The killing of Jesus Christ on the cross has probably been the single-most written about event in history, and yet despite what the plain words of the gospel witnesses tell us, no one has taken responsibility for it. The accusation of “Christ killers” has been a proverbial “hot potato” passed around from one group to another — resulting in 2,000 years of finger-pointing, recriminations, and denials steeped in self-justification.
If we cannot agree on who killed Christ, was His death in vain?
The traditional Christian view — promoted by the Catholic and Protestant churches — has been that “the Jews” killed Christ, but after intense pressure from powerful Jewish groups who claimed this accusation was a “blood libel,” the Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II, officially exonerated “the Jews” and placed the blamed on “the Romans.” And the judeo-philic Protestant denominations — dominated by the evangelical Zionists — followed the lead of the Catholic Church and shifted the blame — again — onto “the Romans.”
The Jews, of course, claim the Romans killed Christ — while the so-called “gentiles” are scarcely able to accuse the Jews — who accuse them of anti-semitism for merely quoting the Scripture which says, “Men of Israel, Jesus the Nazarene you nailed to the cross.” (Acts 2:22-23) And many White Christians who are aware they are the true Israel of Scripture insist it was the “Edomite Jews” who killed Christ — not Israel.
Ironically, it has reached a point where white Israelite Christians and the Jews are in lock-step with one another — each dispensing countermeasures to redirect the blame elsewhere. The “gentiles” sit bewildered in the middle — subjected to the Stockholm Syndrome by the Jews — and still support the Jews despite having every right to lay the blame at the feet of Israel of Scripture — which today’s Jews certainly aren’t.
For the true white, Christian Israel, however, this is one hot potato we absolutely do want to hang on to — whether it burns or not — for historical, spiritual and prophetic reasons we will discuss.
THE EDOMITE BLAME GAME
Certain Christian circles insist on referring to today’s Jews as literal “Edom” — which they certainly aren’t either — while the Jews identify Christians as Edom — another demonstrable Talmudic deception.
Although it could well be argued that today’s Jews fulfill the role of spiritual Edom, their bloodline has been corrupted with so many other non-Israelite peoples among whom they’ve dwelt over the last 2,000 years that it would be difficult to identify them with any particular race of people.
Around 130AD the Judeans fomented the Bar Kokhba revolt, which the Roman emperor Hadrian put down quite effectively. Ever since that time, Talmudic writers began conflating Rome — and specifically Hadrian — with Edom — one of the proverbial enemies of the Israelites in Scripture. The late fourth century Jerusalem edition of the Talmud refers to this revolt in the context of Genesis 27:22,
So Jacob came close to his father Isaac, and he touched him and said, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.”
Ta‘anit 4:6, 68d (part one)
Hadrian put down the rebellion for good in the final battle at Beitar fortress. The Talmud cites Genesis 27:22 as a prophetic reference to the voice of Israel — “the voice of Jacob” — crying out under the destruction of Beitar at the hands of Hadrian and the Romans — “the hands of Esau.”
Circular Talmudic “logic” consistently begs the question — a pernicious method of Scriptural interpretation that has infected many Christian doctrines — where only the imagination of the rabbi limits the possible interpretations of the Scripture — where his presumed agenda solely dictates his exegesis.
The Jews will readily acknowledge the Edomite ancestry of Herod the Great who conquered Judea in the name of Rome — thus tying Rome and Edom even more inextricably in their minds.
Incidentally, by the time the Jews first produced their Jerusalem Talmud — toward the end of the fourth century AD — Rome had already formally adopted Christianity as its own religion. Hence for the Jews, Rome and Christianity had become inextricably linked — so much so that whenever the rabbis refer to “Rome” in their Talmudic writings, they are actually referring to Christianity — an intentional rhetorical deception that allows them to heap calumny on Christians under the guise of “Rome.”
In a bizarre, ironic twist, Israelite Christians enter into this endless blame game with the Talmudic Jews — calling one another “Edomites” and ultimately claiming that prophecy against Edom promises the destruction of the other. As we have previously shown, Christians who identify Jews as Edomites utilize the same Talmudic exegetical method of Scripture — begging the question — that Jews use to identify white Christians as Edomites.
We can see that Tertullian — the early Christian Church father — used this same Talmudic reasoning when he wrote the following:
For thus unto Rebecca did God speak:
Adversus Judaeos chapter 1Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be divided from your bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less.Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, andgreaterthrough the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to belessin the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy: beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior andgreaterpeople — that is, the Jewish — must necessarily serve theless;and thelesspeople — that is, the Christian — overcome thegreater.
