Israelite sins, that sin is not of God. As Paul said his sin was not his. It is not him.
And why would Christ say this directly to them if they were beasts?
Verse 51:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.”
As with John in Matthew 3 you would have us believe that beasts were offered repentance.
That would be a waste of time.
Neither of those chapters are about race, because the entire NT is written for race in the first place.
And I am amazed at your lack of proper approach to scripture. You let a doctrine of man rule you, even as you say all the time “i only care about what the bible says” and yet you cannot see – or refuse to admit – that Edom was clearly an adamite nation, based on the scriptural witnesses above you should realize it and sit back straight and start thinking about whether or not you are on the right track and with the right men.
I notice that place does very little these days save for talking about beasts, as if Christian fellowship were a trip to a zoo. You guys miss the point Christ is making. If He returns and catches you hiding behind race, whilst concealing sin, and bringing forth no fruit for repentance, He will address you no different than a pharisee.
What if He returns suddenly….
That line of thinking – of fear of God – keeps a man more cautious of his speech and more desiring of direct guidance from Christ.
Kevin
Christ is chastising them, and so is John, and it is grievous, because it is the death of the old man, who never served Yahweh in full.
Hebrews 6:
“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”
John says this to that same race of vipers that you presume to be beasts:
Matthew 3:11
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”
Is John a liar?
And where he says God could raise sons of Abraham out of stones he is clearly calling them out on hiding behind racial pride. It is clear and obvious.
Your earthly teacher is the one who says “what john means is even if God raised sons from stones they would not be jacob Israel.” But John doesnt say that. He says “I indeed baptize you (race of vipers) with water unto repentance.”
In other words, an unrepentant man bears fruit of the devil, and must repent or never see the kingdom. That is why God’s chastisement is hot, grievous, even harsh.
Ottify
Many still marching to the beat of their own drum, I see.
The blindness of the heart is overruling the logic of the brain. Belief cemented in knowledge is that house built on bedrock. Constantly grasping at straws to support a blind belief to satisfy your belly is that house built on sand.
Personal doctrines do not produce the fruits of righteousness. Personal doctrines do not glorify God. Personal doctrines almost always come at the expense of brotherly love.
Dan
Perhaps you are right about the logical inconsistencies of people who think all descendants of Noah were “pure” vs some kind of “beast,” but I am not that kind of person, so pointing out these inconsistencies does not really disprove my ideas on Jews being Idumea or otherwise Canaanitish.
I don’t agree with your breakdown and assertions, there is far too much evidence that pins the Pharisees that spoke to Christ as being a different “Genea” or “seed” to real Judah, and it can only be Idumea or Edomites, whom are practically Canaanites if you go by the logic that the Curse in Deuteronomy presents:
Deu 28:32 “Your sons and your daughters are given to another people, and your eyes look and fail for them all day long, and your hand powerless.”
You need to look into Josephus’ writings too, he said Herod was part Idumean and destroyed the genealogical records to prevent people from using that against his authority.
He also wrote that the Essenes were Judean by birth, implying that the Pharisees and Sadducees were not (mostly).
It is important to remember that some Jews are European converts (hence the Lactose Tolerance and Rh- blood), Karaites see no problem in accepting European (or any other peoples maybe) converts into Karaite Judaism, hence why Rabbinical Rabbi do not see them as real Jews. And Jews are still an admixture hybrid with Europeans, so they are related to us in that sense as well, but they are also clearly descended from Esau and Canaan, which means: when the Bible is talking about modern prophecy regarding Esau and Canaan, it can only be talking about them.
Not only that but some of the Edomites may have moved up into the land that became Khazaria, so that explains why the Jews went there and were able to convert so many to their cause.
https://i.imgur.com/gvQmQSA.png
https://i.imgur.com/KfNMySn.jpg
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
And then you have the Shelah-ite Jews. You must ask yourself why Shelah was illegitimate, where as the sons of Tamar the Aramean were legitimate.
Why did Abraham and Rachel despise that Esau had taken Canaanite Wives?
Why was Ishmael sent away without an inheritance even though he was just half-Khamite?
Look into God’s views on “Ereb” people https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6154.htm
You can’t be “set-apart” if you blend in with the Babel-esque mixed multitudes. In fact, that is a type of genocide, by UN’s own definitions, as long as there was concerted effort & intent to manufacture the situation.
But evidently, mixing is not the abominable act which is bestiality, nor is it equal to it, even if it has it’s own consequences which you can figure out if you study the issue with honest intent.
Jas
Dan wrote, “there is far too much evidence that pins the Pharisees that spoke to Christ as being a different “Genea” or “seed” to real Judah, and it can only be Idumea or Edomites…”
Indulge us. Put forth your “evidence” that the Pharisees were not Israelites. If there is “far too much evidence” then you should have no trouble proving this. Let’s start with the first verse that states the Pharisees are Edomites and go from there. Forget about “reading between the lines” because your whole theory is based on seeing what is not explicitly stated. Besides Mark 3:8, where is the word Edom or Edomite mentioned in the New Testament?
Crickets.
Jake
Hey Jas. In response to :”because your whole theory is based on seeing what is not explicitly stated”, check this out. It explicitly says that a Canaanite king was in the garden of Eden .
Ezekiel 11 -13
11Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12“Son of man, take up a lament for the king of Tyre and tell him that this is what the Lord GOD says:
‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13You were in Eden,
the garden of God.
I hope I don’t have “crickets” coming from you because you were unkind to the other guy so….
Jas
Jake, it seems you run into trouble when you take the words of a prophet like Ezekiel literally. He’s clearly not saying that the King of Tyre was literally in the Garden of Eden. Rather he’s comparing the King of Tyre to the serpent or Satan in the Garden of Eden, who was beautiful but brought low.
westwins
I have a rather curious question for some here who may have these resources —-
I know there are several books out there that trace the “History of the Jews”. E.M. Jones comes to mind. I actually have that book that I read over 10 years ago, but right now it is in a box in storage.
But for anyone who may have read any of these books — what do these authors; or “how” do these authors tie Modern Jewry with Jewry of Antiquity? Because I am confident they do. Unless they offer some kind of “Gap” theory or something.
Now ………….. we here know that when they speak to “Jews” of the 1st Century — they don’t understand that they are talking about Israelites.
But they do, I would assume, trace “Jewry” through the Centuries covering the OT, NT and History. Do they not?
So ……………. what is the connection that they make or try to make.
In other words — they claim modern Jewry are the same people from the 1st Century. How do they make this claim?
Just curious.
I will be anxious to get my EM Jones book out of storage here soon and see for myself. But that may be a few months.
Thanks!
Dan
A random people could not have spontaneously adopted the practices of the Pharisees & Sadjucees, nor their Oral law written down (Babylonian Talmud). They had to be related as descendants.
Hence “His blood will be upon us and our children.”
We can also use genetic studies to tie them to the Middle Eastern Hittites, even if they look White now from intermixing & purity breeding.
Chesterton
Dan wrote, “A random people could not have spontaneously adopted the practices of the Pharisees & Sadjucees, nor their Oral law written down (Babylonian Talmud). They had to be related as descendants.”
You simply made that up. They were related as descendants because they were Israelite priests. You deny it without proof. Not wanting to believe that Israelites believe in the occult flies in the face of the entire Old Testament. There is no evidence whatsoever that it was anyone but the Israelites who brought those occult practices back from Babylon to Judea.
John
Look at the fruits of the people known as Jews. Jesus said, “you shall know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:20).”
What have these people brought to the world? The central banking system, World Wars I and II, 911, the Holohoax, the Holodomor, pornography, slavery, communism, the Talmud, modern psychology, etc., etc.
Johan
I’d suggest reading this article: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
After reading the article, the rest of my comment will make more sense…
“Good trees” are children of the promise, while “bad trees” are not.
John, I think a lot of us when we came to the “racial” understanding of Scripture, we grasped at straws to try to justify our view. However, we must grow and mature from there, improving our understanding constantly. If an understanding of Jews doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as the article suggests, then we must change that view.
We don’t “need” these old interpretations to know that Jews are evil. Yes, only pure white people are Adamites, but we don’t need these flawed views like Matthew 7:20 to prove “race”. I think a lot of the work being done on CFT recently is helping a lot of Christians who were “Christian Identity” to let go of the old baggage, and work towards the coming of the Lord Jesus.
Anyway, have a look at the article I linked above and see what you think. Join in, discuss and study with us. I think you will soon see why it’s okay to let the old things go…
CHRIST IS KING
“I think a lot of the work being done on CFT recently is helping a lot of Christians who were “Christian Identity” to let go of the old baggage, and work towards the coming of the Lord Jesus.”
Amen! I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve had a few “road to Damascus” moments as of late.
Johan
CHRIST IS KING, that’s wonderful to hear. We are shameless together in that admission!
Those moments are hard, but like Paul says, “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation” (2 Cor 7:10 — the whole chapter is amazing).
We are all under sin (Gal 3:22), so we must all feel that sorrow that we can come to the Light (John 3:23)…
westwins
I as well Christ is King!
That being said, I hate to admit it; but that idea — Modern Jewry having direct relationship to Esau/Edom — was very powerful for my ability to “wake up” so to speak and just begin to study the JQ.
So ………… I’m on the fence as to how important it is to really nail this one down.
Those verses that have been corrected here (John 8:44) literally shook me out of my slumber.
But ….. Truth is Truth is Truth as Jesus is Truth. “Truth” being the highest Virtue.
So we plod away.
Just wish it wasn’t so divisive with that other crowd.
Cheers.
Dan
There’s a difference between falling, becoming immoral and being cursed by Christ because of continued, wilful iniquity and then wilfully having Christ executed.
Mar 8:14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat.
Mar 8:15 And He was warning them, saying, “Mind! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herodes.”
Mar 8:16 And they were reasoning with one another, saying, “Because we have no bread.”
Mar 8:17 And Yahshua, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?
Mar 8:18 “Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not *remember?* ”
Joh 7:34 “You shall seek Me and you shall not find Me, and where I am you are unable to come.”
Joh 7:35 The Yehudean, therefore, said to themselves, “Where is He about to go that we shall not find Him? Is He about to go to the dispersed amongst the Greeks, and to teach the Greeks?”
Joh 8:19 Therefore they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Yahshua answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you knew Me, you would have known My Father also.”
~1Jn 4:6 We are of Elohim – the one knowing Elohim hears us. He who is not of Elohim does not hear us. By this we know the Spirit of the Truth and the spirit of the delusion.
~Joh 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
~Mat 15:24 And He answering, said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’ěl.
Joh 8:33 They answered Him, “We are the seed of Aḇraham, and have been slaves to no one, at any time. How do you say, ‘You shall become free’?”
(How do people not notice that they confess here that they are not Judah by birth.)
Joh 8:44 “You are of your father the devil (slanderer), and the desires of your father you wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45 “And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 “Who of you proves Me wrong concerning sin? And if I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 “He who is of Elohim hears the Words of Elohim, therefore you do not hear because you are not of Elohim.”
Mat 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous race (genea) seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Yonah.” And He left them and went away.
Mat 23:31 “Thus you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who did murder the prophets –
32 and you fill up the measure of your fathers!
