In light of our recently essay — Edom In The Old And New Testaments — we thought it would benefit the discussion to add a follow-up piece on the subject of Malachi 1– a passage often quoted by those who identify Edom as literal modern-day Jews.
The passage in question is Malachi 1:1-5,
1 The pronouncement of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi: 2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was Esau not Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and given his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; this is what the Lord of armies says: “They may build, but I will tear down; and people will call them the territory of wickedness, and the people with whom the Lord is indignant forever.” 5 And your eyes will see this, and you will say, “The Lord be exalted beyond the border of Israel!”
Those who believe that this refers to modern-day Jews will point out that the Jews have been literally attempting to “build up the ruins” in Palestine since the foundation of the nation-state of Israel in 1948 — and is therefore a fulfillment of that prophesy.
They will also claim that the verse “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau” singles out Esau from among all the nations as a doomed people. In other words, they believe that only Esau is doomed and the rest of the nations are not. Their circular reasoning is that only modern-day Jews are worthy of being doomed, and so it must be them who are doomed in Malachi.
We have already demonstrated that modern-day Jews cannot be literal Edomites — and so Malachi 1 is not referring to Jews ab initio — from the outset. Clearly, Malachi is referring to the land of Edom being rebuilt, not Judea or Palestine. The Jews cannot “return and rebuild” Edom because they had never built there — because they aren’t Edomites. They were not “beaten down” because it was the Edomites who were beaten down, not the Jews.
Those who claim Malachi refers to “Edomite Jews” misinterpret the phrase “return and rebuild” as Edomites returning to Judea to rebuild it — based on their presumption that “Edomite Jews” inhabited Judea in the time of Christ — and they returned to build it up again in the year 1948.
However, this is not at all what the prophecy is saying. Even if Malachi 1 were referring to Jews who are Edomites, that position still faces a glaring inconsistency with the passage. Verse 3 clearly states, “I have made his mountains a desolation.” Edom was given Mount Seir and the surrounding mountainous region as their own land in Deuteronomy 2:4,
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.
The fundamental premise of Malachi’s prophecy is that the Edomites have been beaten down in their own land — and they are going to return to their own land to rebuild it. This prophecy is referring to an actual and verifiable event in Scripture of Edom being beaten down and rebuilding their own land. 1 Kings 11:14-22 tells us exactly that:
14 Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal line in Edom. 15 For it came about, when David was in Edom and Joab the commander of the army had gone up to bury those killed in battle, and had struck and killed every male in Edom 16 (for Joab and all Israel stayed there for six months, until he had eliminated every male in Edom), 17 that Hadad fled to Egypt, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, while Hadad was a young boy. 18 They set out from Midian and came to Paran; and they took men with them from Paran and came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house and assigned him food and gave him land. 19 Now Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him in marriage the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen. 20 And the sister of Tahpenes gave birth to his son Genubath, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house; and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s house among the sons of Pharaoh. 21 But when Hadad heard in Egypt that David lay down with his fathers and that Joab the commander of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, “Let me go, so that I may go to my own country.” 22 However, Pharaoh said to him, “But what have you lacked with me that you are here, requesting to go to your own country?” And he answered, “Nothing; nevertheless you must let me go.”
We can see that there was a period of time when there was not even one male Edomite in all of the land of Edom — and yet they returned later in order to rebuild it. Conversely, there is no point in time in Scripture where the Edomites ever “returned” to Judea to rebuild it.
We have an instance where they returned to rebuild their own land — along with the statement, “I have made his mountains a desolation” — but not a single instance where they returned to rebuild Judea. Why would we presume that this verse could possibly refer to Edomites returning to rebuild the land of Judea?
Yet Israel had suffered a similar fate with the Babylonian and Assyrian conquests of the Israelites — and that in combination with the fact that Edom is Israel’s brother, makes them a perfect match for such a comparison.
In Malachi 1, the Lord is trying to make known His love for Israel specifically — and that even though Edom and Israel are “brothers” — and even though they seem to have suffered similar fates — it is Israel that will ultimately be restored and not Edom.
Why is that? It was not because of something Esau did but rather because it was the Lord’s explicit choice: “I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau.” Paul emphasizes and expands on this statement in Romans 9:11-13,
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 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.”
Paul is saying that the statement “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” is the confirmation of a promise which God made to Rebekah when He said, “The older will serve the younger.” Jacob has been set apart and will be restored as a nation because Jacob is the child of the promise. Esau would not be restored as a nation because Esau was not the child of the promise.
Israel had indeed witnessed Edom being built up again — and in light of Israel’s own recent destruction under the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions, Israel would feel insecure that Edom seemed to be getting preferential treatment — as Malachi 1:2 states,
But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was Esau not Jacob’s brother?”
However all the nations are destined for destruction while Israel is destined for restoration. The Lord is telling Israel that no matter how many times Edom rebuilds, they will always be thrown down again, but Israel will be restored forever.
The entire book of Malachi is a promise to Israel that they will indeed inherit the land which was promised to Abraham and more, just as Malachi 1:5 states,
And your eyes will see this, and you will say, “The Lord be exalted beyond the border of Israel!”
Isaiah 52:8-10 covers the exact same promise,
8 Listen! Your watchmen raise their voices, They shout joyfully together; For they will see with their own eyes when the Lord restores Zion.9 Be cheerful, shout joyfully together, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem.10 The Lord has bared His holy arm in the sight of all the nations, so that all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God.
Jerusalem is promised restoration — and the ends of the earth will see the salvation of the Lord. This is yet another reference to the “fullness of the nations” along with those who escape, which is even evident in Malachi 1:5.
Micah 5:4 speaks of the work of the Christ,
And He will arise and shepherd His flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God. And they will remain, because at that time He will be great to the ends of the earth.
Therefore, Edom is singled out only insofar as they served as the perfect subject for the love of God in the overall message of the prophecy of Malachi. However, Edom is merely a type for all the nations in the latter days — because those from all nations who do not serve Israel through the Lord Jesus will be destroyed, as Isaiah 60:12 says,
For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly ruined.
Psalm 2:8-12 says of the Lord’s reign,
7 “I will announce the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have fathered You. 8 Ask it of Me, and I will certainly give the nations as Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them like earthenware.’” 10 Now then, you kings, use insight; Let yourselves be instructed, you judges of the earth. 11 Serve the Lord with reverence and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, that He not be angry and you perish on the way, for His wrath may be kindled quickly. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
Jeremiah 12:14-17 says the same thing,
14 This is what the Lord says concerning all My wicked neighbors who do harm [including Edom] to the inheritance with which I have endowed My people Israel: “Behold, I am going to drive them out of their land, and I will drive the house of Judah out from among them. 15 And it will come about that after I have driven them out, I will again have compassion on them; and I will bring them back, each one to his inheritance and each one to his land. 16 Then, if they will really learn the ways of My people, to swear by My name, ‘As the Lord lives,’ just as they taught My people to swear by Baal, they will be built up in the midst of My people. 17 But if they do not listen, then I will drive out that nation, drive it out and destroy it,” declares the Lord.
Through all of these examples, we have confirmation that Edom is used only as a shadow — and that these things are promised for all of the nations.
Summing up then, this prophecy simply does not work when applied to Jews for three reasons:
- Edomites are not Jews.
- Malachi 1 is referring to Edom rebuilding the land of Seir, not the land of Judea.
- Edom is being used only as a shadow for something which applies to all nations.
Hopefully, this perspective provides us with a better interpretation which lines up fully with the rest of prophecy — prophecy interpreting prophecy. We must endeavor to see what the prophecy is saying to us, instead of sifting through prophecy with a preconceived agenda in mind.
Peter warns us that Scripture and prophecy will indeed be misused and distorted by those who do not have a firm commitment to the message of the gospel in 2 Peter 3:11-18,
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unscrupulous people and lose your own firm commitment [to holiness, spotlessness, blamelessness and the looking for the new heavens and new earth 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
2 Peter 3:11-18
It seems that there are quite a few commenters who suffer from God-given self-delusion, insisting upon their own personal doctrine and ignoring the ever developing facts, both from CFT articles and knowledgeable – and rational – commenters.
These developing facts are making the Scripture even easier to understand:
Any and all “nations” referred to in the Scriptures are explicitly white, which explicitly disqualifies any mention of these “nations” with anything non-white (e.g. modern jews), therefor, all modern mamzer ‘fallout’ living in shadows of these ancient white nations are NOT the subject of these prophecies!
I have always contended that the Bible was written by, for, and about white people. It is even more exclusive than I could ever have imagined – in light of these developing facts – so any childish accusations of these Scriptural reasonings as “universal” proves a complete lack of scholarship and shows a spirit of self-promotion.
I have found nothing but the spirit of Christian brotherhood and a desire for truth. There has always been wonderfully open and forgiving debates in that spirit where we have all been able to learn and grow. Anything else is a spirit of contention and is not welcome here. Stop wasting our time…thanks….
I agree entirely. Here, here!
I might add that recently I have noticed a distinct lack of awareness, from a whole lot of people commenting, that white people can be antichrist. White people, our people, can, will, and do, sin!
Just by being white doesn’t mean that we are all automatically saintly: disagreements doesn’t make our fellow whites “jews” or secret “jews” or whatever. If I were to say that I met a nice brown person, that doesn’t mean that I am a universalist… it means I met a brown person that was nice.
Some white people can be bad, and of their father, the father of lies, the Devil! They will never hear Jesus as they can not.
I do not hate white people, as some one in a thread accused me of; I love white people… but some don’t love me back. Hate your enemies, as Jesus said.
Some will know Jesus from the cradle, some will come to Jesus (as I did), some will turn from Jesus, and some will never know Jesus.
I am blessed to have known OF Christ from the cradle. My journey to finally find the REAL Jesus Christ only started at my Christening as a born Catholic. I believe I have only recently been able to start a personal relationship with Christ – finally understanding who He is in relation to who I am…and I spent many years thinking myself knowledgeable enough to teach. What a pretentious fool I am. If we do not grow in the knowledge of Christ every day, are we not living in contradiction to Scripture?
Ottify,
I left you a comment at the other article — https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-47004
Hope you will read it. Cheers.
Since I cannot reply to that comment directly, I will do it here.
The single most glaring fact I found out since doing some additional research into genetics many moons ago is the simple fact that only white DNA contains all recessive genes. All other ‘races’ contain dominant and recessive. To have all recessive DNA means no foreign DNA has ever been introduced to that bloodline. This could not possibly be in a world according to believers like Norm.
Now, I can’t cite any sources as it has been a good ten years since I did the research, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to find documentation that will support it.
Thanks.