Tertullian here implies that Israel themselves are in fact Esau/Edom — a bizarre and especially Talmudic style of thinking. Following his twisted logic, Israel are not Israel — prophecy referring to Israel does not actually refer to Israel — but rather Edom refers to Israel.
Paul said to the nations, “do not be arrogant toward the branches [Israelites]” (Romans 11:18) — something Tertullian evidently ignored. However, Paul also said of Israel, “the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you.” (Romans 2:24) Thus we find that some of the nations would justify themselves against Israel — despite the error of doing so.
JEWS OR ISRAELITES?
In the decades in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Israelites who rejected Christianity essentially gave up their Israelite heritage completely and became the very confused babylonian-inspired “religion” known today as “Judaism.” According to the Jews, their tribal and national origin gradually began to follow matrilineal descent — rather than patrilineal descent as the Old Testament clearly stipulates. Their Mishna — or oral traditions — first ratified their law of matrilineal descent in 200AD — about 70 years after the revolt.
To justify this shift in identity, the rabbis concocted the notion that Israelites allegedly had always been reckoned according to matrilineal descent. For example, consider Deuteronomy 7:3-4,
3 Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them: you shall not give your daughters [your daughter] to their sons [his son], nor shall you take their daughters [his daughter] for your sons [your son]. 4 For they [he] will turn your sons [your son] away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
In these passages most translators add plurals and take a few liberties in an attempt to make the passage more understandable — yet we wouldn’t feel these liberties drastically alter the meaning of the passage — however, we have highlighted them above for the sake of this explanation.
The rabbis arbitrarily claim that the “he” in verse 4 is an explicit reference to a son-in-law — and the “son” in verse 4 is an explicit reference to a grandson. Here is what the rabbis conclude:
The verse states: “Neither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, for he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). This teaches that your son born from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father.
Yevamot 23a
They will usually combine this with Ezra 10:3 which states that of all the foreigners Israel sent away, they sent only their wives away — because the children of non-Israelite women are not Israelites. Note how these two expositions never actually prove that Israelites are reckoned according to matrilineal descent — in each case they merely interpret the passages by presuming that their own premise is true — begging the question once again.
Who would read the Scripture and argue with the fact the Israelites are reckoned only according to patrilineal descent? Perhaps someone who is not an Israelite who wants to be reckoned as an Israelite? What this means is that modern day Jews tacitly admit that they are not Israelites — because they have not been tracking their alleged Israelite heritage according to the proper Scriptural means — patrilineal descent — for more than 1800 years.
Given that Jews have admitted they are not Israelites by adopting a matrilineal society, we can reasonably expect that other “evidence” of their Israelite identity will also be false. For example, modern Christianity and Jews alike see the formation of the ersatz country of “Israel” as the prophesied regathering of Israel from the nations made clearly in Deuteronomy 30:2-4,
2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul in accordance with everything that I am commanding you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 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.
Note the precondition given in verse 2: “return to the Lord your God and obey Him.” To this end, the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 24:39,
For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’
When Jesus says this, He has already made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the colt. Therefore, He is referring to His own return to Israel where He has stated that Israel must receive Him. As if this return isn’t obvious enough by this point, the Lord says in John 14:6,
I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.
We would ask then: If the Jews reject the true Christ Jesus, how is it that they “returned to the Lord their God and obeyed Him” so that they could have been regathered? Obviously they didn’t — and so their own so-called “regathering” cannot be the true regathering of Israel. Again — in doing so, the Jews have admitted that they are not Israelites.
Therefore, accepting Jews as a regathered, true Israel — in spite of rejecting Christ Jesus — is an admission to their own apostate religion.
To further doom this idea of a regathered Israel in modern Jewry, the Lord Jesus Himself says in Matthew 24:31,
And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
When the “four winds” are mentioned, we can know this refers to Zechariah 2:6-7,
6 “You there! Flee from the land of the north,” declares the Lord, “because I have spread you out like the four winds of the heavens,” declares the Lord. 7 “You, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon.”
No doubt this is an end time prophecy — as even Revelation 7:1 says that the four winds are held back — and the earth spared — until the Lord seals the final remnant of Israel:
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind would blow on the earth, or on the sea, or on any tree.