33 “Serpents, brood of adders! How would you escape the judgment of GěHinnom?
34 “Because of this, see, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scholars of Scripture. Some of them you shall kill and impale, and some of them you shall flog in your congregations and persecute from city to city,
35 so that on you should come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Heḇel to the blood of Zeḵaryah, son of Bereḵyah, whom you murdered between the Dwelling Place and the slaughter-place.
36 “Truly, I say to you, all this shall come upon this race.”
(This is a very serious assertion & curse for a God that always keeps his word.)
Mat 27:25 And all the people answering, said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
1Sa 22:18 And the sovereign said to Do’ěḡ, “You turn and come against the priests!” So Do’ěḡ the Eḏomite turned and came against the priests, and put to death on that day eighty-five men who wore a linen shoulder garment.
19 And he struck Noḇ, the city of the priests, with the edge of the sword, from men even to women, from children even to nursing infants, and oxen and donkeys and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
Eze 36:2 Thus said the Master YHWH, “Because the enemy has said of you, ‘Aha! The heights of old have become our possession,’ ”
Lam 4:21 Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Eḏom, You who dwell in the land of Uz! The cup is to pass over to you too, So that you become drunk and make yourself naked.
22 Your crookedness has been completed, O daughter of Tsiyon. He no longer prolongs your exile. He shall punish your crookedness, O daughter of Eḏom, He shall uncover your sins!
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the set-apart (holy) ones, and with the blood of the witnesses of Yahshua. And having seen her, I marvelled – greatly marvelled!
7 And the messenger said to me, “Why did you marvel? Let me explain to you the secret of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
8 “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the pit of the deep and goes to destruction. And those dwelling on the earth, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, shall marvel when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”
Johan
Dan, I have a very sincere question for you: Did you read the article above? The reason I ask, is because you’ve mentioned things addressed in the article without acknowledging it.
I don’t understand a lot of the connections you’re making, so I’ll do my best. If you could explain it though, that would be good.
Dan wrote, “~Joh 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
~Mat 15:24 And He answering, said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Yisra’ěl.”
Matthew 15:24 doesn’t mean that all of Israel are lost sheep. He is saying that the lost sheep He is there fore are Israelites, but not all Israelites are lost sheep.
Also, Israel is a genetic term referring to the descendants of Jacob. If He was talking about only those Israelites in Judea, He would have specified that. “Israel” means all tribes of Israel, because Israel was not a geopolitical or geographical specification in that time (or ever, until the fake “Israel” of 1948).
Therefore, John 10:16,
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice; and they will become one flock, with one shepherd.
Dan wrote, “Joh 8:33 They answered Him, “We are the seed of Aḇraham, and have been slaves to no one, at any time. How do you say, ‘You shall become free’?”
(How do people not notice that they confess here that they are not Judah by birth.)”
Edom did come under bondage to Israel, and was literally prophesied to come under that bondage in Genesis 27:40, which was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8:14. This means that at some point, both Israel and Edom were under bondage at some point in their respective histories. Therefore, the audience is referring to bondage within their own personal lifetimes.
Dan, hear me out here… I wonder how people don’t know that Edom was under bondage. I wonder how people interpret that passage as them admitting they are not Israelites.
Dan wrote, “Joh 8:44 “You are of your father the devil (slanderer), and the desires of your father you wish to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it. ”
This passage is specifically addressed in the article above. What are your thoughts on the article’s logic?
Dan wrote, “Mat 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous race (genea) seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Yonah.” And He left them and went away. ”
“Genea” doesn’t always refer the entire line of genetic posterity. It’s usage in Matthew 1:17 proves that it can refer to “generations” as we understand it in the English. Therefore, He is likely saying “A wicked and adulterous generation”, as most translations render it.
Dan wrote, “Mat 23:31 “Thus you testify against yourselves that you are sons of those who did murder the prophets – ”
This passage is specifically addressed in the article above. What are your thoughts on the article’s logic?
Dan wrote, “Mat 27:25 And all the people answering, said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” ”
My comment here covers Matthew 27:25, and explains how it can only be referring to Israelites: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-46416
Dan wrote, “1Sa 22:18 And the sovereign said to Do’ěḡ, “You turn and come against the priests!” So Do’ěḡ the Eḏomite turned and came against the priests, and put to death on that day eighty-five men who wore a linen shoulder garment. ”
Just like David slew Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites, Saul slew the priests by the sword of the Edomites.
Dan wrote, “Eze 36:2 Thus said the Master YHWH, “Because the enemy has said of you, ‘Aha! The heights of old have become our possession,’ ””
There’s a section in the article above on Edom in prophecy. What are your thoughts on the article’s logic?
Dan wrote, “Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the set-apart (holy) ones, and with the blood of the witnesses of Yahshua. And having seen her, I marvelled – greatly marvelled! ”
Revelation 17:4,
The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold…
Jeremiah 4:30,
And you [Israel], desolate one, what will you do? Although you dress in scarlet, Although you adorn yourself with jewelry of gold,
Revelation 17:16,
…these will hate the prostitute and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.
Jeremiah 4:30,
…Your lovers despise you; They seek your life.
Dan
A lot of the Article is pointing out the logical issues in believing things that I do not believe.
So when you say the Edomites weren’t “racial mamzers”- that is only if you believe it is a simple case of Noah-Adamic vs everyone else being Biped Beast-men.
Canaanites were a separate race, one generation under the three proto-typical ones, and the lowest of the Hierarchy set by God, since they were cursed, rather than just left to their own devices like other Khamites. It is the blessings/ curses which drives this hierarchy.
“Matthew 15:24 doesn’t mean that all of Israel are lost sheep. He is saying that the lost sheep He is there fore are Israelites, but not all Israelites are lost sheep.”
Why are they not?
Lost sheep refers to those Tribes who had fallen into paganism, so they are not without iniquity. I’d say they all have the potential to be “lost sheep”, but they also have the potential to act in enmity to God, since they still have free will. Where as someone who is not Israel, does not have this potential at all, as it is not written into their hearts.
“Also, Israel is a genetic term referring to the descendants of Jacob. If He was talking about only those Israelites in Judea, He would have specified that. “Israel” means all tribes of Israel, because Israel was not a geopolitical or geographical specification in that time (or ever, until the fake “Israel” of 1948).”
I agree with that but I don’t see the relevance. Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham but he didn’t inherit the same promises, in fact he had no inheritance, he was sent away with a gift, why was that?
Shelah was also not considered legitimate, yet the sons of Tamar the Aramaean were, and gave rise to Christ.
“Edom did come under bondage to Israel, and was literally prophesied to come under that bondage in Genesis 27:40, which was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8:14. This means that at some point, both Israel and Edom were under bondage at some point in their respective histories. Therefore, the audience is referring to bondage within their own personal lifetimes.”
Sorry to be pedantic but it was not the entire audience speaking, but someone in the audience, and it is because he said “we” not “I,” so how is it he can speak for the whole audience with certainty whether they have personally been in indentured servitude or chattel bondage?
I guess he could have known, but sorry that wasn’t my first assumption from what was said.
And I am not aware of them being wholly enslaved as a Nation like the Tribes of Israel were, multiple times. If they were slaves to Israel then they would not have risen to prestigious positions. Obviously there may have been prisoners of war but that’s not the same thing imo. They do not seem to understand what an Israelite should understand, which is related to the story of Exodus, then again we could say the same for many who seem to be Israelites. I do think that, generally, we are not the kind of evil you see, we are still more averse to slavery in comparison to other peoples where as Jews seem completely shameless with sadism & chattel slavery, which they have engaged in from before the Radhanites to their Mafias.
There is a difference between being conditioned to the point where you ignore or choose to suppress your own natural affections & empathy, and then never even having natural affections to begin with (psychopath) because you are the product of some nasty, cursed bloodline.
~
“1Jn 3:2 Beloved ones, now we are children of Elohim. And it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1Jn 3:3 And everyone having this expectation in Him cleanses himself, as He is clean.
1Jn 3:4 Everyone doing sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
1Jn 3:5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.
1Jn 3:6 Everyone staying in Him does not sin. Everyone sinning has neither seen Him nor known Him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one lead you astray. The one doing righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.
1Jn 3:8 The one doing sin is of the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of Elohim was manifested: to destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Everyone having been born of Elohim does not sin, because His seed stays in him, and he is powerless to sin, because he has been born of Elohim.
1Jn 3:10 In this the children of Elohim and the children of the devil are manifest: Everyone not doing righteousness is not of Elohim, neither the one not loving his brother.”
The main issue with the interpretation is in verse 10, since it uses the same phrase.
You can see it as saying that being a “Child of God” is just a spiritual seed, completely metaphysical and can be passed on through tutoring/ preaching. That means outsiders to Israel are capable of spontaneous righteousness too, and they should recognise them as Children of God as well as themselves, and those who are unrighteous should be labelled Children of the Devil.
That begs the question as to why Israel was even created to begin with?
Especially since the vast majority of them seem to be “Children of the Devil” according to your understanding.
Them worshipping Baal kind of makes them a “Child of the Devil” in a figurative sense, but does it make them culpable for the sins of all the unrighteous, from Cain to the men who slew Zechariah? Seems odd to me.
From that set of scriptures though, I think I can safely bet that not one of us has figuratively “seen Elohim.” We are trying to figure out the true understanding because it is necessary for healing this great collective iniquity.
How do you tell something is true or a lie? You must use logic, and part of that logic is that if it contradicts, it must be untrue, so I do appreciate the criticisms.
Personally, I think it could be that those who are outright incapable of Righteousness MUST be the Children of the Devil, this is their “fruit,” they are incapable of anything but more evil & chaos. Perhaps there is a mistake with that view though?
““Genea” doesn’t always refer the entire line of genetic posterity. It’s usage in Matthew 1:17 proves that it can refer to “generations” as we understand it in the English. Therefore, He is likely saying “A wicked and adulterous generation”, as most translations render it.”
It could be rendered “generations” but it was also used to describe race or seed, hence “Genetics.” Most translations don’t render “Genea” as “race” when it ought to be, because it would not be Politically Correct to do so according to Marxist ideals.
I used context to determine what it was referring to because it speaks of the men of Nineveh in Mat 12:41, who are Shemites of a different subset- Assyrians/ Aramaeans. It also then in the next verses, it goes on to talk about the Leaven of Pharisees (and of Herodes)… Leaven being yeast, a fungal parasite. Although it’s also used in positive parables elsewhere so…
~
“So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets”
If this was talking about Israel, why would there need to be the word “testify” ?
It would be a forgone conclusion that Israel murders the prophets of Israel on Israel’s land, that is the first assumption people make.
“Testify” = confession, implying that they confessed to something which they were trying to hide.
I would say Israel did murder prophets, but these people he is addressing are incapable of Righteousness and always murdered the Prophets, first chance they got, and encouraged Israelites to join in with it.
Here it says-
Joh 11:47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? Because this Man does many signs.
48 “If we let Him alone like this, they all shall believe in Him, and the Romans shall come and take away from us both our place and nation.”
49 And one of them, Qayapha, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know naught,
50 neither do you consider that it is better for us that one man die for the people than that the entire race should perish.”
51 But he did not say this from himself, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Yahshua was about to die for the nation,
52 and not for the nation only, but to gather together into one the children of Elohim who were scattered abroad.