Have you ever come across any information pointing to the Yellows as the longest classification of Bi-Peds to have walked the earth? There was a commenter years ago who went by “Strongs119” on various comment sections. He had an enormous amount of research to suggest/prove this very point. Of course I lost his contact info and did not save any of his research. Anthropological and Archaeological data.
Most of the Anthropologists of the not too distant future suggest Yellow, Black and White are Original tribes of people. “Red” seems to be in contention.
Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard comes to mind.
As Johan pointed out, given their extremely low IQ and barely subsistence-level, Stone Age existence, it is inconceivable that the Aborigines in Australia could have gotten there from elsewhere on their own. They have no history whatsoever of having any seafaring abilities that could have brought them to Australia. So how did they get there?
And if all people allegedly arose out of the Garden of Eden and descended from Adam, how did the Aborigines get from the Mesopotamia to Australia? The fact is they couldn’t. They must have been brought there by another people, perhaps as slaves, which is unlikely because there is no evidence of any other people inhabiting Australia, or God created them there and put them there. Is there any other explanation?
I have not come across such research. But keep in mind that creatures and beasts created by God do have dominant genes and is not a suggestion that they are not pure – that seems to be a quality unique to (white) man…someone correct me if I’m wrong. I would also assert yellows and blacks to be created as beasts, so I would expect them to have existed longer than men. No extensive research to prove that 😉
…..God created them there and put them there. …..
Chesterton — I concur.
“……. I would also assert yellows and blacks to be created as beasts, so I would expect them to have existed longer than men. ……
Yes. …… agreed.
I was slightly ‘thrown-off’ by your earlier comment of “pure”.
I just wanted to make sure my theory of “Original” had legs.
Just as animals are an “Original” creation. I hope people will understand the point I am making.
Cheers.
Yes, I understand what you mean by “original”. That is probably a better word for me to have used than “pure” when I wrote “creatures and beasts created by God do have dominant genes and is not a suggestion that they are not pure”. I should have written “…original creations”.
WestWins wrote, “Just as animals are an “Original” creation. I hope people will understand the point I am making.”
Yes, in my opinion this is critical to the understanding of what all these things are.
People look at these things in their mixed and unoriginal form (eg. mix between black and white), but they still somehow think that they are an “original” creation, even though the child can never ever again bring for the “original” state of either of its parents.
They think that these “original” creations can cohabit and comingle and yet somehow retain their “original” state, even though experience proves the complete opposite.
@westwins @Ottify Thank you both for your contribution to a better understanding of Scripture! I used to be apart of Christogenea and their forum. I used to believe the lies finck taught about 2sl.
But after reading several articles here, and with the help of you all in the comments, I have had to reconsider that doctrine and from reading Scripture it just doesn’t add up. I want to address one question: since the Non-Adamic are beasts and God gave Adam dominion over animals does that also apply to the hominid beasts?
Elijah, I don’t think Finck “lies” intentionally. He seems to truly believe his own take on DSCI. Why it’s so important to him is anyone’s guess, as it is an unnecessary complication to scripture that in no way improves our chances of salvation, and if anything, it does the opposite. And to call people who don’t go along it “Jews” or “universalist” Christians is both immature and cultish bullying.
His most dangerous teaching is that all White people will be saved, regardless of their behavior in this lifetime. It’s idolatry of White DNA, which supersedes the necessity to believe in and walk with Christ as the only way to salvation. This kind of dogma will attract those who are looking to justify their views on race rather than those looking to deepen their Christian faith through an understanding of the place of race in scripture.
@Kevin Agreed, my apologies I could have worded what I said better, I meant the lie of 2sl, I do agree with you Finck does seem to actually believe what he is saying. I appreciate the input. Would you be able to answer my question regarding Hominid Beasts and Adam’s Dominion? Thank you, Regards – Elijah
Elijah …..
Would you be able to answer my question regarding Hominid Beasts and Adam’s Dominion?
I think your question is vague. What is your point in asking, I guess I would ask to help clarify what you are trying to understand.
“Take Dominion” ………………
I’m just going to take a guess at what you might be wondering about.
I have a friend who is a Southern Confederate Historian. He has amassed several books from Christian writers at that time who used the Bible as justification for the taking and owning of black slaves.
I personally do not believe that God — when writing that particular verse in Genesis —- had in no way the mind that Whites should use non-white peoples as slaves; or to even have anything to do with them, quite frankly. Maybe at a minimum, if they were in our way — we had the permission to move them out of our way. In the nicest possible manner.
I think the early creation of the United States is a pretty good example. White people did their best to be friendly with the Red Indian and even tried to be friends with them. There was cooperation for awhile. But then the Indian must have realize the perceived threat. I certainly don’t fault the Red Indian for their innocent slaughter; but the end result is what happens. Who knows ….. had the Red Indian behaved differently, they might have more land today to call their own.
I think we have “Dominion” over the non-white races simply because they cannot do what we do. Period. I don’t think that was ever permission to use them like we do animals for work and sustenance.
Hope that helps.
Ps…… History has proven that our interaction with the non-white races has only ended up in our demise. They gain, we lose. Personally, I don’t know how we could have Colonized most of the world in a way that didn’t effect us negatively. Only if every single man who was involved was a born-again, God fearing Man, could it have worked. But that was never Scriptural history nor prophecy.
Life is a Test. And the Outcome written. We lose collectively —- Luke 18:8
@westwins @Mark Very good information, I haven’t seen specific sites claim this, however I have seen one guy on bitchute believe this BS – I can’t remember his channel name Ill try to find it.
Thank you for the clarification, Mark. I didn’t know BI viewed Germans as edom, wow, that only makes them more idiotic then I already thought!
God bless you both, – Elijah
Westwins Thank you for your response, you may be unfamiliar with this but some groups in British Israel for example believe in “Dominion Theology” that we the White Race have Dominion over Non-Whites. Now I have seen some at CFT in the comment section claim that non-adamics are “beasts” or “animals” and I agree.
So I don’t agree with the Dominion aspect as I believe we are to remain separate. Probably could have worded the question better. The Main thing is Genesis 1:26 “and God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” I do not think this applies to non-Adamics.
Hi Elijah,
“…you may be unfamiliar with this but some groups in British Israel for example believe in “Dominion Theology” that we the White Race have Dominion over Non-Whites. …………”
I am familiar with the term “British Israelism”. From my research, BI is a pre-cursor to Christian Identity. But BI was something that occured in the late 1800’s.
I wasn’t aware that there are actual fellowships of people today who consider themselves “British Israel”.
Do you know any of them by name? Or Websites? Etc., etc.
I am just now hearing on various Liberal comment sections of this idea of “Dominion Theology”.
The ((( Left ))) is running a campaign of propaganda trying to paint a picture that ALL White Christians want to install a Theocracy here in the United States — taking “Dominion” over all it’s citizens. It’s a bunch of malarkey. If only it were true! 🙂
I’m not sure if this is the same thing or idea that you are talking about. ???
I haven’t heard a Peep of something like this happening in Britain. Does Britain even have ONE marginal Christian left??? I figured Britain was empty of anything “christian” by now.
Anyway ………………… Tell me more about these groups of people that you are aware of that believe the Scriptures give them Dominion over all non-white peoples. I have a feeling they actually don’t exist in reality — but that you are hearing the same things I am hearing. If they do exist, I can almost promise you they are Controlled Opposition.
And I agree with you on the Genesis verse. As I stated in my comment — the worst thing White people have done is to interact with the non-white peoples of the world. I do not believe God wanted us to have anything to do with non-whites. It has only hurt us. Never helped us. Oh right …… they say the Indians saved the lives of the first arrivals to the North American Continent because they taught them how to plant corn.
The early British-Israel movement was accused of “dominion” theology because some of its adherents used Israel Identity as a way of justifying and explaining the dominance of the British Empire in prophecy.
These same British-Israelites also claimed that Germans were not Israelites, but rather Edom because Germany was a historical adversary to the British “Israelites”. Foolish. This movement was subverted by Jews from early on, notably Benjamin Disraeli who had Queen Victoria’s ear, and she believed in B-I theology, which stipulated that the “Jews” were, in fact, Judah.
But it was a British-centric movement, and it look almost 100 years before it was broadened to include most White Europeans, and that was the work of the American branch of CI, because America was the place of the regathering of all Israel.
No legitimate Identity Christians would adhere to “dominion” theology. We are to be a holy and separate people, not rule over the other races, but rather apart from them in any way we can.
Mark and Elijah ……………
Mark — Thank you. Very valuable information. Great research.
Elijah — Please read Mark’s comment.
Your article reveals a lack of understanding how things have changed in this dispensation. Edom is representation of the Jews in the sense of their faith… those that believe in the OT Jewish covenant are spiritual Edomites… much as those that believe in Christ are spiritual Jews. Natural land in this age is irrelevant.. just as natural Jerusalem is irrelevant to end time prophecy
No, Hezekiah, it’s you, I believe, who lacks the understanding. Your whole premise of a so-called “dispensation” is anti-Scriptural. Your premise that because the Israelites rejected Christ, that God transferred his blessings and covenant to an alien people is completely fabricated.
John 1:12 reads, 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.
So actually a great many of the Israelites clearly accepted Christ, did not reject Him, like the 5,000 He fed for example.
Jeremiah 31:31 tells us that the New Covenant will be with the SAME people as the Old Covenant:
“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:”
The Catholic Church claims that God transferred the New Covenant to the Church, and the Church is the New Israel, which is preposterous, a complete fabrication. The Catholics were the first “dispensationalists”. Then the Protestants, when they broke away from the Church, had to make up a new “dispensation” of their own because they were no longer Catholics, so they claimed the the New Covenant was with anyone that “believed in Jesus”, another completely fabricated doctrine. In reality, the covenant never changed (Jer 31:31), but pure Adamic people from the Genesis 10 nations will be allowed into the kingdom to serve Israel if serve Christ, as Paul reveals the mystery in Romans 11:25, which often mistranslates “nations” for “gentiles”.
ISOLDE,
1. “Dispensation” is a word found in the Bible.(Ephesian 1:10 KJV for example)
2. Romans 11:15 directly contradicts your theory . Natural Jews who murdered Christ & who reject God & His new covenant are called the enemies of the cross
3. Jer 31 refers to the return from Babylon & the return from spiritual barrenness received through Christ… that is the new covenant. In so doing they became part of the new, or rather true, covenant through Christ.
4. Under the new covenant there are no Jews or Gentiles , we are all one in Christ… Jews have rejected the Old covenant to receive Christ continually for 2000 years.
Rather the final restoration of the spiritual Edomites is when the Jewish religion, as a belief system, accepts that Jesus is Lord, & covenant with God is through His blood and not that of the old which is a useless shadow.