We also find the reference to the “four corners of the earth” (Revelation 7:1) in Isaiah 11:12,
And He will lift up a flag for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.
Getting back to Matthew 24:31, we read of a great trumpet being blown in relation to a regathering of Israel from the nations in Isaiah 27:13,
It will come about also on that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.
Even by glossing over this topic, we can already conclude that Israel will be gathered only when the Lord Jesus returns. Therefore again, by claiming to be a regathered Israel, the Jews have admitted that they are not Israel.
Furthermore, we have shown in our exposition on Deuteronomy 23 that the child of an Adamic person and a non-Adamite will never be welcomed into the assembly of the Lord — a prohibition that the Jews blatantly ignore by allowing the father to be of any race only so long as the mother is “Jewish.”
This is another tacit admission that the Jews are not Israelites, because only pure white, Adamic people can be Israelites.
Over and above everything presented, a very explicit reference to a group who “say they are Jews” appears in Revelation 2:9,
I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the slander by those who say they are Judeans, and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
The Lord Jesus identifies a group that falsely claims to be Judeans but are actually a synagogue of Satan. In these modern times, there is really only one candidate for this prophecy: modern Jews. Incidentally, the true Christians Israelites of these modern times do not call themselves “Judeans” or “Jews” — only modern Jews do.
THE DEICIDE BLAME GAME
Certain Christian circles maintain a canard to this day that the Israelites invited upon themselves a “blood curse” in Matthew 27:24-25 which says,
24 Now when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; you yourselves shall see.” 25 And all the people replied, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”
Some claim in light of this passage that the Israelites invited the ramifications of the death of the Lord Jesus upon themselves — and upon all of their children for all time. Those who believe this assume that God would ratify a curse which they spoke upon themselves in a way which extends beyond what the passage itself says. In this way, the belief that God ratified this self-imposed curse generally depends on the agenda of those interpreting the verse.
However, why anyone would take such a stance on the passage unless an agenda relied upon it? Peter connects his audience in Acts 3 with those who delivered the Christ up to Pilate in verses 13-14,
13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you
Peter then continues to show them that they may be absolved in this act in verses 19 and 26,
19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord… 26 God raised up His Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.
The Lord Himself even says in Mark 3:28,
Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they commit
If the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — and nowhere does Scripture say that those who killed Jesus cannot be forgiven — then Israel’s sin of murdering the Lord Jesus certainly would fall under the list of sins which may be forgiven.
Jews would have us believe that over the last 2,000 years, Christians have used this “blood curse” as justification to persecute Jews — or Jews used it to pretend that the only reason Christians would persecute them was because of this verse — rather than for any immoral or intolerable acts that the Jews actually committed.
Needless to say, in these modern times the Jews use the verse as a straw man — claiming that Christians believe it to be a “blood curse” — and use it as an excuse to persecute the Jews — not for anything the Jews actually did, but rather just because Christians are just irrationally antisemitic.
Jews use this alleged persecution to get Christians to deny the Scripture — accusing them that unless they deny this scriptural “curse,” then the Christians are supposedly admitting that “another” pogrom is imminent.
To placate the Jews, much has been done among so-called “Christians scholars” to shift the blame for the death of Christ from the Israelites to the Romans. Some even go as far as to claim that Mark — in chapter 13 — made it “obvious” that only the Romans persecuted the Lord Jesus. They then claim that Matthew, Luke and John engaged in an intentional “whitewashing” of Roman guilt — somehow contrary to the writings of Mark — deliberately laying it all at the feet of the Israelites.
Do these “scholars” actually believe the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John or don’t they? They choose what to believe and what not to believe in the Scripture — just so that they can virtue-signal to the Jews.
Never mind that Mark makes it clear — as early as Mark 3:6 — that the Pharisees conspired to put the Lord Jesus to death:
And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
In Mark 10:33 the Lord states plainly that the chief priests and scribes would condemn Him to death and hand Him over to the nations:
Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles
Do those who argue that Mark intended to lay the blame at the feet of the Romans not read these passages — or do they simply ignore them?
The Catholics went so far as to write a document called “Nostra aetate” in 1965 — “officially” absolving Jews of guilt for killing the Lord Jesus then and now. They claim that only a few particular religious leaders killed the Christ — therefore, it is “antisemitic” to claim that all Jews — or any Jew in particular — may be blamed for the death of the Lord Jesus.