53 So from that day on they plotted to kill Him.
Are they really talking about Yisrael here? Or a generation of Yisrael?
It seems like they could be referring to themselves as a collective ingroup aside from Yisrael. They feared the fact that Yahshau would gather together the Lost Tribes, why would they fear it, unless they were some kind of “other” that would suffer as a consequence and be removed permantly?
I get that you say they couldn’t have been mamzers, because of Deuteronomy, but they, including actual Yisraelite priests, were sacrificing children at one point so I don’t think it’s really beyond possibility, even after reading your objections.
Jews do not consider themselves mamzers now, when they are super-mongrels. They only point out mamzers if they mix with people like Palestinians or Europeans, even though they are closely related to both.
I assume it was a similar situation. They might have flipped the script on what was considered a bastard or mamzer and what was not. Hence why they saw Yashua as a Roman bastard (not as in mamzer but as in outside of marriage) and made a huge distinction between themselves and Galileans. They- the dark, beak-nosed chosen ones looked down on the fairer-looking people as “Goyim.”
“Act 2:22 “Men of Yisra’ěl, hear these words: Yahshua of Natsareth, a Man from Elohim, having been pointed out to you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs which Elohim did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know,
23 this One, given up by the set purpose and foreknowledge of Elohim, you have impaled and put to death through the hands of lawless men –
24 “Him Elohim raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was impossible that He could be held in its grip. ”
I do get that Peter here condemns the entirety of Israel, but in my mind the Apostles were not a higher authority than Christ. And they were not infallible, this is why the Apostles disagreed on certain subjects, like Paul had a completely different view of Baptism to the others and said it was a mistake, essentially.
How is that all of Yisrael, including Pagan Lost Sheep, who were not even present in Jerusalem at the time of his death culpable in the same sense as what Christ says?
Or are you saying he is speaking to some specific people who were involved and was trying to get them to repent of their sins? They could have even just been Yisraelites who were loyal to the Pharisees/ Sadducees at the time, and it would make them culpable enough for this kind of criticism & call to repent, but that doesn’t mean the Pharisaic beliefs were their creation. Pharisees believed everything was preordained as well as them having their special “Oral Law” which was like secret Gnosis.
Instead, I am saying that the direct descendants of those who said “His blood be upon us and our children” are indeed cursed by Christ, literally.
And in any case, many of them understand it to be that way as you can see with Cohen’s Song-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0nmHymgM7Y
“If you are the dealer
Let me out of the game
If you are the healer
I’m broken and lame
If thine is the glory
Mine must be the shame”
As well as many of their religious & esoteric writings.
“My comment here covers Matthew 27:25, and explains how it can only be referring to Israelites: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-46416”
I agree in that other comment, the “fire” is allegorical, I also replied to him too.
/#comment-47070
I disagree with the rest. You haven’t really proven that the people of Acts are the very same as those who said that during the Crucifixion.
I do not believe those who were present and engaged in the cries to kill him were then the ones Peter was speaking to but that Peter was speaking to those who were culpable in a different way, by indirect support of the groups involved.
For example: Say if there is a group of BLM protestors who burned down a house with someone in it, the supporters of BLM may not be directly culpable, but they are still culpable in another way.
“Just like David slew Uriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites, Saul slew the priests by the sword of the Edomites.”
You have a point there. There was a Saul who was an Edomite king, but obviously the Saul mentioned there is of the Tribe of Benjamin, being the first king of a United Israel.
I still think the men with the swords are equally culpable, and that is why they may be being referred to directly as an ‘other’.
The Edom in Prophecy issue~
“Edom’s genetic make-up here as a contributing factor — or justification — for the punishment —”
This is true, but even with the Nephilim, the justification for punishment of the Flood was their intent and action, their immorality, but their ancestry/ inheritance was obviously a factor in why they were so immoral & cruel.
And yes, God is long-suffering so Esau was still given land and a chance to improve themselves, just like the Canaanites were given many years to repent, but they only got worse, and it is a fact the Edomites were all part Canaanite.
I think this comes down to whether or not the Jews we see now claiming to be legitimate Judah and also the entirety of Israel (you could say… “supplanting”) are in fact descendants of Esau (and therefore illegitimate) or not.
“from then on [Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, 1966 Doubleday & Company, Inc , Garden City, New York, Pg. 592.
“EDOM IS IN MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41.
The [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people. “EDOM,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Vol. 6, p. 378
They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation…. “EDOM, IDUMEA,” The Jewish Encyclopaedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Vol. V, p. 41
…from then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants. “EDOM (Idumea),” The New Standard Jewish Encyclopaedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589
…they [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Dregel Publications, 1960) Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279
“No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.”
—Manifesto of the “World Jewish Federation,” January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman
https://i.imgur.com/KfNMySn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gvQmQSA.png
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/leaked-report-israel-acknowledges-jews-in-fact-khazars-secret-plan-for-reverse-migration-to-ukraine/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews
You may be right about the scarlet harlot.
But who is a greater sinner, the Freemasons and other gangs, organisations, religions, fraternities, and secret societies or the Jews themselves, who founded them directly or indirectly? the “grandmaster magi” that they follow & remain loyal to? I think the figurative Harlot includes both Yisrael & non-Yisrael though, and even includes Catholicism/ the Vatican as well as the Jesuits, but the tendrils all seem to stem from the same “Genea” each time. You may wonder about that, but…
https://i.imgur.com/RPuyX1T.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/G6a3tqk.jpg
You can compare Haplogroups too. There also may be statistics on how many “Judeans” had become Roman Citizens. I know that Nero’s wife, who accused the Christians of acts of violence against Rome, was buried like a Jewess.
It seems like the Great Harlot is thematically the antithesis of the Bride, and has to have had the potential to be a bride to be considered adulterous but Esau is also considered adulterous-
Heb 12:15 See to it that no one falls short of the favour of Elohim, that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, by which many become defiled,
Heb 12:16 lest there be anyone who whores, or profane one, like Ěsaw, who for a single meal sold his birthright.
Heb 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he wished to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears.
I can’t help but notice that Mystery Babylon, in practice, seem to essentially be followers of Kabbalah, which is inherently Gnostic in my understanding, and rooted in Canaanite beliefs as well as Babylonian ones. It also matches with what happened in Babylon where the writing appeared on the wall because the Holy Vessels of God were given over to Harlots so they could drink wine, and they were destroyed by Assyrians in one short moment.
When Yisrael was corrupt, it was following the ways of Canaanites and Edomites, so it would be no surprise to me that they were referred to in this way when they were mimicking them. In Ezekiel 16:3 it probably isn’t being literal but addressing the fact that they were copying them.
Where as I do believe Christ literally cursed (by prophecy) those who he was speaking to and that they were of a different Genea, because they were not “Judah by birth.”
Johan
Dan wrote, “I do get that Peter here condemns the entirety of Israel, but in my mind the Apostles were not a higher authority than Christ. And they were not infallible, this is why the Apostles disagreed on certain subjects, like Paul had a completely different view of Baptism to the others and said it was a mistake, essentially.
Dan, this represents a fundamental schism in our views, and essentially makes us unable to reconcile our views with one another.
I want to state this in the most clear, concise and visceral way possible: Peter is above our criticism.
The apostles are the foundation upon which the church is built, as it says in Matthew 16:18,
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Revelation 21:14 says,
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Ephesians 2:20 says,
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone
If we do not accept the words of these men, and submit to their authority, we are rejecting the Lord Jesus Himself, as He Himself said in Matthew 10:40,
The one who receives you receives Me, and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.
And in Luke 10:16,
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.
And in John 13:20,
Truly, truly I say to you, the one who receives anyone I send, receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
Do you know that the Lord even gave them all authority to forgive or retain sin? (John 20:23)
Paul warns about the fate of those who reject authority in 2 Timothy 3:8-9,
8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, worthless in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their foolishness will be obvious to all, just as was that also of Jannes and Jambres.
Peter says in 2 Peter 2:10-12, that those who despise authority are like unreasoning beasts, meant to be captured and killed.
Do we even need to speak of Peter’s deeds, and how the Holy Spirit witnessed to his own authority?
It is not for you, or any of us, to criticize the words of these men. The Lord has witnessed to none of us with signs and wonders, and yet some of us are arrogant enough to think we know better than them?
Dan, you have set for yourself a precedent where you are free to disagree with anything according to your choosing. If you believe that Peter has disagreed with the Lord Jesus, it is you who is in error. It simply means that you yourself disagree with both Peter and the Lord Jesus.
Please, for your own sake, submit to their authority…
Chesterton
Dan wrote, “Canaanites were a separate race, one generation under the three proto-typical ones, and the lowest of the Hierarchy set by God, since they were cursed, rather than just left to their own devices like other Khamites. It is the blessings/ curses which drives this hierarchy. ”
You just completely made this up. The essay demonstrated that the Canaanites were a pure branch of the Genesis 10 nations. You are denying that, claiming that they were a “separate” race. Prove it. Jacob was blessed and Esau was cursed, yet they were clearly the same race. Same is true for Cain and Abel. Blessings and curses have nothing to do with “race” or genetics” but rather God’s choice. You are confusing these issues. Address the essay. Show where is it wrong about the Canaanites. We’ve heard enough of your opinions and “I thinks”…..
Isolde
Dan, did you seriously quote Leonard Cohen as “proof” that Matthew 27:25 is talking about mamzer Jews killing Christ? Yet you reject the words of Peter because they disagree with your doctrine. That is bizarre and makes no sense. Acts 2:22-23 proves you wrong. Israelites nailed Christ to the cross, not mamzers.
Chesterton
Dan, please don’t just post dozens of verses without telling us specifically what they mean. That’s distracting and unpersuasive.
John
Do you guys believe the flood of Noah was worldwide?
Johan
Put it this way… Given Genesis 7:19-24 and Psalm 104:5-6, I’m not sure how it could be anything other than worldwide.
Although given Genesis 8:10-11, seven days is not long enough for an olive tree to even sprout properly, let alone bring forth a leaf. Also, the flood would have killed all the trees, because trees can’t survive under water for the year it took for the water to dry up.
Where did the olive leaf come from then? I believe the only answer is that it was miraculous, which sets a strong precedent for how the rest of the earth was repopulated with flora and fauna…
William T Medford
The date of Noah’s flood was 2345-2344 BC.
Dynasties of Egypt.
Userkaf…………………………………2510-2491 BC.
Sahure………………………………….2487-2477 BC.
Neferirkare……………………………2477-2467 BC.
Shepseskare Isi……………………..2467-2460 BC.
Neferefre………………………………2460-2453 BC.
Nyuserre Kaiu……………………….2453-2422 BC.
Menkauhor Kaiu……………………2422-2414 BC.
Djedkare Isesi………………………..2414-2375 BC.
Unas……………………………………..2375-2345 BC. Noah’s
Teti………………………………………..2345-2333 BC Flood
Userkare………………………………..2333-2332 BC
Pepi Meryre……………………………2332-2283 BC.
Merenre Nemtyemsaf…………….2283-2278 BC.
Pepi Neferkare……………………….2278-2184 BC.
Nitigret…………………………………..2184-2183 BC.