There are many references to a new covenant, new Jerusalem, spiritual Jews etc etc.
You are woefully wrong not only in trying to lump every thing under the worst interpretation of the biblical term, dispensation, but…
You don’t seem to comprehend the Church is the body of Christ. The old covenant of the natural Jews served only to point to this new covenant… that of life in Christ Jesus. To suggest this has not replaced the old is wilful ignorance. It did not replace anything. Rather God revealed the true covenant (making the shadow version irrelevant to those who wished to remain in covenant with God) those who rejected it, rejected God.
The old covenant is now relevant only to judge the sinners & ungodly.
Hezekiah, you are using an anachronistic term — Jew — that did not exist at the time of Christ or earlier. The Greek term is Ioudaios, and it’s a gross over-simplification to use it as “Jew” as you do. Clearly, the old and new covenants were with all of Israel, not just “Jews”, or the Tribe of Judah. And the “dispensation” that you allude to, such as Ephesians 1:10, is a fulfillment of Isaiah 56: 5-8, when those believers among the Genesis 10 nations are brought in the Kingdom — and which time they will indeed lose their former identities as nations. This is the mystery of which Paul speaks in Colossians 1:26-28.
Regardless, with whom God made the covenant did not change, despite this dispensation. And it’s simply patently false to claim that the Israelites — or “Jews” as you falsely call them — ceased to exist under the new covenant — Luke 22:30 specifically states that the Tribes of Israel will be in the Kingdom. Not only that the twelve gates to the kingdom in Revelation refer to the 12 Tribes (Rev 21:21). And, yes, they still exist. You may not know who they are, but God most certainly does. After all, Christ said He came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt 15:24), a fulfillment of Jer 31:31 — and if Israel no longer exists, then that makes Christ a liar — or your theology is wrong.
Spot on!
Romans 11,
28 In relation to the gospel they are enemies on your account, but in relation to God’s choice they are beloved on account of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
The “Jews” as they are known today are not even Israelites at all: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-46267
Why are all of you arguing this? What is the purpose of these articles anyway? The bottom line remains: Everything God made was good. God planted the wheat and Satan planted the tares. Sheep cannot become goats, nor vice-versa. The Abrahamic covenant was with White Israelites ONLY. The others don’t even matter. Are we going to abandon truth and now promote universalism? Are we trying to fit 90% Whites into the Kingdom? What about 10%? I’m still trying to understand the ulterior motive behind the publishing of these articles (which isn’t conclusive by any stretch).
Mark wrote,
“God planted the wheat and Satan planted the tares.” Prove it.
“Sheep cannot become goats.” Prove it.
“Goats cannot become sheep.” Prove it.
“The Abrahamic covenant was with White Israelites only.” Agreed.
“Are we going to abandon truth and now promote universalism?” Whose promoting universalism? Prove it.
“Are we trying to fit 90% Whites into the Kingdom?” Whose trying to do this? Examples?
“What about 10%?” What does this even mean?
“I’m still trying to understand the ulterior motive behind the publishing of these articles”? Why do you think there’s an “ulterior motive behind it?
” (which isn’t conclusive by any stretch).” Please, show us all exactly where these article are wrong?
Am I to assume you are suggesting that Edomites are “goats” and “tares”? Is that correct? The two essays, I believe address that issue. Would you like to explain why exactly you think the essays have failed to prove to you that Edomites are not “goats” or “tares”? Saying you just don’t agree with it or that it isn’t conclusive is not a valid argument. Thanks
Johan
I am not going to debate this anymore. I have read the article and basically agree that Esau is a warning to everyone else as per your conclusions but I contend that the relationship between Esau and Jacob is still very relevant because he is our (Jacob’s) brother and that is way more important than our relation with anyone else. You do not see it that way. I get it. I contend they (Esau) are still a people (Sephardics) because their genetics (maternal) are still in some of the “Jews”. Plus, all who claim to be “Jews” or adopt their internal (race based Judaism) or external programming (Communism) have the spirit of Esau.
The book of Enoch, Jasher and that passage about Esau and Jacob in 2 Esdras have been taken out of the different canons like some other books and passages as we all know. CFT even wrote whole articles about how scriptures have been changed concerning the flood, how this has caused confusion and that is my point. I do not care that Enoch is a shadow of the “son of Man”. My point is that passages have been changed and whole books taken out so if you only want to go by a version of the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts ( First penned around 900 AD by these Sephardic Esau “Jews”) and the dead sea scrolls then that is your choice. As for me, I go back as far as I can in the Septuagint, Greek NT as I also include evidence of passages altered, taken out completely as well as whole books that have been eliminated to come to my conclusions. My last post I took directly from Romans 9, linked to Rev 2-3 and left out any other source you disputed but to no avail.
As for convincing you, I am done trying to do that. I cannot see how anyone cannot see what I am saying here and as for us seeing this different, no big deal. I have yet to see any believer 100% in accord with everyone else on any subject really.
Jews obviously have a lot of white genetics, including Israelite genetics. What makes you think that even if they have some Edomite mixture, that is more influential on their character than their possible Israelite component? Edomites intermarried with Israelites in Judea and created legitimate Israelite offspring. Are you saying that those Israelites are any less Israelites and those Israelites who took wives from other of the Genesis 10 nations — because they all did? Every Israelite has Genesis 10 ancestry because they were all Adamic peoples. Are you contending that Edomite ancestry is somehow inherently “evil” and that anyone who has some is going to be “evil”? If they were such an inherently evil people, why would John Hyrcanus, an Israelite high priest, allow them into the congregation and mix with Israelites? Makes no sense.
Jas
If the theory that fallen angel cross breeds survived the flood then there is evil DNA today. If fallen angels mixed with Canaanites after the flood (which seems the most plausible) then there is evil DNA today. If that fallen angel DNA was in the Canaanites and anyone else mixed with them then again, there is evil DNA today. Make of this what you will.
Tryon wrote, “If the theory that fallen angel cross breeds survived the flood then there is evil DNA today.”
Not true. This sentence has many presumptions that are unproven to begin with. Where is your proof in the Bible itself of the existence of “fallen angel cross breeds”? Where is your proof that “fallen angels” can procreate? Where is your proof that even if “fallen angel cross breeds” exist that their DNA is “evil”? You merely assume all of these things, as you have done with your theories of two seedline in general, but cannot prove them.
You wrote, “If fallen angels mixed with Canaanites after the flood (which seems the most plausible) then there is evil DNA today.” More unproven presumptions. Why presume fallen angels mixed with Canaanites? Scriptural proof? The Edom essay clearly show that Canaanites are not racially mixed. If you dispute this, show your proof why they are mixed.
Where is your proof that any discernible peoples today have Canaanite ancestry? The Arabs are the most likely candidates, but it’s not their Canaanite ancestry that made them mixed, but rather their Arabic bloodlines. Again, show your Scriptural proof that the Canaanites are mamzers. Address the specific evidence in the Edom essay that they are not mixed. No more of your “theories”. We are all familiar with the two seedline theories of the Canaanites. Don’t repeat them. Prove them.
Jas
Who made you judge of what constitutes proof? I have one word for you. Giants in Canaan and the subsequent order of the great I AM to literally genocide them off the face of the earth. Proof to many is much like beauty. It’s in the eye of the beholder. I can present proofs all day (which I have) and all you have to say and will say is “thats not proof”. If you are too blind to see what i have said thus far presenting what I have, you won’t believe anything else. I am done conversing with you as well. A total waste of time. Believe whatever you wilt. It matters not. Truth is still truth. Lies are still lies and the true Jesus in his second coming will be the final judge.
Tyron Parsons, how are giants in Canaan proof that fallen angels slept with people? You state it as if it’s self-evident, but it isn’t.
You have to overcome the fact that Genesis 6 never actually says that the “nephilim” were the product of the sons of God and daughters of men. It just says the “nephilim” were present during those times, and Genesis 6:4 makes that quite explicit.
Genesis 6:2 also describes the union as marriage which conflicts with Matthew 22:30.
The Rephaim/giants in Canaan are more likely to be one of the several bipedal animal kinds which today we call “human races”…
Deuteronomy 7:22,
And the Lord your God will drive away these nations from you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, otherwise the wild animals would become too numerous for you.
We don’t have record of any animal being a problem for 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37). Nor was any animal ever a problem for even modest pioneering parties in the history of white people. In fact, the thought of wild animals being a problem for 600,000 men is incomprehensible.
On the other hand, it seems like everyone was having an awful lot of trouble with something which was not considered “people” in Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2. The writer of those texts called them “Rephaim”…
The Bible tells us what constitutes “proof”, and that’s at least two independent witnesses (John 8:17, Rev 11:3, 1 Kings 21:10, etc.). You repeatedly confuse your theories for facts. Reading between the lines is not “proof”. That God commanded Israel to wipe out the Canaanites is not proof that the Canaanites were a racially impure or mixed people. What verse in Scripture states that God commands Israel to exterminate only mixed race people? Nor is the prohibition against marrying Canaanites proof that they are mixed race. These issues were addressed in detail in the Edom essay that you have completely ignored because you cannot refute it. That essay provides multiple witnesses that the Canaanites were a pure, Adamic people, and you have not even come close to refuting that evidence or even addressing it.
This is why i am done speaking with both Jas and Johan. No matter what is presented, seeds of doubt will be sow against clear, obvious truths. It seriously makes one wonder (((who’s))) really posting here….
Tyron, we do not tolerate you or anyone calling peole you disagree with Jews, which is what you have done. You cannot defend your position, so you call people Jews. You have no argument, so everyone who disagrees with you must be a Jew. You are no longer invited to comment here.
Isn’t it interesting how when Jews lose an argument, they always call their opponent a Nazi? And when proponents of two seedline lose an argument, they call their opponents “Jews”. Same Jewish mentality.
Two seedline is Talmudic, straight out of Babylon, and Christians that adhere to it become just as legalistic as rabbis in its defense. Those who do not believe in two seedline are always suspected of being “Jews”, a mentality that is taught by the Pope of Two Seedline himself. If you don’t believe that Edomites and Canaanites are mamzers, you’re a Jew. If you don’t believe that Cain is serpent seed, you’re a Jew. If you don’t believe that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent, you’re a Jew. Ironically, Jews believe many of these very same things because they come from their Babylon mystery religion. Many rabbis believe that the goyim are serpent seed. “Oh, but Jews really are serpent seed!” he said, clutching his pearls.
Calling a fellow white Christian a “Jew” is slander of the worst sort. Like Satan, a “false accuser”, you are doing his work for him, scattering the sheep.
“Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.” (Psalms 101:5)
@Chesterson
That is very well put. And it is one of the worst kinds of accusations to make against a kindred, that they are mixed race beasts, essentially irredeemable by race for not believing as they do, even regarding doctrine that in no way introduces universalism in the first place.
It is spiritual communism. Conform to the pope or “die.” False accusations like these are in the realm of murder. By their fruits we know them. And yet i believe there are still decent folk persisting in that prison collective.
Perhaps it works ultimately for our edification to be exposed to such a distortion of real fellowship. Yahweh doesnt wait around to teach us lessons. 5 years ago when i discovered CI it simultaneously a great revelation as well as a serious test.
Now i can see how far off 2 seedline is from Christ, and how even a view as damning to jews as exterminationism can be a jewish concept itself!
Whatever misleads us works for them. If we are focused soley on them, perhaps we fail to observe the fruits of certain white kin who, unwittingly or not, do their bidding and cause as much or more damage than even they.
Tyron Parsons, you say “I am not going to debate this anymore” and “As for convincing you, I am done trying to do that”, then proceed reiterate your rhetoric. It is obvious then that you are not done, and that what you say and what you mean are two different things.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “I contend they (Esau) are still a people (Sephardics) because their genetics (maternal) are still in some of the “Jews”. Plus, all who claim to be “Jews” or adopt their internal (race based Judaism) or external programming (Communism) have the spirit of Esau.”
Then you need to explain the spiritual application of every single national prophecy in the Scripture, otherwise you are cherry-picking. You can’t hold some prophecies and ignore others, otherwise your own exegetical method is flawed.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “My point is that passages have been changed and whole books taken out so if you only want to go by a version of the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts ( First penned around 900 AD by these Sephardic Esau “Jews”) and the dead sea scrolls then that is your choice.”
Each book needs to be corroborated by multiple verifiable witnesses. If you want to go to writings which don’t have multiple witnesses and have questionable origins, then that is your choice. It is unreasonable for you to expect everyone to believe what is written in those books just because you believe them.
Tyron Parsons wrote, “My last post I took directly from Romans 9, linked to Rev 2-3 and left out any other source you disputed but to no avail.”
And I responded by asking for your comment on the exposition of Romans 9 in this article: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
I am convinced by that article, so for all intents and purposes, that article represents my view. To me, that view is far more convincing than your view, which I see as superficial and reductive in comparison. If you want to discuss Romans 9 with me and present a view on Romans 9 which is a view other than my own view of Romans 9, you must refute the exposition given in that article.
If you do not refute the exposition given in that article, then at the outset you can assume I’m not going to agree with your interpretation of Romans 9.
Johan
Is this better? Believe as thou wilt. I am done.
It’s a well-known historical fact that the Jews defeated Edom to forced them to convert to Jews around 120 BC. Therefore there is no “Edom” after that time except as Jews.
>2. Malachi 1 is referring to Edom rebuilding the land of Seir, not the land of Judea.
Seir isn’t mentioned in Malachi. You have to know whether the verse applies before or after 120 BC. If before, then Edom was still Edom. But if after, then Edom means the Jews.
Ezekiel 25:12 is the prophecy fulfilled by John Hyrcanus when he defeated Edom and forced them all to become Jews. But when you get to Ezekiel 35:14 there are no Edomites as such, so this applies to Jews.
Balam prophesied about Seir: “…a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city.” Numbers 24:17-19. That’s obviously Jesus Christ defeating his enemies at the second advent, therefore this Edom has to be code for Jews ruled over by the Church, and since Seir is Edom’s mountain, and Edom means Jew, the word Seir is probably code also for earthly Jerusalem, the city also called Sodom and Egypt in Rev 11:8. Another verse says, ” Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe; over Philistia will I triumph. Who will bring me into the strong city? who will lead me into Edom?” Psalms 108:9-10. Casting out a shoe refers to the refusal to marry your brother’s widow, see Dt 25:9-10. Esau and Jacob were brothers. Jacob’s name is given to Joseph’s sons, the lost tribes, i.e., the Church. So it is saying the Jew as “Edom” is not raised up by Christ, he throws out his shoe to refuse them, they are not to be a rival at any point in the future to the Church, the Church is the ONLY vehicle for God’s people to identify with going forward. The ‘strong city’ is taken by the Church, ” In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.” Isaiah 26:1.
Norm, did you read the other essay, “Edom In The Old And New Testaments”? Yes or no? By your comments, it appears not. Please do read it carefully.
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
All your points are answered there, and in this essay on Malachi. If you have any objections to any of those specific points, please bring them up. If not, we won’t be continuing to entertain your comments as they have all been answered in those essays. Please don’t waste everyone else’s time. The topic is Edom.
CFT writes: “If not, we won’t be continuing to entertain your comments as they have all been answered in those essays. Please don’t waste everyone else’s time.”
Are you a woman? I read both articles and I left a comment because I thought this was the comment section. If you don’t like my comment, ignore it, or explain why it’s wrong. Don’t get your feelings hurt just because somebody doesn’t agree with you.
No one’s “feelings are hurt,” Norm. We can’t help it if you write as if you haven’t read the essay nor have the ability to respond to it in a way that is comprehensible to most readers here. Don’t flatter yourself.
Norm wrote, “Seir isn’t mentioned in Malachi.”
No one said it was. It seems to me that it is a fundamental assumption of the article above that Seir is not explicitly mentioned. The article explains how Seir does not need to be explicitly mentioned by name in order for the prophecy to be referring to Seir specifically.
I’m not holding it up as infallible, but if you cannot at least follow the logic of the article, you’re not going to be able to honestly refute it.
Norm wrote, “You have to know whether the verse applies before or after 120 BC. If before, then Edom was still Edom. But if after, then Edom means the Jews.
Ezekiel 25:12 is the prophecy fulfilled by John Hyrcanus when he defeated Edom and forced them all to become Jews. But when you get to Ezekiel 35:14 there are no Edomites as such, so this applies to Jews.”
Are you implying the book of Ezekiel needs to be interpreted chronologically in order of chapter and verse..? I’ve seen this many places, and people will be amazed at how prophecy makes more sense and opens up when letting go of the shackles of chronology…
Mount Seir is synonymous with Edom, as it is the homeland of Edom given in Genesis 36:9. To argue otherwise is fatuous.
Johan,
Superficial logic says Edom can’t be the Jews because Edom’s mountain is never be rebuilt, yet Jerusalem will be. This assumes that earthly Jerusalem is in view, when in reality heavenly Jerusalem is the city that is in view. See, ” For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” Hebrews 11:10. And see, ” For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Galatians 4:25-26.
Sinai means earthly Jerusalem, which superficial logic could “disprove” by quoting all about how Mt Sinai is actually not anywhere close to Jerusalem. It shows how code is used, how parables are used, as analogies to explain things in an oblique fashion. Jerusalem is also found in references to “Egypt” and “Sodom” according to Revelation 11:8, ” And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”
Malachi does not mention “Seir” by name but says “mountains” instead. It makes his reference more opaque so that it can have a different application, as an analogy for the unsaved Jew in the time after they rejected Christ. Paul confirms that earthly Jerusalem is deprecated: ” Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.” Hebrews 13:12-14.
Norm wrote, “This assumes that earthly Jerusalem is in view, when in reality heavenly Jerusalem is the city that is in view.
There is still a temporary restoration which needs to happen, and that restoration is not mutually exclusive with the heavenly city. The millennial reign happens with the second coming of the Lord, and the millennial reign is the restoration — or rebuilding — of Israel.
Matthew 24:31 is a quote of Isaiah 27:12-13 (and Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 56:8, Deuteronomy 30:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Corinthians 15:52),
12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel. 13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem.
Compare Revelation 19:17-18 with Ezekiel 39:17-20. Revelation 19 is obviously referring to the return of the Lord, and so the Lord in Revelation 19 is fulfilling the prophecy of Ezekiel 39, which when read in its entirety is obviously speaking about the restoration of Israel. Ezekiel 38 is also a prophecy against Gog.
Yet in Revelation 20:8, there is Gog once again. Ezekiel 38 is also a prophecy against Gog, except that verse 8 shows that this is an already restored and regathered Israel. Gog is battling against this restored Israel, which is exactly what is happening in Revelation 20. Compare Revelation 20:9 with Ezekiel 38:9 and14-16.
See also Zechariah 2. See Isaiah 34:4, which is the prophetic sign of the return of the Lord (Matthew 24:29) and see again how Isaiah 34 shows Edom as a shadow for all the nations. Isaiah 35 — which is the same vision and follow on from Isaiah 34 — shows the subsequent restoration of Israel.
Obviously these precede the heavenly city which you are referring to. Therefore, it proves that there is a restoration which must happen before the heavenly city in the next heaven and earth. Only the martyrs, those who did not take the mark of the beast and the remnant of Israel will rule during that time.
Norm wrote, “Jerusalem is also found in references to “Egypt” and “Sodom” according to Revelation 11:8, ” And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.””
I’m not sure why you equate Jerusalem with Egypt and Sodom. Egypt refers to the captivity of Israel and subsequent miraculous rescue (Exodus story)… Just as Israel is captive among the nations which the articles we’re discussing show. Sodom refers to imminent and supernatural destruction as a result of flagrant sin, which the return of the Lord will bring about as is shown in Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 19. Egypt and Sodom is victory for Israel, punishment for sinners.
Norm wrote, “Malachi does not mention “Seir” by name but says “mountains” instead. It makes his reference more opaque so that it can have a different application, as an analogy for the unsaved Jew in the time after they rejected Christ.”
This might be true if Edom didn’t have their own verifiable mountain from which they verifiably were beaten down and had to return to in order to rebuild. You’re proposing we simply ignore that, in order that you change the application to suit your own view.
I will even give you another witness in Ezekiel 35:15,
As thou didst rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto thee: thou shalt be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Idumea, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the Lord.
Norm
The old Greek had different words for “Jew”. The term “Jew” was invented some say 900 AD others say it was invented about 400 years ago. I would have to look this up again but one guy (CI type guy) had done a study on the made up term and found that the all encompassing word “Jew” was used in place of the ethnic term Judahite (member of Judah the tribe or the Southern Tribes as a whole). It is also used in place of the term Judean which means a person born in Judea (Citizen thereof) of any stock. And its also used for a Greek word that sounds like Judahite but means “those who resemble Judahites”. I would contend that this Greek word was used to describe the Edomite “Jew” converts because something that resembles something is not legitimately that to what it pretends to be.
“We have already demonstrated that modern-day Jews cannot be literal Edomites”
I am still not sure that this has been demonstrated. Until the prophecy in Obadiah is fulfilled, there are still Edomites on this Earth. So long as there are Edomites here, it remains possible that they are what we now know as Jews.