Consequently, Jews allow Christian “gentiles” to blame only the Romans for the death of the Lord Jesus — even eliciting pangs of self-righteousness within them. Given that Jews see Romans — and Christians — as Edom — the Jews, in their own minds, have essentially convinced the “gentiles” to blame Christianity for the death of the Lord Jesus.
Christians ought to know better than that — in placating the Jews, Christians have become idolaters — idolizing the Jews and taking their demands over and above the commands of the Lord Jesus and the Scripture.
We have already discussed how Jesus Christ identifies those who call themselves “Jews” as a “synagogue of Satan” — so we should pay careful attention to what Satan gives his authority — just as Revelation 13:3 says “the dragon [Satan] gave him [the beast] his power and his throne, and great authority.” Verse 4 says that “the whole earth was amazed after the beast.”
The word for “amazed” in the Greek — “thaumazó” (Strong’s G2296) — often appears in Scripture to describe people’s reactions to the teachings and miracles of the Lord Jesus. Thaumazó conveys a certain wonder at and admiration of something — and perfectly describes the idolatry necessary for Christians to place the words of Jews over the words of the Lord Jesus without a second thought. Evangelical Christians are literally amazed after the Jews — along with their Third-World golem.
In a terrible twist of irony, white Christian Israelites also ascribe to a doctrine where they too deflect blame for the death of the Lord Jesus away from themselves. Just like the Jews, many Christian Israelites put forth a Talmudic doctrine in an attempt to exonerate themselves from the act — just like the Jews — by blaming it on Edom — denying all culpability on behalf of themselves and their ancient ancestors who were alive during the crucifixion.
Christian Israelites ought to know better than that — and just like the evangelical Christians they scoff at, they too have become idolaters — idolizing their own kind over and above the commands of the Lord Jesus and the Scripture. Who would think Paul’s words in Romans 1:25 could have such a visceral application:
For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature [themselves] rather than the Creator
In the end, the evangelical Christians blame Rome, the Christian Israelites blame Jews, and the Jews blame Rome — all of whom are essentially blaming Edom. In everyone’s self-righteousness, no one is prepared to be culpable for the death of the Lord Jesus.
JUDAS ISCARIOT
We have previously shown, it certainly was Israel who killed the Lord Jesus and not Edomites — as Peter witnesses in Acts 2:22:
22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Also in Acts 3:12-15,
12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why are you staring at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.
However, as if the plain words of Peter weren’t enough, some nevertheless have postulated that the blame could be lain on the Edomites through Judas Iscariot by proxy — after all, they claim, Judas Iscariot was, “in fact,” an Edomite who intended to betray the Lord all along.
There are three “prongs” to this idea — the first of which is that Judas exhibited “Jewish behavior” by taking a bribe in order to betray the Lord Jesus. However, if we can connect this same kind of behavior to Israelites in Scripture — and verify that Israelites are also capable of taking bribes — then hopefully we can put this matter to rest.
Isaiah accuses Israel in Isaiah 5:23,
Who declare the wicked innocent for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!
Jeremiah 22:17 says,
But your eyes and your heart Are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, And on shedding innocent blood, And on practicing oppression and extortion.
In 1 Samuel 8:3 it says of the prophet Samuel’s own sons,
His sons, however, did not walk in his ways but turned aside after dishonest gain, and they took bribes and perverted justice.
Clearly Israel are well capable of taking bribes, taking away the rights of the innocent, dishonest gain and shedding blood towards these ends. In light of this, should we even bother to entertain this logic that “Judas displayed Jewish behavior?” To make such an assertion, they inadvertently admit that on some base level, white Israelites can be just as bad as the Jews.
The only difference with Jews is that they don’t bother to justify themselves morally when they commit evil — while self-justification has become a hallmark of denominational Christians — especially those who identify themselves as Christian Israel.
This postulation about Judas’ Jewish behavior being “evidence” that he is a Jew is a classic case of begging the question — which presumes that “only Jews are morally bad enough to betray or kill Jesus” — a presumption that does not prove that Judas was a Jew — but rather merely presumes the truth of its own assumption. However, given that we see such behavior attributed to real Israelites throughout the Scripture, that assumption about Jews is demonstrably untrue.
And we might add another level of irony to this blame game — many White atheists and White nationalists who dismiss the Old Testament as a book of “Jewish fables” will cite numerous examples of egregious behavior of the Israelites — such as usury and sacrificing their children to Molech — as “proof” that Jews must have written it about themselves because — again — only Jews would engage in such evil behavior — certainly not white people.