If Noah’s flood was Global, then someone forgot to tell these people because they lived right through it. Not only these Egyptians , but, there are records of Mesopotamia and China timelines just like those of Egypt.
Isolde
I guess you aren’t aware of how the Jews changed the timeline of the Flood in the Bible to deny the divinity of Christ?
Read:
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-jews-changed-the-timeline-of-the-bible-in-order-to-deny-the-divinity-of-christ/
Note Worthy
Exactly. Other points are: Most of the time eratz means land not earth. ,,,The water was 15cubits high.,,,, All of the fresh water fish would die.
Norm
All people on earth since Genesis 10 are “pure Adamic men.”
1. Flood killed everybody except those on Noah’s ark: ” And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.” Genesis 6:17
2. Ham, Shem, and Japheth were Noah’s sons: ” And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Genesis 5:32; ” And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Genesis 9:1.
3. Noah was Adamic and so were his three sons: ” These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” Genesis 6:9-10.
4. The 70 nations described in Genesis 10 are all Adamic and they correspond to the 70 of Israel’s children (sons and grandsons) who went down into Egypt: ” When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Deuteronomy 32:8; ” And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.” Exodus 1:5.
Conclusion: God made other races of men alongside Adam, but all those men died in the flood. The racial diversity that survived originates with the diversity of women who were married by Noah and his three sons.
Johan
Norm, I felt you were doing really well supporting from the Scripture until you reached the conclusion. It’s interesting how suddenly your Scriptural evidence ceased in that moment.
The reason for that is the conclusion is begging the question. You’ve already assumed that other “races” are people, so you’ve read other “races” into the Scripture. The truth is, the Scripture doesn’t mention other “races” ever, which is witnessed by how your Scriptural evidence stopped abruptly.
The truth is, “race” doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing. It’s a concept made up to explain the existance of other bipedal creatures which are animals, not Adamic men. You will find the concept most at home within the halls of Satanic evolutionary anthropology.
When “races” breed with one another, they produce brown. A mixed “race” can never produce a pure “race”, and a pure “race” can never produce something not of that same “race”. How is it then, that “racial” integrity could have survived with different “races” living in close proximity with one another?
How is it that the Khoisan reached Southern Africa, or the Aboriginees reached Australia — the farthest reaches of the world, simultaneously forgetting entirely how to write, farm, build boats, make tools, make pottery, make clothes and all the things which Noah took for granted?
Reason with me, Norm…
Norm
John writes, ” It’s a concept made up to explain the existance of other bipedal creatures which are animals, not Adamic men.”
Those other races of men (and their wives) were made in Genesis 1 to replenish the entire earth, but the man Adam was made in Genesis 2 and confined to a special garden. The outside races of men in chapter 1 were not bipedal animals – they were made in God’s image and blessed. They were 5 kings with 5 dominions:
1. ” And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over [1] the fish of the sea, and over [2] the fowl of the air, and over [3] the cattle, and over [4] all the earth, and over [5] every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:26.
2. They were “sons of God” like Adam, ” … Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:38.
3. They lorded over their dominions as “gods” – ” I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” Psalms 82:6-7 (John 10:34-36).
4. These first “sons of God” and their wives populated earth, and later they added young girls into their harems, ” That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Genesis 6:2.
5. The 5th son of God was associated with what “creepeth” – hence he was Mr Serpent and crept into Adam’s realm in the garden, and fathered Cain.
6. These men are the origin of other races, but God destroyed them: ” And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. …But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” Genesis 6:6-8.
7. The dominions of the sons of God must be inherited – hence their daughters inherit them and pass them onto Noah’s family (see, the 5 daughters of Zelophehad in Num 27 and Josh 17).
8. So mankind today comes from all the different races of men that God made, but only from one male line that survived, Adam’s line by Noah. This pictures what must happen next: all mankind in Adam is doomed except we join the new line of mankind, the 7th Son of God (who is the only begotten Son of God, God manifest in the flesh). This is why the church is compared to a woman and Christ to her husband.
Therefore there is ZERO relevance to trying to figure out who is “white” and who is racially “Israel” and who is a “mamzer” blah blah blah. These concepts are over. The only thing that matters is the new creation and it is open to all humans of all races. We put our faith in Christ Jesus and are born again.
” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13
Genea Anothen
Norm, John 3:3 is a common mistranslation, which causes a misunderstanding. It’s not “unless you are born again…” but rather “unless you are born from above.” Look up the Greek if you don’t believe it. And that implies that not everyone is “born from above”. What does it mean to be “born from above”? It’s not what the “born agains” think.
Ottify
What you are espousing is reminiscent of the “8th day Creation” theory, claiming that the first few chapters of Genesis are different accounts of separate creations – which is patently preposterous, as there is ZERO Scriptural support for that also. It is fairly obvious that these accounts are simply retelling the same story, providing a slightly different perspective. I have found that those who try to push these “separate creation accounts” are only trying to justify a personal doctrine…
Norm
Ottify:
There are many differences between creation of men in chapter 1 and the creation of Adam in chapter 2.
Johan:
Correct, it appears that Adam was made on day 3 (Genesis 2:5). You also ask where race is derived. First, because the men created had entirely different dominions (1:26) which suggest innate differences, including the “Serpent” (creeping things) who was the most “subtile” (3:1). God used the plural in speaking of creating mankind, so we see in the cherubs around God’s throne four types: lion, ox, eagle, man (Ez. 1:10). The fifth cherub was Lucifer (Ez 28:16), a great dragon/leviathan (Rev 20:2; Job 41:34), a type of the fifth man’s creeping things. The race issue become explicit at Revelation 6 – their four colours are given: White, Red, Black, and Pale. These four correspond to the four dominions of men because the fifth man, serpent/creep, only was father of Cain.
You say, “Khoisan and aborigines never learned to farm,” which only proves they are degenerate and low IQ, cursed descendants from Cain’s line: ” When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” Genesis 4:12. God’s original perfect creation is not to blame for their sorry state. Cain was marked and his line was the serpent seed therefore it had to be preserved for the prophecy of 3:15 to remain in effect (1 Jn 3:12; Jn 8:44).
“How is it that “racial” integrity was maintained when Noah and his children — according to your view — must have mixed races?” We have 6 men to deal with. We agree Adam is okay, but probably some of the others were also. However, we have the serpent/creeping things guy who was bad, he fathers Cain, the line that is marked. Yet they are intelligent (their father being most clever) hence the line that produced advances in civilization, music, industry, etc. (Gen 4). The other men are White, Red, Black, and Pale. I would presume the black guy wasn’t particularly high IQ but probably strong, amiable, and lively, and the progenitor of negro races. These original ‘sons of God’ corrupted themselves and so things only go downhill. You ask, “What were the Rephaim/giants in the land of Canaan?” Let’s imagine the first men being the furthest from each other genetically before any mixture ever occurred – each would be wildly distinct from the other types of men. After they and their original wives populated with families and several generations passed, these lords took young women of each other into their harems – causing race-mixing for the first time. It was this that produced strange anomalies like giantism, i.e., where a slow growing race mixed with a fast growing race and some extreme genetic combinations occasionally happened to some individuals. These extreme combos would have leveled out toward mediocrity by averaging in successive generations. It was in Ham’s line after the flood that some extreme examples re-appeared as a sort of atavism because of genes he carried. So the giants had nothing to do with supernatural aliens or angels, it was an outcome of hybridization.
CHRIST IS KING:
You write, “Noah’s concubine?! How did she stow away on the ark?” Japeth and Shem were full brothers: ” Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.” Genesis 10:21. Even today we recognize that Europeans and Orientals have more in common with each other than either one with Africans. So Ham must have had a different mother. Naamah is mentioned in Genesis 4:22 for no apparent reason. Women are almost never given names in Bible genealogies unless there is some significance for identifying them. Therefore she must have been Ham’s mother, which would make her Noah’s concubine. We learn of bigamy also happening in Genesis 4, and the pattern re-emerges with some other patriarchs who had a concubine’s wayward son who caused problems (i.e., Abraham – Ishmael).
Ottify
Sry Norm, but that was a very lame answer. First of all, there are NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES in the entirety of Scripture to support your conjecture of the multiple creation accounts. You’ve also ignored God’s natural law of “kind after kind” – when did God throw that out, as you are ASSUMING by making the basic claim that “race no longer matters”? And here is aside, as it doesn’t come from Scripture, but genetic science: the white “race” is the only PURE “race” on the earth…how does that fit into your personal doctrine?
westwins
Ottify,
You wrote — “….And here is aside, as it doesn’t come from Scripture, but genetic science: the white “race” is the only PURE “race” on the earth….”
Would you mind “unpacking” that just a bit? I sort of take “Science” with suspicion and an open mind.
I have read several “race” related Anthropology books and I was under the impression that the “Yellow” tribe (Chinese) is an Original category of people. In other words — it seems as if they were simply created out of thin air and placed in East Asia. Same as the Black peoples. “Red” seems to me inconclusive. Some Anthropologists suggest they are an Original People; and others say that are a mix.
I suspect the Australian Abos are an Original People as an example. But the Red Indian seems to be a mix of Black and Yellow.
Anyway …………………… I am intrigued with your above comment. I was under the impression the “Yellow” peoples are an Original people and are actually the Oldest.
Anything you could add; or perhaps cite a book on Anthropology would be interesting to hear/read.
Cheers.
Johan
But Norm, absolutely nothing you’ve quoted actually supports the idea of “race”. You’re begging the question continually… You’re applying “race” — which you’ve presupposed — to verses which have nothing to do with “race”. What you are quoting only assumes the premise is true instead of supporting it.
In any case, by the time Adam was created, there were no men on Earth. Genesis 2:5 says,
Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
“Shrub of the field” and “plant of the field” are referring to farming or cultivation. No farming had been done, because there was no rain and no man to do it. The sixth day creation of Genesis 1 and the Adamic creation of Genesis 2 are one and the same.
Please humor me and answer these questions:
The “races” couldn’t have survived without farming in antediluvian times (Genesis 3:18), and yet some of the “races” like blacks, Khoisan and aborigines never learned to farm. How is that possible?
How is it that the Khoisan reached Southern Africa, or the aborigines reached Australia — the farthest reaches of the world, simultaneously forgetting entirely how to write, farm, build boats, make tools, make pottery, make clothes and all the things which Noah took for granted?
How is it that “racial” integrity was maintained when Noah and his children — according to your view — must have mixed races? How is it they didn’t produce brown, race-mixed people?
What were the Rephaim/giants in the land of Canaan?
Tyron
Norm
I basically agree with what you said here especially in regard to Noah’s kids, Japeth and Ham’s non Adamic/Seth line wives. I would also agree it doesn’t make sense to try and follow ethnic lines for individuals all the way back to ancient Israel to establish Israelite identity. But I would not go as far as to say there is nothing to the attempt to establish who’s an ethnic Israelite in a Corporate way or who are not (non whites/Europeans) because there are two categories of believers in the NT. The Children of the Promise and the Children of God. The Children of the Promise as Paul explains are those who come from Isaac which are Jacob and Esau with Jacob having the main dominion and fruitfulness mandates from Adam on down and Esau having the token blessing from Isaac to usurp Jacob at the end of the each earth age. This scriptural believers identity has an advantage as Paul explains over those who are the children of God. Why? Because all the of the other promises and prophesies for the original adamic line go to them while the children of God don’t have that or the advantage of growing up in a culture with the traditions that hails all of these things.