“They will also claim that the verse “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau” singles out Esau from among all the nations as a doomed people.”
What singles out Esau from among all the nations as a doomed people to me is that the Edomites have an entire book of the Bible devoted to foretelling that God will ethnically cleanse them for their crimes against the Israelites. Since this cleansing has not yet happened, isn’t the implication that these Edomites are still here and are still committing crimes against the Israelites?
As for the Edomites rebuilding, I have some questions there. Mount Seir is in Jordan, and Jordan has rebuilt itself quite well. I am told that it is far above present-day Israel, however my ticket to Israel will not come until the Millennial Kingdom so I couldn’t say first-hand.
While I do not know if the Jordanians are Edomites, I have seen the memes floating about showing that there is effectively not a dime’s worth of difference between the modern Arab and the modern Jew, even Haaretz claims that today’s Jews and Jordanians “share genetic link to ancient Canaanites”, and to my surprise Wikipedia states that the Edomites were converted to Judaism during the second or first centuries BC, so what does this mean?
ReformingBoomer wrote, “I am still not sure that this has been demonstrated. Until the prophecy in Obadiah is fulfilled, there are still Edomites on this Earth. So long as there are Edomites here, it remains possible that they are what we now know as Jews.”
Simultaneously, you seem not to have actually shown why you’re not sure it has been demonstrated relative to the logic of the article. I addressed this exact point you’re making on the other Edom article, but you seem reticent to respond?
ReformingBoomer wrote, “What singles out Esau from among all the nations as a doomed people to me is that the Edomites have an entire book of the Bible devoted to foretelling that God will ethnically cleanse them for their crimes against the Israelites.”
That “entire book” is 21 verses. Also you need to address the logic of the essay where it shows specifically that Edom is not particularly special and is being used as a shadow for all the nations.
“I addressed this exact point you’re making on the other Edom article, but you seem reticent to respond?”
I’m not adroit with this commenting system, and after too many replies are given to a comment, I notice that the system does not allow further replies. So my apparent reticence is not often from a lack of desire to continue a discussion.
“That “entire book” is 21 verses.”
Which underscores the significance of its prophesied destruction of Edom. There is no “fluff”, just a cut and dry statement that God is going to have Jacob destroy Edom as punishment for their crimes against Jacob.
As for Edom being used as a stand-in for all the nations, that just does not make sense. Obadiah specifically says Edom, everything in it is about Edom; “This is what the Lord God says about Edom”. The other nations cannot be guilty of “violence against your brother Jacob”, so they would not be destroyed as punishment for this specific crime that they could not commit.
Neither of these essays has made a case that the foretold destruction of Edom has already occurred. If Obadiah’s prophecy is as yet unfulfilled then the Edomite people who committed crimes so heinous against the Israelites that God promised their complete and utter annihilation are still walking the Earth.
Can you believe that the Edomites, a race of career criminals whose crimes drew such ire from God, reformed themselves and have not been continuing their criminality against the Israelites in the many centuries since Obadiah was written?
ReformingBoomer wrote, “I’m not adroit with this commenting system, and after too many replies are given to a comment, I notice that the system does not allow further replies.”
Okay fair enough. If I see such a situation in one of our conversations, I’ll be sure to specify where you can reply in order to continue the thread of discussion.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Which underscores the significance of its prophesied destruction of Edom. There is no “fluff”, just a cut and dry statement that God is going to have Jacob destroy Edom as punishment for their crimes against Jacob.”
What I am trying to say is that saying there is an “entire book” on it is not a valid evidence for a view. There are “entire books” and chapters which do not mention Edom at all. In light of that, to choose to focus on Edom seems like confirmation bias or cherry-picking to me. That stance is not reconcilable with the rest of prophecy, because Edom is very clearly promised to have a remnant or “those that escape”.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “As for Edom being used as a stand-in for all the nations, that just does not make sense.”
* Edom suffers destruction in prophecy, but all nations suffer destruction in prophecy in the same passages — PROVEN (Obadiah 1:15-16)
* Edom commits the same offences towards Israel as other nations in the same passage — PROVEN (Ezekiel 25)
* Other nations suffer destruction in passages which do not even mention Edom — PROVEN (Isaiah 13-20, Zephaniah 2, Joel 3)
* Other nations commit the same offences towards Israel in passages which do not even mention Edom — PROVEN (Jeremiah 12:14)
* Edom suffers destruction, but is promised a remnant along with all nations — PROVEN (Jeremiah 49, Obadiah 1)
* Other nations suffer destruction, but are promised a remnant in passages which do not even mention Edom — PROVEN (Joel 2:32, Isaiah 11:11)
With the above in mind, I’m not sure how it doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure why there is an insistence that every single individual who genetically can be called an Edomite needs to have been destroyed in order to fulfill prophecy.
“I’m not sure why there is an insistence that every single individual who genetically can be called an Edomite needs to have been destroyed in order to fulfill prophecy.
The insistence is there because Obadiah’s prophecy states that upon its fulfillment every single individual Edomite will be destroyed. When Obadiah’s prophecy is fulfilled, there will be no remnant of Edom, no escapees. That is God’s promise: “Therefore no survivor will remain from the house of Esau.” (Obadiah 18)
(KJV has it as “and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.” [emphasis original])
” Other nations commit the same offences towards Israel in passages which do not even mention Edom”
Obadiah’s prophecy is that Edom will be destroyed for the crimes that it commits against its brother Jacob. It is not the crime per se that merits their unique destruction but the uniquely heinous nature of the crime, as only Edom is Jacob’s brother.
You mention Jeremiah 12:14 in support of your position, and I notice that in the article CFT quoted Jeremiah 12:17, which states “But if they do not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation,” says the Lord.” . This leaves open the possibility that God will annihilate utterly the disobedient, and it occurs to me that the subsequent book of Obadiah tells us that the Edomites have brought that annihilation onto themselves.
I believe I see what you’re driving at with Zephaniah 2, as it too mentions God’s wrath being meted out against nations, but I notice that Zephaniah seems less wroth than Obadiah, implies multiple times that there will be survivors, and mentions driving people out of their land, all of which is far less severe than Obadiah’s account of a promise of complete cleansing of the Edomite.
ReformingBoomer, if you keep replying to this comment, the line of discussion will appear together: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-prophecy-of-malachi/#comment-46989
Your whole argument is based on Obadiah being unique somehow, or more severe. Yet Obadiah itself promises the same wroth and destruction to all nations in verses 15-16. This shows emphatically that this is not just about Edom, even though Edom is used as a type.
The sayings in Obadiah are also cross-referenced to other prophecies referring to the same thing, applying to different nations, in the same broader context.
I think sufficient connection has been made between Edom and the nations’ fates to prove without a doubt that Edom is simply a part of the nations in its prophetic fate.
The only defense left is to ignore all of that, and to insist on conjecture or “explaining” a point of view into Obadiah, which necessarily requires a reading of it in isolation — ignoring parts like verses 15-16 and solid cross-references into and out of it.
With the above in mind, the reference to Edom being Israel’s brother is not to show that the punishment on Edom is more severe. It is to show that the promise to Israel is all the more sure! In other words, only Israel will inherit the promises, and even it’s own brother will not stop that.
No familiar partiality will be shown to anyone, regardless of their closeness to Israel or Abraham or Isaac. The promises were made to Israel, and they will be the inheritors — and that is final.
[Conversation continued from from this comment]
I still do not see how Obadiah applies to anyone except the Edomites. You’re referring to Obadiah 15-16 to suggest that Obadiah’s prophecy extends to all other nations, that Obadiah is in effect saying “This is the destruction that will befall Edom, and it will also happen to all other nations”?
I’ll go out on a limb here and explain why I disagree with that.
Firstly, the technical point that Obadiah 1 specifically says “Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom” (KJV), which restricts its domain to Edom.
Secondly, to address the Obadiah 15-16, the “Golden Rule”, I in light of the first point contend it should be read it as that “The day of the Lord is near for all nations, and as Edom has done it will be done to Edom; Edom’s deeds will return upon Edom’s own head.”
Contextually, this position is supported because Obadiah 10-14 have just detailed all of the horrid deeds that Edom committed against Israel.
“only Israel will inherit the promises, and even it’s own brother will not stop that.”
Yes, because as Obadiah foretells, when the Day of the Lord comes, the Edomite will be completely annihilated (Obadiah 8, 15 & 18). This might even strengthen the “Modern Jews are Edomites” theory as it would guarantee that the Edomite will be walking the Earth until Judgement Day?
While I am not particularly comfortable with metaphor/extrapolation with Scripture, I cannot, after reading God’s accounts of all the heinous crimes committed by the Edomites, shake the impression that the Edomites’ criminality did not cease with the crimes listed in Obadiah, that they continued committing crimes against Jacob over the past 2,000+ years.
Looking back at the last 2,000 years of history, the only people who have committed heinous crimes against Jacob have been the Jews.
The crux of the matter is in verse 16, not verse 15:
15 “For the day of the Lord is near for all the nations.
Just as you have [Edom has] done, it will be done to you [Edom].
Your [Edom’s] dealings will return on your own head.
16 For just as you [Edom] drank on My holy mountain,
All the nations will drink continually.
They [the nations] will drink to the last drop,
And become as if they [the nations] had never existed.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “While I am not particularly comfortable with metaphor/extrapolation with Scripture, I cannot, after reading God’s accounts of all the heinous crimes committed by the Edomites, shake the impression that the Edomites’ criminality did not cease with the crimes listed in Obadiah,”
The point is that all the “heinous crimes committed by the Edomites” are not that special in the context of the Scriptural histories or prophecies.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Looking back at the last 2,000 years of history, the only people who have committed heinous crimes against Jacob have been the Jews.”
There have been the Roman persecutions of Christians, Hun invasions, Islamic invasions, Mongol invasions, Catholic persecutions even prior to Jewish infiltration, the murder of white pioneers in the Americas and Africa and probably more. Everything I mentioned is not necessarily even perpetrated by “people” per se, but you get what I’m saying hopefully…
[In reply to this comment]
“The point is that all the ‘heinous crimes committed by the Edomites’ are not that special in the context of the Scriptural histories or prophecies.”
The crimes of the Edomites are special–especially heinous–because they were perpetrated upon Jacob by his brother Esau, and no other nation is Jacob’s brother.
From an earlier discussion, Luke 23:34 tells us that Christ forgave the Roman soldiers who did the physical act of crucifying him, as they did not know the significance of what they had done or, truly, to whom they had done it. The Edomites knew what they had done, and to whom they had done it, therefore on the Day of the Lord the Edomites are specifically slated for total annihilation, by the hand of Jacob as directed by God.