The second prong of those who deny Judas’ Israelite identity comes from John 6:70-71,
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot; for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
Some will attempt to claim that — at this point in time when Jesus makes this accusation — Judas hadn’t yet done anything wrong — therefore, for Jesus to call Judas a “devil” (Strong’s G1228) — meaning “false-accuser” — would be a slander toward Judas. They argue that they only way for Jesus to not be guilty of slander would therefore be if Judas were a literal child of Satan.
However, despite having foreknowledge of exactly who would betray him, the Lord intentionally didn’t mention Judas by name — thereby creating the impression among them that “the devil” could be any of these Israelite men — that any of them were capable of this betrayal. Since only Judas would know that he is the one to whom Jesus is referring — and his reputation hasn’t been harmed — in no way can this veiled accusation qualify as “slander.”
The third prong of “evidence” of Judas’ “Edomite” identity arises from his surname — “Iscariot” — supposedly a Greek transliteration from the Hebrew words “ish” (Strong’s H376) and “qirya” (Strong’s H7149) — meaning “man of cities” or “man of Kerioth.” The argument proceeds that “Kerioth” was a city in Judah referred to in Joshua 15:21,25,
21 Now the cities at the extremity of the tribe of the sons of Judah toward the border of Edom in the south were Kabzeel, Eder, and Jagur… 25 Hazor-hadattah, Kerioth-hezron (that is, Hazor)
This is the only time in Scripture where the town is ever referred to as “Kerioth-hezron.” As can be seen above, the name “Hazor” is given as the true name of the city among the Israelites. The logic of the argument then goes like this: after the Babylonian conquest of the land of Judah, the Edomites took the land which included “Kerioth” — and if “Kerioth” was an Edomite place — and if Judas came from “Kerioth” — then Judas must have been an Edomite.
The city’s name in Joshua 15:25, however, is clearly “Kerioth-hezron” — not simply “Kerioth.” There is no conjugation between “Kerioth” (Strong’s H7152) and “hezron” (Strong’s H2696) in the Hebrew. Incidentally, instead of “Kerioth-hezron,” the Septuagint renders it “cities of Hezron” in the Greek — which makes sense, given that the Hebrew word for “Kerioth” — “Qeriyyoth” (Strong’s H7152) — is the plural of “qiryah” (Strong’s H7151) according to the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. “Qiryah” itself is the Hebrew word for “city.”
However, Jeremiah 48:24 & 41 — and Amos 2:2 — mention a city in Moab simply called “Kerioth” — yet this Kerioth is ignored and never considered as Judas’ possible birthplace — despite it being more fitting — for no other reason than that it does not support the presumption that Judas is allegedly an Edomite.
Another obvious problem with this line of argument about Judas is that literally none of the New Testament writers identify Judas as a non-Israelite. How is it possible that no one knew or suspected him? To assert that Judas Iscariot was an Edomite, we must fundamentally beg the question because the Scripture doesn’t actually state anywhere that he was an Edomite — nor do the gospel writers quote any prophecy which states that the Lord’s betrayer even needs to be an Edomite or non-Israelite.
That’s really what these arguments claiming Judas must have been an Edomite comes down to — addressing their underlying assumptions clearly not self-evident in the Scripture.
Whenever the Lord Jesus interacts with non-Israelites, their non-Israelite identity is mentioned — such as when the Lord Himself said to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:24,
I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
He tells her why He shouldn’t be talking to her — she isn’t an Israelite — just as in Luke 7:4 when the locals had to beg the Lord to speak with non-Israelite. The Lord does not even grant the Greeks an audience who sought Him in John 12:20-24 — implying that He must first die before they may be brought into the covenant. The Lord Jesus did not make a habit of even speaking with non-Israelites — and His work as a man on earth was only for the Israelites — so why would we assume Judas was anything other than an Israelite?
DAVID AND AHITHOPHEL
We should pay careful attention to the purposeful differences between how Matthew and Peter relate the story of Judas’ death. Peter’s account in Acts 1:18 reads,
Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
By contrast, Matthew 27:5-7 says,
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and left; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them in the temple treasury, since it is money paid for blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.
We can see here that the priests acquired a field with Judas’ wickedness — yet why does Matthew end the story of Judas’ demise with his hanging when he clearly failed in that attempt and died by other means described by Peter? Why would Matthew focus on Judas attempting to hang himself after betraying Jesus?