I do believe I AM/Jesus will equal this out in the resurrection of the just where believers (of God or the Promise) get their original Adamic bodies back that know no death, pain etc. With new “angelic” like Adamic bodies given to believers of any stripe, everything is equaled out again between the different races (adamic or non adamic).
westwins
Hi Norm,
This Topic — “The Origin of the Tribes of Peoples” is a fascinating one for me.
You seem to be convinced of your Theory. Don’t take this personally, but your “writing style” is difficult for me – and I find your arguments difficult to follow.
Could you please recommend some Sources at which you have arrived at your conclusions?
Thanks!
Norm
Westwins,
I’m sort of abbreviating my ideas here so that’s probably why I’m hard to follow, sorry about that. Everything I got comes just from the King James Bible, but never change anything. This means instead of altering any words, only harmonize by cross-reference to other verses throughout the AV and pay careful attention to what the text actually says and what it doesn’t say. See, “….comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 1 Corinthians 2:13; ” ….the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit…” John 6:63; ” For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God…” 2 Corinthians 2:17; “…when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” 1 Thessalonians 2:13. I finally solved the riddle of the origin of other races by first figuring out that Adam was called a “son of God” which means the “sons of God” in chapter 6 were men made like Adam directly from God also. Then realizing Rev 6 was skin colours: White, Red, Black, Pale. That’s four so I’m looking at 1 man too many, and wondering where he goes, realizing that the ‘creeping’ guy is actually the serpent – a man who father’s Cain. Then realizing that Edom prefigures the Jew and his father saying that one day he would get the “dominion” so looking up dominions, and that cross references to “dominion” in Daniel 7 of the antichrist beasts, etc, so things just kept falling in line after that. Many cross-references triangulate to show that God set up dominions for the races, that Adam’s garden was a place like New Jerusalem where the tree of life is found, and as all the nations that are saved must eventually return weekly and monthly to New Jerusalem (Is. 66, Rev 21-22), so Adam’s role was to be priest to those down-river – the river that flowed out of Eden (one river) and then split (four more rivers). Etc. etc.
Dan
Macro-Evolution is false but Micro-evolution within kinds is quite self evident.
If I did not take heed of Observable Science (not theoretical) then I would not have come to the conclusions I have, I would probably have fallen for some illogical idealistic nonsense.
“How is it that the Khoisan reached Southern Africa, or the Aboriginees reached Australia — the farthest reaches of the world, simultaneously forgetting entirely how to write, farm, build boats, make tools, make pottery, make clothes and all the things which Noah took for granted?”
The try to make out that migration is too difficult and had to be done over millions of years, but as we can see from the floods of ‘refugees,’ who travelled mostly by foot, that’s not true. People remained separate because they could not speak each other’s languages, the more divergent the language, the harder it was for them to integrate.
The Khamites started off with a reprobate/ degenerate progenitor and they had no blessing at all, so they were just left to their own devices. This explains why they are in such a state.
The reason Shemites are better off is because they were blessed, and Japhethites were blessed underneath Shem.
This creates a hierarchy, whether people accept it or not. If you cross the boundaries of this hierarchy…
Well, dog breeds are less divergent than the prototypical races of mankind but it’s like a chihuahua and a Labrador mixing, it elevates the Chihuahua and sorts some issues out in the offspring but for the Labrador, it’s all around a bad idea.
Hereditary natural law:
We are all products of our collective ancestors choices, desires and habits. A thousand or more years of immoral habits, especially related to reproduction, will not produce the same calibre of offspring as a thousand years spent at least trying to avoid those practices.
This is Eugenics and what is sometimes labelled as “Dysgenics.”
Johan
Dan wrote, “Macro-Evolution is false but Micro-evolution within kinds is quite self evident.
If I did not take heed of Observable Science (not theoretical) then I would not have come to the conclusions I have”
“Races” turning into other “races” has never been observed…
Dan wrote, “The try to make out that migration is too difficult and had to be done over millions of years, but as we can see from the floods of ‘refugees,’ who travelled mostly by foot, that’s not true”
With roads, modern food, modern clothing/maps, money/trading, maps, GPS, etc, travelling less than a quarter of the distance, not having to go through the Sahara, the Congo or the Namib. Not even to mention the journey the Aborigines must have taken, which crossed the Indian ocean at some point…
And the natives in the Americas? Inuits?
With all respect Dan, seriously..?
Dan
Would you like to explain to me how all the species of all the different kinds came about, in your opinion?
In my understanding, you start of with a proto-typical progenitor of the kind which is capable of having a lot of diverse offspring, so with each generation the offspring become more and more specialised as they lose genetic data that another species of their kind may still have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XatoDTlXRgY
The “natives” did indeed migrate to America, supposedly from Eurasia, they even share the R1 haplogroup. Although there are probably many misconceptions about how long certain people have lived in certain areas.
You can’t get much further than Hawaii but take a look at this:
https://youtu.be/rf_inGOubEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbMPd0sIWc
“With roads, modern food, modern clothing/maps, money/trading, maps, GPS, etc, travelling less than a quarter of the distance, not having to go through the Sahara, the Congo or the Namib.”
Not all of them have that, they do come from third world warzones…
But I can tell you it wouldn’t take them millions of years without that stuff…
I am also saying they have gotten worse over thousands of years, not better, so they were more capable back then, as they were not as dysgenic.
Yes, seriously.
Dan
Also they would have known not to try and travel through a massive desert like the Sahara, if it was indeed a desert back then, the Fertile Cresent is arid now, but it was not described as such in the Bible.
There are ways to traverse Africa by sea and also using the rivers, like the Nile.
Christ Is King
Gidday Norm, I have to agree with Johan. I do not understand your conclusion:
“Conclusion: God made other races of men alongside Adam, but all those men died in the flood. The racial diversity that survived originates with the diversity of women who were married by Noah and his three sons.”
Are you saying that only MEN of the other races died in the flood and the WOMEN of the other races survived?
Are you saying that the WOMEN of the other races married and bred with Noah and his sons?
Is this like the idea that Ham was black, Japeth was yellow, and Shem was white? But instead your saying that the kids of Shem, Ham, and Japeth produced the different races?
Norm
Christ is King: Yes, Noah was perfect in his generations, but he and his sons married the women that were available who came from the other races. This preserves the valuable gifts God gave those men from extinction: God’s gifts are without repentance, yet he repented that he made man. The 5 women would be Noah’s wife the mother of Shem and Japheth, Noah’s concubine the mother of Ham, Shem’s wife, Japheth’s wife, and Ham’s wife. In type: Zelophehad’s 5 daughters; the Samaritan woman’s 5 prior husbands; the man in hell’s 5 brothers; the 5 wise virgins; etc. The other races weren’t degenerate like they are now, after Ham’s curse and 4,000 years of degeneracy. The other races would have originally been remarkable “sons of God”. Adam was probably rather ordinary, he only had to tend a garden. But that garden was a type of New Jerusalem where the church will reign as kings and priests tending the tree of life. As in the future, at the beginning the other races would have had to come to Adam at regular intervals to received from him the fruit of the tree of life in the garden, and so Adam was originally priest of the world.
Genea Anothen, King James Bible is a perfect translation, but if you want to say born “from above” see the reference to Jesus who came down from above (” And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” John 8:23), founder of the 7th race of man, the final supernatural one that is not of the earth, but condescended to come down and be made of Eve’s seed (“holy thing” Lk 1:35), hence David’s promised seed and heir to all promises pertaining to Abraham and Israel. So mankind of Adam’s race is – like the other races were – saved by the woman. Christ inherits all that he is entitled to not only as the only begotten Son of God but also as David’s seed. ” For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:30-32. The new man is spiritual and eternal and born again in Christ.
” Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;” 2 Corinthians 5:17-18
” For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Galatians 6:15
” The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 1 Corinthians 15:47-52
CHRIST IS KING
Thanks for your reply, Norm.
Those are some interesting ideas… I’m always interested to hear new ideas:I’m like the Greeks that Paul preached to that loved to philosophize and hear new things haha.
I’m pretty certain there are a few non biblical bits mixed in to your ideas, however. This bit intrigued me:
“The 5 women would be Noah’s wife the mother of Shem and Japheth, Noah’s concubine the mother of Ham, Shem’s wife, Japheth’s wife, and Ham’s wife. ”
Noah’s concubine?! How did she stow away on the ark? The bible says only eight people were on board… Noah and his wife, and the three boys and their wives… which makes eight.
Dan
Yes, he’s saying that there was natural divergence of Hominid kind that led to there being divergent maternal progenitors for each of the three prototypical races, Mongaloid or Sinid, Caucasoid or “White” and Negroids. I assume Shem had taken a wife that was more familiar. Many of the ‘races’ you see today are essentially variations due to further micro-evolution of more than two thousand years & hybridisation of the three races.
Canaan was also a progenitor of a borderline prototypical race, but they now just exist as a trace hereditary signature, unique to that ancestry, within mixed multitudes (See the meaning of “Ereb”). Canaan was the product of Incest- or perhaps Noah had an unmentioned Cainite concubine?
It makes more sense than the sons of Noah suddenly being hugely divergent.
We do not know where the wives came from but we do know that when it speaks of being “pure” it means that they did not have Nephilim (or possibly Cainite ancestry)- so then how is it there are Nephilim after the flood?
The regional flood theory also has logical holes.
Note Worthy
When the fallen angles landed on earth before Adam they only had animal kind to live in. The non adamic people are thousands of years older than white people. God did not create them just as God did not create the Nephilim. Some believe that the Tarim basin is where the flood took place.. The white people who listened to Noah my have left. There are white mummies known as the Tarim basin mummies on display in China that are old enough.
CFT
Your copulating “fallen angels” thesis is completely refuted by the following essay:
https://christiansfortruth.com/genesis-6-what-really-happened-between-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-man/
Ottify
While I give you credit for obviously having made an attempt to read and understand the Bible, all your points are completely thrown out by attributing the designation of MAN (‘adam’ meaning red, ruddy, or to flush or blush, to show blood in skin – descriptions ONLY attributable to the white race) to all hominid bipeds in direct contradiction to God’s first law of nature – kind after kind. You really take a left turn off a cliff with your “mixed race women” theory which has ZERO scriptural support.
We’re glad you came here. There is plenty of Scriptural truth to be gleaned from both the articles and the comments…as long as you are keeping an open mind and believe that you DON’T know everything 😉
Note Worthy
You think Asians and blacks are ruddy and can blush?
HarryB
China Imprisoning Christians in Underground Brainwashing Torture Centers.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/witnesses-china-imprisoning-christians-in-underground-brainwashing-torture-centers/
Communism in China was created by the Jews of the West working with the Jews within Asian. A well known Communist Agent in Manchuria was Abrams an Asian Jew. Today the Jews still run China the higher you go to the top of the Communist Party the more Asian Jewish name appear till its all Jewish.
https://www.deathofcommunism.com/jews-created-communist-china/
Tad
“Chinese Christians” is an oxymoron.