You’ve pointed out to me that other minor prophets have mentioned how various people will be culled–but not annihilated–displaced and their land taken, yet none that I have seen are as explicit or severe as what Obadiah tells us God has in store for the perfidious Edomites. Scripture states that God gave other nations a chance to repent and possibly be spared, but the Edomites are to be given no mercy and no quarter.
“There have been the Roman persecutions of Christians, Hun invasions, Islamic invasions, Mongol invasions, Catholic persecutions even prior to Jewish infiltration, the murder of white pioneers in the Americas and Africa and probably more.”
My understanding was that the Catholic persecutions are completely overblown by the Jews who write the history books, and that they were in truth minor, only against Jews, and had the unfortunate side effect of flooding the New World with crypto-Jews (as CFT enlightened us last year), explaining much of why Latin America has been a failure for centuries.
On Islamic invasions, I have also learned that the Jew and the Muslim in Spain were in cahoots. Certainly for two people who are said to despise each other eternally they have long worked together and, prior to the creation of modern-day Israel, rather peacefully cohabitated in the Middle East. Even today there are Jews living in Iran, which is certainly confusing when considering all of the “Muslims hate Jews” propaganda we’ve been fed for decades.
However, I would not equate such acts to the crimes that Obadiah tells us that Edomites have done to Jacob, and to the crimes that the modern Jews have done to us for so many centuries now. Some savages in Africa attacking us physically as we went onto “their” land is nothing compared to the Jews bringing millions upon millions of African savages into our lands to destroy us through targeted violence, wealth transfer, cultural decay, and miscegenation.
To cycle back to an overarching point, Obadiah tells us that the Edomites will be here until the Day of the Lord. The implication of Obadiah 19-21 is that Jacob will reclaim all of the lands that constitute Edom, which today are held by modern-day Israel and Jordan.
So if Jacob is to, on the Day of the Lord, reclaim these lands from the Edomite, doesn’t that mean that the Edomite will be holding those lands on the Day of the Lord? Could he then also be holding those lands today, at this very moment?
The “Edomite Question”, in relation to Obadiah, distills down to this, in my estimation: We know the Edomite is alive and among us right now, but where–and who–is he?
ReformingBoomer wrote, “The crimes of the Edomites are special–especially heinous–because they were perpetrated upon Jacob by his brother Esau, and no other nation is Jacob’s brother.”
Which shows that Deuteronomy 23:7 exonerates Edom from being mamzers, because only Edom is Israel’s brother. This blows the whole idea of Edom being mamzers out of the water. It has been proven rather emphatically out of the Scripture that they are not mamzers. Doesn’t the fact that there is no evidence at all of Edomites being mamzers give you pause?
In any case, Jeremiah 12:14-17, Jeremiah 49 and Ezekiel 25 — all of which are partially references to Edom — show that the crime which Edom did was the same crime others did, and the fact that Edom is Israel’s brother had nothing to do with it.
Obadiah 10 and 12 are simply identifying Israel as Edom’s brother. There is nothing in there which actually says that it is because Israel is Edom’s brother, the punishment is worse.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “From an earlier discussion, Luke 23:34 tells us that Christ forgave the Roman soldiers who did the physical act of crucifying him, as they did not know the significance of what they had done or, truly, to whom they had done it.
Most early texts don’t even contain Luke 23:34. I would question whether it should even be there in the first place. However, if indeed it was meant to be there — which is very questionable — I’d agree with you in any case. Luke 23:34 doesn’t particularly bother my own views.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “You’ve pointed out to me that other minor prophets have mentioned how various people will be culled–but not annihilated–displaced and their land taken, yet none that I have seen are as explicit or severe as what Obadiah tells us God has in store for the perfidious Edomites.
Zephaniah 2 alone completely refutes this, as the punishment promised against the nations is like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah, along with the flood, are the benchmarks and standards of destruction. One could argue it doesn’t get any worse than that, and yet that destruction is never promised for Edom directly.
Also, as I stated already, Obadiah 1:16 connects the prophecy and Edom’s punishment to all nations.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “However, I would not equate such acts to the crimes that Obadiah tells us that Edomites have done to Jacob, and to the crimes that the modern Jews have done to us for so many centuries now. ”
Your logic goes as follows:
* Jews have done the worst damage to white people.
* …
* Therefore, Jews are Edomites.
There is something missing in the middle there, which is the proof that Edom is prophesied to do the most damage to Israel, or that it did at some point do the most damage to Israel.
Edom was never even able to conquer Israel once. They simply took some of the western extremities of Judah and plundered some of Israel in their time of distress. Babylon and Assyria did far more damage to Israel than what Edom could ever have dreamed of. Therefore, the first point above — your own premise — already proves your own view wrong.
In sheer destruction, I would say that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 easily eclipses any prophecy concerning Edom. Therefore, we have a better candidate on how modern Jews are identified.
Regarding your contention on the origins of Muslims or the Catholic persecutions, it is irrelevant. You said the Jews are the only ones who have hurt the true Israel. That is just not true, because even were I to concede to your points, there are still the Mongols, Huns and others.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “To cycle back to an overarching point, Obadiah tells us that the Edomites will be here until the Day of the Lord.”
Yes, it says that in verse 15, which is the very proof this is about all the nations and not just Edom.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “The implication of Obadiah 19-21 is that Jacob will reclaim all of the lands that constitute Edom, which today are held by modern-day Israel and Jordan.”
There is no such implication. There is nothing in Obadiah — or literally anywhere in the Bible — which says that Edom has claimed Israel’s territory. Least of all the entirety of Israel’s territory which is what Obadiah 1:19-21 is describing.
To assume that Obadiah 1:19-21 is about Israel reclaiming their territory from Edom assumes that Edom took Israel’s territory. There is no such precedent in the Bible. To assume that Jews are Edom because they are currently inhabiting the territory of Israel is begging the question — it assumes the premise that Jews are Edom but it doesn’t support it. You first have to prove that Jews are Edom.
Obadiah 1:19-21 is about Israel reclaiming their own territory, after Edom and the nations have been destroyed. Verse 20 is a reference to the regathering of Israel, which is what Obadiah 1:19-21 is describing. In fact, verse 20 literally supports the idea that this is not just about Edom. See Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:11-17 and Isaiah 56:8. Especially Deuteronomy 30 highlights this:
4 If any of your scattered countrymen are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5 The Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will be good to you and make you more numerous than your fathers.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “The “Edomite Question”, in relation to Obadiah, distills down to this, in my estimation: We know the Edomite is alive and among us right now, but where–and who–is he?
Then you must necessarily explain all of the other nations in prophecy as well. Where are they?
Origin of jews today, by their own words ;
“Esau-Edom is modern Jewry.” 1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 page 41. NOT of Israel or Judah.
“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew”or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or Hebrew.” Jewish Almanac 1980, p. 3.
“Edomite Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.” Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol. 10:23 The Jews are not Judeans (Israelites) at all and are those described in Rev 2:9 & 3:9.
The Jewish Almanac quote is the only one of those three quotes you cited which is legitimate.
The Jewish Encyclopedia quote “Esau-Edom is modern Jewry” is not in the 1925 nor the 1905 editions.
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/search?keywords=v5+p41
The Encyclopedia Judaica is also a fabrication. The original quote did not use the term “edomite”. It merely stated that “Jews begans to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.” But even that quote doesn’t make any sense because surely they did.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult. The Bible tells us:
1. There will be people who will say they are Jews but are not
2. That Edom was absorbed into Jewry and independently exists no more (Josephus also)
3. God hates Esau and sometimes Edom too
4. Edom will be present until the end
5. A final ‘fake Christ’ will come at the end
Should we not also expect ‘fake Jews’ at the end of the age too? Surely a fake christ in a fake temple in a fake Israel needs some fake Jews to match? Which people best fit the bill?
Ultimately, due to the mixing of people’s over the millennia we really can’t say with any certainty exactly who is a true Israelite or Edomite, and in the end salvation is open to all whom god elects. However to say that Edom DEFINITELY CAN’T be a significant force in modern Jewry is just utter nonsense.
AldousO, many of us have been down this road already. We know the reasoning behind it. A lot of what has been said here, and apparently what is in the articles on Edom themselves, takes into consideration that very same reasoning. I think it’s safe to say that the logic the essays present is a specific address of the exact thing you are proposing.
AldousO wrote, “1. There will be people who will say they are Jews but are not”
We are all agree on that. CFT agrees with that: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/#comment-46267
AldousO wrote, “2. That Edom was absorbed into Jewry and independently exists no more (Josephus also)”
This is specifically addressed in this article: https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
AldousO wrote, “3. God hates Esau and sometimes Edom too”
The article above covered that. It would be good if you could specifically address what was mentioned in the article for everyone’s benefit.
AldousO wrote, “4. Edom will be present until the end”
Why? Edom isn’t mentioned once in the New Testament and specifically never in the Revelation. The New Testament and especially the Revelation mentions “the nations” generally a lot, which fits into what the articles have proposed: Edom is a shadow used to explain the fate of all pure Adamic nations who are not Israel.
You need to address that specific logic in both articles, because they are addressing your exact point.
AldousO wrote, “5. A final ‘fake Christ’ will come at the end”
I struggle to see how Jews are a “fake Christ”. I felt this article addressed what the “fake Christ” actually is: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
The book of 1 John does wonders in explaining this as well. The “fake Christ” is a belief in Christ which doesn’t not result in the practicing of righteousness — which is the application of the law of love towards God first, then our brethren — which is the summation of the law.
AldousO wrote, “Should we not also expect ‘fake Jews’ at the end of the age too? Surely a fake christ in a fake temple in a fake Israel needs some fake Jews to match? Which people best fit the bill?”
Again, no one is saying that modern day Jews are not fake Israelites. Although don’t you think a “fake Christ” in their “fake temple” would be an obvious deception even to mainstream Christians? All the deception that needs to be there is already there: Fake Jews under a fake regathering of a fake Israel.
Okay, AldousO, let’s take your points one-by-one:
1. . “There will be people who will say they are Jews but are not.” (Rev 2:9)? The word “Jew” didn’t exist when John wrote Revelation. Do you think this passage proves that Jews are Edomites? How so? What’s a “real” Jew to John? Should “Jew” here be translated “Judean” or “Judahite” or Israelite? What’s clear is that there will be people claiming to be Israel but are not. That today’s Jews do so is not “proof” that they are Edom. That makes no sense. There are 10s of millions of people today claiming to be Christian but are not, so does that make them Edom?