ReformingBoomer
CFT, thank you for going into this topic. I have some follow-up questions
The article mentions this ” However, Edom doesn’t even exist as a recognizable national entity or people anymore.”. As the Book of Obadiah promises us that the Edomite will one day be annihilated by God, with no survivors. As this had not yet happened by the time of Christ and the disciples, just when did it happen?
Obadiah mentions that the Edom will be burned by the Israelites, and this is of course strikingly similar to the core story that today’s Jews have ginned up for their “Holocaust”.
Additionally, who are–and what became of–the subset of Judeans who compelled the Romans to kill Christ, the ones who eternally cursed themselves and their descendants (Matthew 27:25)?
Johan
ReformingBoomer wrote, “As the Book of Obadiah promises us that the Edomite will one day be annihilated by God, with no survivors.”
Does the book of Obadiah necessarily say that? The article suggests that there would indeed be survivors, in spite of a national demise. Do you disagree with the article’s interpretation?
Bear in mind that North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia, a lot of the Mediterranean coast, Central Asia and South Asia all have suffered a major apocalypse to be in the state that they are in now. They are all basically a desolation. This is the land of our ancestors, and one of our ancestors from 2000 years ago would be shocked to see what it is now. Kind of like when Daniel said, “my thoughts were greatly alarming me and my face became pale”. I don’t blame him. White people were driven out. Edom is not that special in that regard.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Obadiah mentions that the Edom will be burned by the Israelites, and this is of course strikingly similar to the core story that today’s Jews have ginned up for their “Holocaust”.”
You don’t think that the “fire” in the prophecy is allegorical? Also see Zechariah 12:6-9, where the same fate is promises to all of the surrounding nations. Or what about Israel being burned in Isaiah 5:24 and Isaiah 9:18-19?
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Additionally, who are–and what became of–the subset of Judeans who compelled the Romans to kill Christ, the ones who eternally cursed themselves and their descendants (Matthew 27:25)?”
There must have been an overlap between the people of Matthew 27:25 and Acts 2:23, given that the Israelites in Acts 2 who converted to Christianity admit that they themselves were responsible for the death of Christ.
Second witness can be found in Acts 3:11 – Acts 4:4. Peter says in Acts 3:13,
…the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.
Now see Matthew 27,
24 Now when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; you yourselves shall see.” 25 And all the people replied, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus flogged, he handed Him over to be crucified.
How are the people of Acts 3:13 not the same people as Matthew 27:25?
Yet Acts 4:4 says,
But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
It’s the same thing as Acts 2. There doesn’t seem to be any blood curse, because there is repentance and forgiveness for some of those responsible. I would propose that the idea of them having “eternally cursed themselves and their descendants” isn’t actually there. What do you think?
Chesterton
ReformingBoomer, Edom as a nation no longer exists today. These wandering, state-less mixed race Jews are not a nation in the biblical sense. They are a band of gypsies. Have you not seen pictures of Mout Seir, the capital of Edom? It’s a wasteland. And Malachi 1:3 clearly states that Edom had been laid waste already. Esau/Edom did try to build up Mount Seir, but look at it now….
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=mount+seir+photos&iax=images&ia=images
ReformingBoomer
King Herod and his kin were Edomites.
Obadiah 18 states that there will be no survivors when God brings the sons of Jacob against the Edomites.
Therefore, Obadiah’s prophecy had not yet come to pass during the time of Christ and the disciples.
So then, if it has happened, when did it happen? The only way to be 100% sure that today’s Jews cannot be the Edomites is to establish that the Edomites were wiped out well before today’s Jews came to be.
However, we do not know when today’s Jews came to be. We know, from a history of the expulsion of the Jews, that today’s Jew predates the supposed conversion of the Khazars, but we are without an inflection point on the timeline to signal when Jews switched from referring to White Judeans to referring to the hook-nosed demonic goblins of today.
Interestingly, I’ve found that more modern sources from Jews gainsay the old sources that mention the conversion of the khazars. This could merit some examination IMO, if only to prove that modern Jewry is lying.
Johan
ReformingBoomer wrote, “The only way to be 100% sure that today’s Jews cannot be the Edomites is to establish that the Edomites were wiped out well before today’s Jews came to be.”
There is another way to be 100%. Edom is promised to have a place in Zion, as the article suggests. Amos 9:12 promises that the remnant of Edom will be possessed. If Edomites can be saved, and if Jews are mamzers which cannot be saved, then Jews cannot be Edomites.
In light of these specific promises for there to be survivors of Edom, to reduce the passage “there will be no survivor of the house of Esau” to mean “every single individual descendant of Esau must be killed” takes a position which is irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture.
Chesterton
ReformingBoomer, how to you explain Amos 9:11-12?
“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”
Dan
There was no Holocaust… about 200-400K of the Jews died, mostly to disease/ starvation caused by blockades/ bombing runs, some to lawful executions, some others to unlawful murders.
The Germans were the ones being firebombed mercilessly.
The fire that it speaks of in the end is agitation and glory, a return to light. Fire spreads quickly, and once it grows into a blaze it is past the point of control. I assume it is saying Yoseph will be the source of the igniting flame. I mean they won’t literally be on fire, so there is no reason to make the association to the Holocaust, which never happened.
Oba 1:18 “And the house of Ya‛aqoḇ shall be a fire, and the house of Yosěph a flame, but the house of Ěsaw for stubble. And they shall burn among them and they shall consume them, so that no survivor is left of the house of Ěsaw.” For Yahshua has spoken.
Has connections to this parable:
Mat 13:24 Another parable He put before them, saying, “The reign of the heavens has become like a man who sowed good seed in his field,
Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat and went away. (Footnote: Darnel looks like wheat but is poisonous to man and beast.)
Mat 13:26 “And when the blade sprouted and bore fruit, then the darnel also appeared.
Mat 13:27 “And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? From where then does it have the darnel?’
Mat 13:28 “And he said to them, ‘A man, an enemy did this.’ And the servants said to him, ‘Do you wish then, that we go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 “But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I shall say to the reapers, “First gather the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary.” ’ ”
Hence why it says:
Rom 12:19 Beloved, do not revenge yourselves, but give place to the wrath, for it has been written, ”Vengeance is Mine, I shall repay,” says YHWH.
Deu 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and repayment, At the time their foot slips; For near is the day of their calamity, And the matters prepared are hastening to them.’
I agree about Edomites though.
People have forgotten what “nation” actually means:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation#etymonline_v_2309
A stateless nation is still a nation, and they do have a state now anyway, even if most of them are diaspora. The fact that there is such a phrase as “stateless nation” is indicative that we are talking about a seed or race or greater family.
In fact, we are pretty much a “stateless nation” considering we actually don’t have any autonomy in any of the nations our ancestors built anymore. Soon we will be a “stateless nation” amongst enemy territory, and will be second degree citizens, if that.
Oh yeah, most of them (around 80%) are Ashkenazi, but Ashkenazi are related Sephardim (they are more mixed with Italians and other Meds), and Mizrahi (Closer to what they looked like before, a Mixed Multitude or “Ereb” state), even the Ethiopian Jews are actually related to them.
The Ashkenazi are only fair-featured / European-looking through intermixing/ purity breeding, they used to look very Turkish/ Hither-Asiatic, just like the Chabad/ Hasidic often do.
Christ Is King
Well written. Very thought provoking.
What about Romans 9.13 where Paul quotes Malachi… Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Any thoughts anyone?
This I see oft from dual seedline believers saying that Esau was hated coz he founded todays jews… I once thought the same too.
Chesterton
God chose Jacob in the womb. He hated Esau in the womb BEFORE Esau did anything in life, before he chose wives from among a God-less people. Paul tells us this to show that we are subjected to God’s Grace in His choosing. He made the same kind of choice of Abel over Cain. But Genesis 25 clearly shows us that it wasn’t anything Esau DID after he was born to fail to be chosen by God:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:19-34&version=NIV
CHRIST IS KING
Ah, yah, good point, thanks Chesterton. So I’m right in thinking then that the elect are elected: Esau wasn’t elected at birth even though he was first-born… and thus the word HATE acctually is more like DISRESPECT? if you take the meaning of LOVE to be a form of RESPECT? Does that make sense? Jacob have I respect for, Esau I have disrespect for? Is that correct?
Chesterton
Yes, “hate” is Strong’s 3404, and it often means literally “hate”, but depending on the context can also mean “love less” or “esteem less”. Unfortunately, certain people use this verse to justify “hating” Jews, but I think that’s far too literal-minded. Jews are relevant only so far as they are anti-Christ and that we know their agenda. If we follow Christ, Jews are powerless over us, not need to “hate” them for being what they are. Do you hate the Aztecs, or scorpions, sharks, or even a virus? What’s the point?
Christ Is King
Great! Yes, that makes perfect sense. Thanx.
Yes, true; as Jesus says, if we come in His name even devils have no power over us.
Hateing things,places, objects, peoples, etc. takes up too much time. I can’t change things, so why bother wasting time seething over things I can’t control? Know WHAT is wrong, but don’t HATE what is wrong.
verbage
So how many more nails does the “Serpent seedline doctrine” coffin need?
Fantastic article. The house of cards has fallen. Truth of Scripture prevails.
Scripture is meant to be understood for what is says, not for what it doesn’t. Dual Seedline vilifies judeos for their blanket usage of John 3:16, while they do the exact same thing with “all Israel is saved”…and it has the exact same effect on your spiritual walk with Christ!
Clarifying who the nations are and how they apply to Scripture is much simpler and kinder now. It also encourages one to continue reading and researching as the Truth becomes more and more evident – as opposed to hitting the DSL wall and remaining content hating on “niggers”, “spics”, “kikes”, ad nauseum…
Chesterton
Right there are no non-Adamic “nations” in Scripture. If you are not Adamic, you are not a “nation”. A nation is an Adamic people with a shared bloodline or common descent as defined in Genesis 10, and that includes Edom. A group of racial mamzers or bastards is not, nor will ever be, a “nation” in biblical terms. If Edom were mamzers as two seeliners claim, it would not be a “nation”. And modern geo-political nations as we know them today are not the same as “nations” in the Bible.
westwins
Whoever these so called “jews” are and where they came from is an enigma and very peculiar. It almost parallels ourselves — are we not called a peculiar people?
What other group of non-Adamic people on this earth hate us so much?
Sure ……………. blacks hate us and the yellows hate us, but without the help of these “jews”, they are inert.
The Topic is Fascinating!
I’d like to say also, that I am very thankful to be “out of the clutches” of that one particular CI sect.
Praise the Lord for CFT and many of the commenters here who have given me the confidence to run from that group and never return.
If only “they” could understand Humility and learn to be more humble. Pray for them and pray for the likes of Kyle Hunt and Renegade followers. It is so incredibly sad to see our own people hate us with so much energy.
Amen.
Chesterton
Well, the Jews can’t decide among themselves who is a Jew and who isn’t. They are a completely fabricated identity that they themselves do not really understand because it’s all based on a demonstrably false dogma that they are somehow Israelites from the tribe of Judah.
One thing we do know about Jews is that their identity is tied to their rebellion against God and God’s true Israelite people with whom they have been at war for the last 2,000 years. And their confused genetic amalgamation is a reflection of that rebellion. When you rebel against God, race mixing is an inevitable consequence…..
westwins
“……One thing we do know about Jews is that their identity is tied to their rebellion against God and God’s true Israelite people with whom they have been at war for the last 2,000 years……”
Exactly! And this has to mean something. Some connection somewhere.
Personally, I tend to be on the side of the argument that Weisman puts forth in “Who is Esau-Edom”. But it is simply “theory”. But for me ……. this theory makes the most sense.
Does it matter? No, not really. This is a “non-essential” in my opinion; but challenging to discuss and it ‘sharpens the mind’.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all discuss this over a camp-fire under a beautiful star filled night sky.
Cheers Chesterton!
ReformingBoomer
“Exactly! And this has to mean something. Some connection somewhere. “
Which is what leads me to suspect that it ties back to the Judeans who put the eternal blood curse of Matthew 27:25 upon themselves and their descendants when they forced Pilate to have Christ crucified.
Could these few, highly influential Judeans have spoken for, and cursed for eternity, all Judeans? To me it seems that they could not, that the Judeans who followed and accepted Christ would not be tarred with the same brush as the Judeans who plotted to kill Christ.
My perspective aside, the Scripture points out that there is a group of people eternally cursed for killing Christ. Today’s Jews identify as Christ-killers, are they related?
westwins
RB —
If you haven’t already, read Weisman’s treatise — “Who is Esau-Edom”.
Also — check out his “Not of One Blood” to help fill in the blanks.
I believe his theory makes the most sense. A logical “balance”.
https://archive.org/details/not-of-one-blood-charles-weisman/mode/2up
Annisa
A little bit off topic, but what do you guys think about Neturei Karta?
Christians For Truth
We’ve never heard of it before, but the Wikipedia entry says,
Neturei Karta opposes Zionism and calls for a “peaceful dismantling” of the State of Israel, in the belief that Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Jewish Messiah and that the state of Israel is a rebellion against God.
That is indeed the natural conclusion of the prophecy of the Scriptures as outlined in the above article: The very existence of a “regathered nation of Israel” prior to the second coming of the Lord is one of the prima facie evidences that today’s Jews are not — and cannot be — the true Israelites.
The Lord states that He would not even be involved in that regathering until Israel truly acknowledges Him — as we’ve outlined — in Matthew 23:39,
For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Yet we are expected to believe that the Lord has gathered a bunch of Christ-deniers — yet more prima facie evidence — to their “homeland”.
It seems they have “rebranded” this mistake for themselves as “rebellion against God”. Indeed it is, but it is too late to take it back — they’ve already tacitly admitted they are “those who say they are Judeans, and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9)
Tyron
‘For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’. Yes, he will not regather any of Jacob or Esau UNTIL they accept the true Jesus Christ and not his imposter who is the main Anti Christ who mimics the true Christ’s return with his imposter “Jews” under him in present day “Israel” as detailed by Paul in 2nd Thessalonians. 1 NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Chesterton
In Acts 2:22 we read, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God….you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
How do people read this verse and still maintain that the Edomite crypto Jews killed Christ? Oh, it wasn’t Israel who nailed Christ to the cross….it was “godless men” who did it. And the “godless men” must have been Edomites. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Amazing what mental gymnastics people go through to preserve Israel from the guilt it deserves. Yes, we are capable of killing our own messiah — and that’s why we need the forgiveness of Christ.
ReformingBoomer
The “godless men” would have been the Romans, who were the first “shabbos goyim” when they were harangued by the Jews into nailing Christ to the cross. The annotated translations that I have found attest that this phrase is referring to Gentiles, which would describe the Romans.
“Yes, we are capable of killing our own messiah”
Yet we did not, only 1/6th of the Israelites could have born any responsibility for that, as only 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel remained in Judea, and Matthew 27:25 specifically places the curse for killing Christ upon just a subset of the Judeans.
As for the Romans doing the physical act of the killing of Christ, as Acts 2:22 says, they were Gentiles who did not know the Law, and as Luke 23:34 tells us, Christ himself forgave them due to their ignorance of the significance of what they had done. Had the Roman soldiers known the significance of what they were doing, would they have done it?
I wonder, and I am reminded of a meme that CFT used on April 6th: “Number of times the Bible says Romans wanted to kill Jesus: 0”
Chesterton
ReformingBoomer, Acts 2:22 tells us who nailed Christ to the cross, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God….you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
Did every Israelite on earth literally nail Christ to the cross? Of course not. Only a Pharisee would strain at the facts in a literal-minded sense. The point is that corporate Israel — all Israel — must take responsibility for it — He died for all of us — not just the ones that literally drove the nails into Him. God punishes individual Israelites and He punishes corporate Israel — on a national level as a people for their collective sin.
ReformingBoomer
This collective responsibility does not make sense to me as 10/12 of Isreal was not even in Judea during the time of Christ.
Looking at the Scripture, Pilate specifically absolves himself of responsibility, and Christ himself pleads forgiveness for the Romans who crucified him, Luke 23:34 signals that the Romans should not be punished for actions they made in ignorance.
This seems logical to me, as the Romans had no idea that Christ was their messiah, or that a messiah was even promised to them. They didn’t even know God.
This is in stark contrast to the Judeans who knew of the messiah and had him killed, a contrast underscored by Matthew 27:25 specifically placing responsibility upon a subset of Judeans, rather than all 12 tribes of Israel.
By that, the Scripture suggests that God is not punishing “corporate Israel” for killing Christ.
Johan
ReformingBoomer wrote, “This collective responsibility does not make sense to me as 10/12 of Isreal was not even in Judea during the time of Christ.
Zechariah’s family were Levites and we have someone from the tribe of Asher in Luke 2:36. Adding in Benjamin and Judah, that’s 4/12 already, and it is even the exception for the NT to actually mention someone’s tribe.
A little more tenuous, but the crowd in Acts 2 comes from all over the place, and James addresses his letter to “the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad”.
To say categorically “2/12” is somewhat reductive, no? Even so, the “House of Judah” was only supposed to be the tribe of Judah (1 Kings 12:20), so technically it is supposed to be 1/12 — hence the name “House of Judah”. However, it obviously isn’t in practice.
With all of that in mind, some Christian circles overstate the “2/12” theology without really understanding what is happening there or why they believe what they believe. They’ve categorically applied it to places like Hosea 2, but the reality is that Hosea 2 doesn’t name any tribes.
“House of Judah” and “House of Israel” obviously refer to something other than what some Christian circles have been parroting.
The “House of Judah” is there for a king to reign for David’s sake in Israel and for prophetic fulfillment. The “House of Israel” was in rebellion to that idea. Apart from Judah being associated with the “House of Judah” for the sake of the prophecy, it can’t really be defined further than that.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “This is in stark contrast to the Judeans who knew of the messiah and had him killed, a contrast underscored by Matthew 27:25 specifically placing responsibility upon a subset of Judeans, rather than all 12 tribes of Israel.
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-46416
45th Division
You don’t even know why condemned Jesus to death. It was the Sanhedrin. By this time the Pharisees were no where to be found and had nothing to do with his death, and that is the problem with listening to you jews. You make claims that are not true and people take your word for it. The JEWS are guilty of his death, but who are the jews? Herod called himself a jew, but he was no Israelite. According to Pilate’s letter to Caesar, he believed upon Jesus and knew there was something special about him, and he even washed his hands of his death and found him innocent. So, the Pharisees weren’t guilty, the Romans weren’t guilty, but the JEWS asked for His blood to be upon them and upon their children, and what does the Book of Obadiah chapter 1 tell us? It says blood will chase Edom for casting lots with strangers (the Romans cast lots for Jesus’ robe) and let them take away Jerusalem (Jesus). What does Ezekiel 63 tell us? Christ wore red garments soaked in the blood of Edom whom he trampled under his feet in the wine press, and what is the color of his robe in Revelation 19:13? Red because it was soaked in blood as he trample those in the wine press. Now, who were the Sanhedrin and why did they kill Christ? They were the rulers, and if you saw a man more powerful than you who did nothing but point out your follies as you ruled, what would you do? Would look upon him as one who has knowledge only God could have or would you kill him? What kind of man would kill God? Only His enemies, and if you read the Book of John chapter 8, you will see that Jesus is talking the EDOM! They say they are the children of Abraham, but were never in bondage (verse 33). That is Esau’s descendants because Jacob’s descendants were slaves in Egypt, and Jesus told us they were of their father the devil. Jews today are EDOM no matter what the jew that wrote this article says in his condescending tone. He will never jew me with his antagonistic manner. He is of no consequence, a nobody, and deserves no accolades for rewriting the Bible to fit his own jewish Edomite narrative. The REAL Jews were utterly destroy by the Romans. They were starved out, crucified, and the few that remained were enslaved and more than likely died off, but the Edomites disappeared from history and our maps without a trace because they are the JEWS!
Hezekiah
In this dispensation nations are irrelevant. But spiritually speaking the Jews are Edomites…. in that they gave up their birthright in exchange for the treasures of this world. Thakfully that heritage was passed on to the gentiles, just as Esau lost his birthright by satisfying the flesh. Everything in the old testament is a type and this is one of the clearest examples
Johan
This seems to confuse Scripture on Edom’s national identity with Esau’s individual identity.
The teaching on Esau selling his birthright is very clearly applied to individuals in Hebrews 12. The writer of Hebrews is even applying this as a consequence for Israelites.
To apply that to Edom’s national identity doesn’t make sense in terms of the national prophecies concerning Edom. Edom was doomed to serve Israel from before they were even born.
There is nothing Edom could have done to avoid that fate, as Paul says in Romans 9,
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad… 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
As the article suggests, in “this dispensation”, Edom serves as a type for the fate of all Adamic nations, all of whom will serve Israel (Genesis 27:29).
Even so, a prophecy concerning an Adamic nation could never apply to Jews, because they are not a pure, Adamic people. They are something else entirely…
45th Division
So, you’re saying all the promises to Israel were just to the man Israel and not the descendants, right? That’s the same fallacy you’re making since you want to use that philosophical debate team dribble. Esau and Edom means the same thing as Israel and his descendants, and if you want to get technical, Galatians 3 says the promises were not even spoken to the descendants of Jacob, but to Jesus, as in “seed” which is Jesus whom the promises were spoken and those who believe upon him are the heirs of God’s promises to Abraham. So, you jews, Israelites, and Edomites mean nothing. You were simply a vehicle for God to delivery his final Covenant which is Christ Jesus and by making jews out to be something they’re not, you blaspheme His name. God never asked for sacrifices or a temple (2nd Sam. 7:1-7 and Jer. 7:21-26), and He rebuked the Israelites for both, and what did Jesus destroy? The sacrifices and the temple, and he told the Samaritan woman that day was coming, and it happened. He became the sacrifice and in 3 days his believers became the Temple of God, (1 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Act 17:24-27, Ephesians 2:19-20), and there is nothing a jew, Israelite, or Edomite can do to change it. The title of “jew” is irrelevant. It means nothing.