2. 2. “That Edom was absorbed into Jewry and independently exists no more (Josephus also).” That’s not what Josephus said at all. “Jewry” as we know it today has nothing directly to do with the Israelites of Judea in 150 BC. That the mistranslations of Joesphus and the Bible calling Israelites or Edomites “Jews” proves nothing. Edomites were given citizenship in Judea in 150 BC, but that made them Judeans not “Jews”, assuming by “Jew” Josephus meant Judean, not Israelite. And there’s no proof that ALL Edomites accepted the terms of circumcision and submitted. But those that did could not become Israelites, by biblical law, until the third generation (Deut 23), and even then only by patrilineal descent. That means an Edomite woman must marry an Israelite Judean to have Israelite children — and then two more generations must pass with those children in such marriages to become true Israelites. But today’s Jews identify themselves by MATRILINEAL descent, so they cannot be the same people. Period.
3. “God hates Esau and sometimes Edom too. ” So? How does this prove that today’s “Jews” are Edom? Whatever God hates is a Jew? Whatever God hates is Edom? What does this mean? God hated Esau in the womb before he was born or did anything in life, as Paul himself testified.
4. “Edom will be present at the end.” But you claimed that Edom was absorbed into the “Jews” in 150 BC and no longer exist. Which one is it? Edom isn’t mentioned in Revelation, and if you don’t believe that, do a word search of the Bible. The destruction of Edom was fulfilled in Scripture. In what form will Edom be present in “the end”? If Edom is so crucial to the “end times”, why isn’t Edom mentioned even once in Revelation? And only once in all of the New Testament (in Mark), but not negatively?
5. “A final “fake Christ” will come at the end.” There will be many false Christs that people will worship according to Malachi, so how are they different from the one “at the end”? Even if this is true, how does that prove that Jews are Edom? What does Edom have to do with a “fake Christ”? Please give the verses for proof of the “fake Christ” at the end is an Edomite, along with the “fake Christ in the fake temple”. Chapter and verse, please.
6. “due to the mixing of people’s over the millennia we really can’t say with any certainty exactly who is a true Israelite or Edomite.” If we can’t tell who the Israelites or Edomites are because of race mixing, then how can we turn around and claim that Edom is a “significant force in modern Jewry”? Where is your proof that Edom is in modern Jewry besides some fabricated quotes circulating online to prove it?
Why is it so important to you that Jews are literal Edom? You know, of course, that Talmudic Jews call White people Edom? And they call Romans Edom? Do you know why? It’s not because they truly believe that all White people and Romans descended from Esau. Some may try to claim that, but that’s impossible. They say it for the same reason you say it — because to the rabbis “Edom” — like “Amalek” — is a type for any people who oppose the Jews, which they falsely claim are Israel. It’s a figure of speech. Edom is a byword for those who oppose Israel. It should not be taken literally.
“The destruction of Edom was fulfilled in Scripture.”
When and where did this happen in Scripture? I have not found this, and I do not believe that it can be found as Edomites were still present–and holding political power–during the time of Christ and the Disciples.
So far as I can find, the complete and utter annihilation–no survivors–of Edom, as prophesied by Obadiah, has yet to occur.
ReformingBoomer, you are engaging in a circular argument. That logic is, “Today’s Jews are Edom. There is no proof that Edom has been destroyed in Scripture. If Edom had been destroyed there would be no Jews still around today.” Don’t you see the problem with this thinking? Your premise — that Jews are Edom — is the same as your conclusion. It’s circular reasoning.
Please show your unbroken line of evidence connecting the Edomites who were given citizenship in Judea in 150 BC to today’s Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic. No guessing, no perhaps. Just documentation, both in Scripture and in historical texts. I’ll give you a starting point: the only mention of Edom in the New Testament is Mark 3:8.
And here’s the problem for you right off the bat. Jospehus tells us that in 150 BC the Edomites from there after were known as “Jews”. Correct? Well, Mark doesn’t call the Edomites “Jews”; he calls them “Idumeans”. So you’ve got to resolve that issue, no? You’ve already got two witnesses that contradict one another. And who do you trust more as a witness, Mark or Josephus?
Michal wrote, “1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 page 41… “Edomite Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.” Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol. 10:23”
Would you kindly show us these quotes in an actual Jewish Encyclopedia? I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to request…
Not that it really matters. I’m surprised to see people base their theology on what’s in Jewish literature as opposed to the actual Bible. Then again, I used to use the exact same quote without verifying it in years past…
Michal wrote, ““Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew”or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or Hebrew.” Jewish Almanac 1980, p. 3… The Jews are not Judeans (Israelites) at all and are those described in Rev 2:9 & 3:9”
CFT isn’t arguing against that. Did you read this article? https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
I have read these two discourses on Edom and none, really, of the comments so if I touch on something already recovered, I apologize. I do see Edom as a shadow, a warning to all peoples, nations but the so called Jews also call themselves Edom/Esau in their own authoritative texts. What are we to say to that?
I would submit that the Sephardics are the remnant of Esau/Edom who were in the land at the time of Christ and that they did, as per Isaac’s “token blessing”, allow Esau to usurp Jacob at the end of that earth age as prescribed which is also backed by the book of Jasher explinations of the eternal relationship between Jacob/Esau. In Jasher it describes that Jacob gets the fruitfulness and dominion blessings during the body of each earth age but at the end of each earth age Esau “usurps” his brother’s dominion mandate per his token blessing from Isaac and that this is a cycle that repeats.
Do we see this in history? Well we certainly see this at the time of Christ when some 200 years before Christ they usurped the remnant in Judea as we do today where the Esau “Jews” have usurped their brother Jacob, previously being Jacob’s Christian Kings of Europe servant starting in earnest when the “Jewish” banking families took over the bank of England and all of Europe’s central banks starting with what transpired during and after Waterloo. Do the “Jews” rule over whites/European Christians of Jacob in our own lands? Yes, Did this happen at the end of this particular earth age? Yes. Do they rule practically the whole world now by controlling the 3 city states (City of London, DC and Vatican City Corporations)? Yes. Do they plan on a world Gov out of so called Israel, a land they sought to re-inhabit so they might admittedly rule the planet based on their race with their main Anti Christ as King and High Priest of a New World Religion? Yes?
There is also the question of the ancient connection between the root of the Ashkenazi having mixed with Esau before they established Khazaria. Some believe they did. I think that the Sephardics mixed heavily with the Ashkenazi starting around 800 AD and that at least 20-40% of these Ashkenazi have Esau/Edom genetics in them. Also, scriptures may well be using the term Esau not only in the physical DNA sense but also in the spiritual sense (as in Judaism that is Satanism/Communism etc) in the prophesies of Malakiah and Obadiah. This is NOT to say that all those with this Esau/”Jew” lineage or belief system are automatically doomed. It does suggest that those who continue on with it and refuse to accept Christ are however. And that’s because a remnant of Jacob and his 144,000 are slated to take over world reign from these imposter “Jews” upon the real Christ’s return starting the new earth age in earnest.
Tyron, in what “authoritative” texts do the Jews refer to themselves as “Edom”? Please give sources.
“EDOM IS IN MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41. It’s also mentioned in the 1905 edition. So there you have it. From the horses mouth. Everyone who’s studied this question should know there are two branches of the so called Jews today that the so called Jews acknowledge. One, the Sephardics and the other, Ashkenazi (Genesis 10:3). The so called Jews will say the term Sephardics comes from them living in Spain but any novice can see that the word comes from Mount Sephard in old Edom/Idumea and NOT Spain.
While I can agree with some of CFT’s claims in these articles concerning Esau/Edom, it mostly has to do with some of their overall conclusions and refutations of those who make this connection. But to say that modern “Jews” are not or do not have Esau in them is quite fantastical. Especially considering their open admission and the history of Esau and Jacob at the end of the last earth age and we see it replaying again at the end of this earth age.
The Jewish Encyclopedia quote “Esau-Edom is modern Jewry” is not in the 1925 nor the 1905 editions.
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/search?keywords=v5+p41
Chesterton,
I see, so this modern online rendering of that passage should be ignored since it was supposedly never there. Maybe we should also ignore that the only “Jews” after 135 AD were the remnant in the land who were called the Sephardics named after Mount Sephard in old Edom.
I guess we should also ignore the fact that these Sephardics are the one’s who converted the Ashkenazis around 800AD because no one else could, right? They simply “disappeared”, huh?. And we should ignore that is they who wrote the Jerusalem Talmud? We should ignore Jasher when it describes how Esau is allowed to usurp Jacob at the end of each earth age too? How about the fact that Esau means red and that their Talmudic Governmental expression for the goyim in Communism has adopted the color red for everything? Maybe we should ignore the Rothschilds name meaning red shield too? How many things. how many connections between modern Jewry and Esau/Edom must we ignore?
Should we ignore this as well? Jewish Almanac 1980, p. 3. “Edomite Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860.” Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol. 10:23
Yes, Tyron, as Christians we have an obligation to ignore what is not true. If you insist that something is true even though you’ve been shown that it is false, that makes you a willful liar who refuses to let go of a false agenda. God does not need us to lie to make His case for Him.
And no, the second quote, too, is also a fabrication. I challenge you to find the books and pages for either of those quotes and post them here. You cannot because I’ve tried for years to do so. They are fake.
What is true is that today’s Jews have a murky past and are race mixed with multiple ethnicities. Of all the non-White people in the world, the Jews are the most white, which means they have a large percentage of Adamic, perhaps even Israelite DNA, but that doesn’t make them white, nor does that make them Israelite, which is most important. What their precise DNA make up or origin is is not important, because they aren’t all the same, as they all have different admixtures.
Chesterton:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-13.html#b35
Yes, and? What does that prove? Edomites converted to the religion of the Hebrews under John Hyrcanus. So? That’s they whole point of the Edom essay, no? It’s hard to have a discussion about this passage from Josephus as long as you are under the misapprehension that today’s Jews are the same “Jews” mentioned in Scripture. They surely are not.
Chesterton
Ok, challenge accepted. I think you are smart enough to understand that my question was rhetorical so please, lighten up on the “willful liar” BS because if I can see I am wrong I will gladly change by stance.
I did searches that I had done many years ago to find the info on Mount Sephard and “amazingly” I can’t find a reference to it anymore being connected to old Edom. But hey, it’s not like the Jews who control Big Tech could ever hide anything, right? It’s not like they aren’t known for changing dictionaries and presenting frauds or omissions from the past as true when false, right? Clearly, that’s all they do now so It is for this reason I continue to show that we don’t need their admissions in their authoritative texts. All we need are the scriptural references, historical record and common sense.
You all insist that Edom/Esau genetics are NOT present within the so called Jews.
For us to believe this we have to
1. Reject the fact that Edom/Esau was absorbed into the remnant of Judah in the land and that their maternal genetics survived the Roman slaughter of the men and rape of the women who rejected Jesus by 135 AD. And so we must also reject that they were dispersed throughout the “world” later being known as Sephardics in what they call their Diaspora.
2. We must reject the fact that these same Diaspora Jews converted those of the Khazar Kingdom around 800AD. (Because who else did?)
3. We must reject that these same “Jews” were spoken of by Paul in places like Romans 9 where he goes on referencing in great detail how God loves Jacob and hates Esau insinuating that clearly, most all of those who accept Jesus would be Jews of Jacob and not Esau because their (Esau’s) time to reign had come to an end as prescribed by their eternal blessings from Isaac.
4. And therefor we must reject 2 Esdras 6:9 when it details the eternal relationship between the two brothers through the earth ages saying “For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows”.
5. Thus we must also reject that we are clearly at the end of this particular age as we see Esau (either physically or spiritually within the “Jews”) again reigning over us from Jacob as a repeat of Esdras.
5. Likewise, we must therefor not believe that Jacob is slated to overcome Esau “Jews” to start the next earth age because hey, Esau doesn’t exist at all guys.
6. And since none of these connections are valid we should also reject the letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus when he said he had ” golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect”, and that his detractors were the rich and powerful Jews saying “What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions!” that just so happens to perfectly describe the physical description of the Diaspora Jews in all accounts for some 2000 years.
Correct?
Tyron Parsons wrote, “Ok, challenge accepted. I think you are smart enough to understand that my question was rhetorical so please, lighten up on the “willful liar” BS because if I can see I am wrong I will gladly change by stance.”
I think we all understood your questions to be rhetorical, which means that you assumed the answers were a given i.e. “no”. I’m not sure how that helps your case instead of making it worse?
In any case, unfortunately you have assumed you are right, in spite of not being able to prove you are right. You should not hold the stance you are holding in the first place because you have never verified or proved the quotes you cited. So to say “if I can see I am wrong” is putting the cart before the horse. You can see you’re wrong right now, but you still claim to be right..?
As for your points…
1. No one seems to be denying this point. So many keep claiming people are denying it. It’s strange. It’s lain out in the very premise of the essays which this discussion is based on. Others have read them, and so it seems obvious that they have. Did you read them? (sincere question)
2. No one is denying that. It has nothing to do with Edom though.
3. I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say…
4. Most would be okay with ignoring 2 Esdras completely. To assume that anyone should acknowledge it at face value it in spite of it not being in the Masoretic text, Septuagint or the Dead Sea Scrolls is a bit odd, don’t you think?
5(.1). This point doesn’t help prove Jews are Edom. It already assumes Jews are Edom. You’re begging the question.
5(.2). Saying we all claim “Esau doesn’t exist at all” is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? Is that how you convince yourself in your own mind we are wrong? To put words in other people’s mouths? For certain, it will not help to convince anyone.
6. Do you mean that same letter which no one was has ever able to verify or find an original? I think you need to understand that the standard which you hold to convince yourself is not the same standard which others hold to convince themselves… Some of us like to have things verified before we believe them. Even if it was verified — which would certainly be interesting — you’d still have to get past the Scriptural argument…
To clarify on the dynamic between Jacob’s blessings and Esau’s — token — blessings:
Genesis 27:40 was fulfilled by 2 Samuel 8:14 (“you shall serve your brother”) and then 2 Kings 8:20 (“you will break his yoke from your neck”). The immediate fulfillment is already done.
As the articles suggest, Edom is a shadow used to describe the relationship between Israel and all the nations. At the end of the age, Israel will be under subjection to all the nations, which is also what the articles suggest.
This view really holds no shame towards the Scriptures and embraces everything said therein, so there is no use simply quoting Scripture which the essays have already addressed, without addressing the logic and argument of the essay.
It’s just that you in particular seem to refuse to address the actual Scripture and argument surrounding the Scripture, instead turning to unverifiable citations and pseudepigrapha. No matter what you pull out of those sources, you will always have to come up against the fact that the Scripture proves that Edomites are not Jews. If you disagree, actually address the articles…
Johan
The article is leaving out some things and this is why I am addressing the question of Esau the way I am.
1. Yes, Johan, you are not denying that Esau was absorbed into Judea but you seemingly are rejecting that it was the Esau “Jews” who had usurped the Jacob Judaites in the land and are primary the one’s in power that rejected and murdered Christ laying full blame on the white Judaites who neither controlled the Kingship or the Priesthood but were reduced to a pitiful, persecuted minority in Galilee at that time. You know, much like we are seeing happen to whites/Israelites in their home nations all around the world today.
It seems to me that you do not see the repeat of history we are experiencing at the end of this age as the “Jews” (some with Esau genetics in them) control now the second house of David’s Throne in England as well what’s left of Christianity, as well as our system of law with their legalese trumping our common law like they did 2000 years ago. And that is the point.
2. You say you do not reject that the Ashkenazi were converted to Judaism around 800AD but you clearly think that it must have been someone else besides those with Esau Genetics among the Diaspora “Jews” because you contend they disappeared and do not exist, or that their Esau maternal genetics among that Diaspora doesn’t matter. Who did convert the Ashkenazi then? Was it pure Jacob descendants of the white Judaites that rejected Jesus who wrote the Tenakh around 200 AD and converted the Ashkenazi around 800AD ? You guys keep skipping this.
3. Read Romans 9 again. Paul goes into great detail about the difference between Esau and Jacob (speaking to both sections of Jews in Rome) making sure that everyone knows that he is from the tribe of Benjamin (Jacob) and not Esau. Paul says in Romans 9 that he is of those to whom “pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They (Esau) which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise (Jacob) are counted for the seed. https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/romans/9.asp
4 No, not really comfortable ignoring passages nor whole books taken out (Like Enoch etc) by the Councils because it has been my experience that they were taken out for a reason. And it seems that reason is to always confuse the reader by changing the original narrative. So as far as I am concerned, 2 Esdras 6:9 stands as valid just as the eternal blessings given to both Jacob and Esau from Isaac that can be read in Genesis and Jasher stand as valid that proclaim the same.
5. You are saying I am “assuming” the Jews have Esau in them? Have genetics ever just disappeared? How many generations does God say a race mixer cannot enter the congregation in Deut. 23:2? Even onto the 10th generation so clearly genetics don’t just disappear and they matter to the prime creator/savior. They should matter to you, too.
5. It seems to me you all are saying Esau just disappeared or should not be considered a factor at all among the Jews. Is that correct? But what then explains the PERFECT REPEAT we have going on today with what is left of white/European (Israelite) Christendom and 200 BC when these Esau “Jews” took over the Kingship and Priesthood instituting the Babylonian Talmud legalese? These so called Jews are some .0002% of the world’s population yet we see them reigning not only over our Christian Israelite nations but practically the entire planet. Yet according to you guys we are to ignore the cyclical relationship between Esau and Jacob as an explanation? That makes no sense to me since it is clear that Esau genetics are still in that group and the only ones allowed to EVER usurp Jacob in his own nation is ESAU!.
6. I certainly am not saying that all of the “Jews” are Esau physically. I am claiming that the “Jews” as a whole are spiritually Esau. I am claiming that the Esau genetics are primarily found within the Sephardic who in turn mixed with the Ashkenazi to some extent and that these material genetics are the only one’s left to link the Jews as a group to Isaac/Abraham and that all of this matters from a standing point that it is a fulfillment of scriptural prophesy yet again.
Lastly I am suggesting that since the Romans destroyed Esau’s paternal link to Isaac 2000 years ago that this time around, in complete fulfillment of Obadiah and Malakai, their Esau maternal links to Isaac will be destroyed too when Jacob/Israel overcomes his brother taking his rightful place again at the beginning of the new earth age (144,000) that’s right around the corner. And when this happens, those “Jews” left will “come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I (I AM/Jesus) have loved thee.” in fulfillment of Revelation 3:9 that again echoes the cyclical scriptural fact that I AM/Jesus LOVES Jacob and hates Esau which has been proven once again.
Do we understand each other now?
Tyron Parsons,
1. The original Edom article literally addresses this point and explains why the blame was laid at the feet of Israelites, not Edomites. I ask again: Did you read the article?
2. I’m not skipping anything. You are contending that Edom must necessarily be part of the equation when the Khazar’s converted to Judaism. It could well have been done by “mixed-race” mongrels who were descended from the Israelites. However, given their mongrel heritage, they are not people anymore, and more resemble the Jews we know today. I don’t see why Edom needs to be a part of this.
3. I felt this article gave a good explanation for Romans 9: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
Curious to hear your thoughts on it. If you disagree with the article, please address the actual article instead of simply restating your view on Romans 9. If you don’t address the logic of the article — and restate your own view instead — it’s not going to be worth the time, so please don’t then on my account.
4. Okay, that’s too bad then I guess. I disagree, as those works are in none of the verifiable source texts we have today i.e. Masoretic text, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. By the way, 1 Enoch 71:14 identifies Enoch himself as the “Son of Man” i.e. the Messiah…
5. I’m saying that Edom in prophecy is a greater, end time fulfillment which applies to Israel’s relation with all the nations. I’m telling you quite plainly what my position is, but you seem unable to grasp it. My position is the result of finding the articles we are discussing convincing. You need to address the articles.
Your “PERFECT REPEAT” scenario is begging the question. You’re saying “it is a perfect repeat because it fits my definition of a perfect repeat”, but you have failed to prove why it is a perfect repeat. You constantly state this dynamic between Esau and Jacob, but I have already shown you how it was fulfilled, and the article already showed you how it will be fulfilled. The article uses many prophecies to prove its view, and the article doesn’t presume it’s own premise to be true.
Also, if you are going to insist on your view of Edom in end times, you necessarily then need to explain all of the nations in prophecy in end times. Asshur, Mitzraim, Put, Lud, Magog, Sidon, etc. If you insist on it for Edom, but don’t interpret it with the same standard for the other nations, you are admitting your interpretation is cherry-picking. Cherry-picking isn’t good enough.
6. You’re just restating your view, without actually addressing the Scriptural argument. It doesn’t matter how many times your restate your view… The fact that you hold that view, and the fact that you are able to explain it, does not not convince me.
If you want to state your view, that’s fine, but these articles are far more convincing to me than your view — and given that we are in a comments section on those articles, I’d like to discuss the articles. If you want to convince me, address the article. I don’t understand the mentality behind blatantly ignoring the very context of the content we are commenting on. Please understand my point of view Tyron Parsons, as it seems like a very strange thing to me…