Anyway, I see no where in your little diatribe where you talk about the Edomite who ran the affairs of King David and King Solomon (Ahimelek, 1 Sam,. 21:8) or that an Edomite was King Saul’s trusted advisor and court official (1 Sam. 22:9). So, where else have we seen jews as advisors? Perhaps it’s in the president’s council and cabinet, or the kings of Christendom, or the Sultans of Islam, or the Popes in Italy? The answer is YES! All of the above. If jews are not Edomites, why do they follow the patterns of the Edomites? Jews were legalistic and followed the law, unlike Edomites and these supposed “jews”.
Where was the Land of Uz (Lam 4:21)? Was it not associated with the land of Armenia under Arran who was the brother of Uz where Khazaria was once located (1 Chronicles 1:42)? Who lived in the Land of Uz? Was it not the “daughters of Edom”? Is the land of Armenia not called “The Ashkenazi Nation” in literature? Is that not where the Ashkenaz settled? And is that not where Edom lived at one time? How do all these things add up but today’s jews are somehow not Edom? They couldn’t be anyone else except Edom because the Romans obliterated the jews. None were left but slaves and I don’t hear any jews talking about being slaves to Romans. Even the Hebrew language died. It’s gone forever, and today’s Hebrew is a forgery of Greek, and their own Joseph Yuhuda proved it.
What I’m saying is stop being a jew and stop jewing your readers. Try actually reading your Bible as a Christian and not as someone trying to protect jews. You’ve talked about scriptures that was written 1,300 hundred years before Judea was even destroyed and somehow you think Edomites simply disappeared, yet Jesus rebuked them himself. You’ve tried to convincing your readers that Edom stayed racially pure. They were mixing into the other tribes around them exactly how jews do today, and they even say it in their own Encyclopaedia Judaica. From Esau on down, they were mixing. Esau married a Canaanite-Hittite women (Gen. 26:34; cf. 36:2). He married Ishmaelite women (plural, Gen. 28:9; cf. 36:3). He also took Hivite wives (plural, Gen. 36:2). In addition to the Canaanite-Hittite, Hivite, and Ishmaelite elements, Kenazite (Gen. 36:15), Amalekite (36:16), and especially Horite (36:20, 21, 29, 30) elements are found in the genealogical list of Esau’s descendants. So, you’ve been proven wrong on the racial aspect. That’s not being racially pure. That’s race mixing, and even Israelites were kicked out for less in Ezra 9 (Ezra’s prayer). I don’t know what your definition of race is, but it’s certainly not the correct one.
Now, tell me who the children of Abraham in the Book of John chapter 8 were that were never in bondage? They certainly were not Israelites because they were slaves, and that is the divide. If you want to debate the Bible, debate someone who knows it, and I am that guy. You will not deride me like you deride your readers. I will show you the way. There are no jews today. They either became Christians and flourished as Christians, forever leaving their jewish lineage behind, or they were obliterated by the Romans. End of story!
westwins
45th Division,
I was waiting for Johan to respond to your rebuke. Looks like Johan is not around these days.
I have a Question for you —- “What is YOUR understanding of Race?”
Most here at CFT are in agreement in that “race” doesn’t exist in the Scriptures EXCEPT that there are two groups of upright Biped peoples — Adamic Man (White families on the earth) and then everyone else which would be part of the animal creation.
20th Century Anthropologists were all in agreement that there are 4 types of original peoples — White, Black, Yellow and Red.
White peoples are the Adamic Creation. All others — animal creation.
What say you?
jake
this man speaks much truth.
West
Jake ……………
You missed my reply/question to you —
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-156427
Isolde
Hezekiah, you use the term “gentiles”, a 5th century latin fabrication by St. Jerome. When you use it, what do you take it to mean? Who are “the gentiles”? You are aware, I hope, that “gentiles” is translated from the Greek “ethnos” which means “nations”?
Norm
“by the hands of godless men” is incorrect. The verse actually says ” Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:” Acts 2:23 (AV).
Chesterton
Norm, are you a “King James Only” Christian? If so, you’ve made it impossible to have a rational discussion about these issues. The original Greek takes precedent over any translation. That we can all agree on, or should agree on. There are thousands of errors in the KJV that have been addressed, and if you insist on the “infallibility” conceit of the KJV, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to proceed discussing Genesis with you….
Johan
There are multiple text witnesses to the Greek translations we have. When looking at all of the witnesses, we can find the truth between all of their accounts.
Unfortunately the KJV Only Christians slander all witnesses except one, the Textus Receptus, and they hold a specific interpretation of the Textus Receptus as “divinely inspired”.
In this way, they claim divine revelation and aren’t too far off from the likes of Seven Day Adventism or Mormonism, who also claim divine revelation of prior persons — who are not Christ — for the sake of their view.
In doing so, they have also discarded where it says in Deuteronomy 19:15,
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. — (KJV)
Norm
Johan,
The TR isn’t a single witness, it is also called the “majority text,” because it has the overwhelming majority of witnesses.
You write, “we can find the truth between all of their accounts” and then “they claim divine revelation” – which is contradictory. You claim that you are finding the truth, but you attack others who find the truth as if they belong to a dangerous cult. Since you are finding a truth according to your own thinking, that is more dangerous. Those who find the truth because they simply stick to one single text have not given themselves the same license. A man who is his own judge of truth – you – is more dangerous than a man who subjects himself to a single text and only follows what that text says.
I’m not saying this to be mean or uncharitable since you probably don’t try to interpret the Bible in an insincere way, but I’m just pointing out that your attack against King James Bible believers is unfair. One definition of a cult is a group that rejects the Bible to follow men’s teachings, and that definition applies to those who engage in textual criticism, not those who strictly follow the AV.
Johan
Norm wrote, “The TR isn’t a single witness, it is also called the “majority text,” because it has the overwhelming majority of witnesses.”
That is either disingenuous or an ignorant oversimplification. Central and formalized control was exerted over the TR/Byzantine upon which the KJV is based, and the TR/Byzantine is also the latest of all collections.
Given that this collection was controlled centrally over time, to assume at face value it is correct and unadulterated is irrational. Especially given the fact that we have more than one EARLIER texts upon which less central control was exerted over less time.
Given this dynamic of collections having control exerted on them over time, makes your defense of “majority text” entirely irrelevant. If three law firms are presenting a case in court, the fact that one law firm has more versions of the evidence which agree with one another is irrelevant because that law firm has been replicating the evidence within its own four walls subject to its own protocols outside of the scrutiny of the court.
In fact, the replication of that evidence outside of scrutiny does not help the case AT ALL. Each law firm presents their own collection and each one is weighed equally, because each collection represents a bias and is the product of the protocols and controls exerted upon its production.
By saying the the TR/Byzantine is the only collection worth looking at, you are slandering the other collections.
Norm wrote, “You write, “we can find the truth between all of their accounts” and then “they claim divine revelation” – which is contradictory. You claim that you are finding the truth, but you attack others who find the truth as if they belong to a dangerous cult.”
It’s not contradictory at all, because the Scripture outlines a due process of scrutiny which makes divine revelation entirely unnecessary.
You must necessarily claim divine revelation, because there is only one witness. Those who submit themselves contentedly to the due process of multiple witnesses have actively foregone divine revelation in favor of sound judgement. To actually claim those who accept all witnesses have claimed “their own version of truth” is unconscionable and narcissistic.
We claim to know what the truth is, because multiple witnesses attest to it. You know what the truth is because you claim divine revelation on one witness.
You claim that the Holy Spirit guides you, but you have actively ignored the principles of sound judgement which should be present in one in whom the Holy Spirit is guiding! How can one say, “I have the Spirit” and actively ignore the principles of Scripture?
On the point you didn’t even address… Not only have you claimed divine revelation on one textual witness, you have also taken only one translation as true, which was based on only one witness. You have provided two witnesses against yourself by showing partiality twice on the same matter!
If you claim that one translation is necessary for us to understand the message of the Word of God, then you are discarding the power of the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus, Who are chiefly responsible for correct understanding in Christians. You have bypassed them and gone straight to the council of men. You tacitly slander the work of the likes of the Waldensians who by the power of Jesus Christ had such faith as to die for Him, all without the KJV…
Norm
Chesterton:
If you are so rational and I’m so irrational, why didn’t you look up Acts 2:23 instead of attacking me? You’d see that the passage doesn’t say “by the hands of godless men” – it only says “dia cheiros anomōn” meaning, by wicked/lawless hands. So it doesn’t say the hands belonged to other “men” – the word “men” was added but its not there. The Authorized Version is correct once again. There is a reason why I believe in the King James Bible in English, it prevents me from making mistakes, like the one you just did.
Chesterton
I would not expect someone in the King James Only cult to admit they are in a cult. That’s they symptom of being in a cult. You’ve essentially deified a work of man and treat it as infallible. Even the translators would have scoffed at such an idea. It is impossible to engage in a meaningful discussion of the Bible with someone who insists on acknowledging only their preferred translation which will always suit their particular agenda. The differences in your KJV translation and another is straining at a gnat and doesn’t change the substance of the point, except in your mind. Sorry, I can no longer engage any more discussions with you. It is one-sided and will be fruitless. And I would advise others to not waste their time either.
Jay
Great site. I’ve been frequenting it since I discovered it. This particular article, which was well-written, seems to be in opposition to another publication I found on this site
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Esau-Edom.pdf
I understand that the link above is a digital copy of a book written by an author not affiliated with the CFT team. However, I wonder if the intention is to provide varying perspectives on this subject, or am I missing something? Again, I love the site and interactive commentary posted by regular visitors. I am grateful to enjoy the content here before the famine of hearing the words of the Lord is upon us.
Christians For Truth
Jay, we put many books in the library that we don’t necessary endorse the entire content of. In fact, there are very few book any of us will agree with wholeheartedly, but they are still worth reading to get a new perspective — or understand perspectives that may be popular but that we don’t necessarily hold.
The book “Esau-Edom” for example has a lot of good information on Jewish perfidy even if we don’t necessarily agree with the literal connection it makes between Jewry and Edom. The same is true of the writings of E. Michael Jones or Kevin MacDonald.
The same is true for articles we post — we don’t necessarily endorse all the views in them either — but we hope they generate beneficial conversation. And we also believe that we need to be open to new ideas that challenge any of our old ideas. In that spirit, we must constantly re-examine what we believe and be able to defend what we believe. Welcome to CFT!
Johan
Right. There are some who hold certain knowledge as sacred and therefore not eligible for criticism.
Criticism against that knowledge — which to them is not allowed to be open for criticism — is like smoke to the eyes of those who hold it. They can scarcely look at it.
But to those who speak truth in their heart understand that they must be able to explain their own beliefs within themselves. They understand that if they want to promote their beliefs they must be able to defend them, or otherwise change them.
Being able to digest and compare contradicting evidence is crucial to that process.
Christ Is King
You’re exactly right, Johan: Truth cannot be found through blind faith. As the catholic brothers and nuns taught, and still teach, I believe: “to question God, the Bible, the catholic church, is a sin against God! What the pope says is law!”
By questioning and doubting and debate and accepting and prayer is how we learn 🙂
Johan
Christ is King wrote, “By questioning and doubting and debate and accepting and prayer is how we learn ?”
Amen. Matthew 7:7.
Also Psalm 25:9,
He leads the humble in justice,
And He teaches the humble His way.
And all of Psalm 119…
Jay
Thank you kindly for the reply and welcome.