Considering that David is clearly a “shadow and copy” of the Lord Jesus, we can find the model for Matthew’s choice to focus on Judas’ hanging in the story of the rebellion of Absalom — and more specifically, the betrayal of Ahithophel.
When Absalom — David’s son — plotted to usurp him as king, “Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh, while he was offering the sacrifices.” (2 Samuel 15:12) Giloh was a city in the hill country of Judah (Joshua 15:51), so we can reasonably assume that Ahithophel was of the tribe of Judah. Ahithophel must have been a dearly trusted adviser of David, as demonstrated in 2 Samuel 16:23:
Now the advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was taken as though one inquired of the word of God; so was all the advice of Ahithophel regarded by both David and Absalom.
Matthew 26:23, Luke 22:21, and John 13:18 all refer to Judas in the context of David’s Psalm 41:9:
Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.
If David regarded the advice of Ahithophel as the word of God, then it goes without saying that Ahithophel indeed must have been a “close friend in whom [David] trusted.”
When David hears of the conspiracy, he escapes Jerusalem by going over the summit of the Mount of Olives (2 Samuel 15:30, 2 Samuel 16:1) — the same route the Lord Jesus and the apostles followed after eating the Passover meal, as related in Matthew 26:30,
And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
While on the Mount of Olives — in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Lord says in Matthew 26:38,
My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.
Similarly 2 Samuel 15:30 says of David,
And David was going up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, and his head was covered, and he was walking barefoot
2 Samuel 17:1 relates the actual council Ahithophel gives Absalom:
1 Furthermore, Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Please let me choose twelve thousand men and let me set out and pursue David tonight. 2 And I will attack him while he is weary and exhausted and startle him, so that all the people who are with him will flee. Then I will strike and kill the king when he is alone”
Note in particular verse 2 — “I will attack him… so that all the people who are with him will flee” — which reads almost exactly like Zechariah 13:7,
“Awake, sword, against My Shepherd, And against the Man, My Associate,” Declares the Lord of armies. “Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered; And I will turn My hand against the little ones.”
Matthew 26:31 quotes this very same prophecy when the Lord Jesus speaks the prophecy over himself. 2 Samuel 17:1 also says, “I will strike and kill the king when he is alone.” Similarly, the Lord says in Matthew 26:55-56,
55 At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a man inciting a revolt? Every day I used to sit within the temple grounds teaching, and you did not arrest Me. 56 But all this has taken place so that the Scriptures of the prophets will be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
The Lord emphasizes that it had to happen that way specifically — that He had to be alone when they came to take Him — just as Ahithophel advised against David — so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. The Scripture affords no better candidate for this parallel other than the story of Ahithophel’s betrayal of David, as we have shown.
In the end, Ahithophel’s betrayal of David was confounded, allowing David to escape. 2 Samuel 17:23 relates Ahithophel’s final moments:
Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out and went to his home, to his city, and set his house in order, and hanged himself; so he died and was buried in his father’s grave.
If the ultimate cause of Judas’ death was not hanging, as Peter attests, then Matthew must have focused on the fact that Judas hanged himself so that he could conclude the story of Judas in the same way the story of Ahithophel ended.
David and Ahithophel foreshadow Jesus and Judas in Matthew’s account of the story. If Ahithophel was a shadow for Judas — and if Ahithophel was an Israelite, which he surely was — then why would the Lord choose a non-Israelite to betray Him and makes this foreshadowing with David senseless?
All considered so far, why wouldn’t the Lord Jesus have chosen an Israelite to be His betrayer? Is the banal idea that a non-Israelite — or non-Adamite — could betray someone who is not their Savior an important lesson for Israelites to take away from the gospels? Isn’t the lesson that the greatest betrayal of the Israelite people can and will come from within far more important to understand?
As an addendum to this section — for the sake of interest — we would like to offer some conjecture as to why Judas needed to hang himself — and die by falling headlong with his intestines gushing out. Daniel 8:25 ends with,
He will even oppose the Prince of princes, But he will be broken without human agency.
While these lines accurately describe the final moments of Judas’ life — they invoke a prophecy regarding Antiochus IV Epiphanes and simultaneously refer to Satan, as we discussed in the article Genesis 6: What Really Happened Between The ‘Sons Of God’ And The ‘Daughters Of Man’?
However, perhaps they could refer to Judas as well — considering Antiochus himself did indeed die without human agency, as 2 Maccabees 9:5-7 relates:
5 But the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and invisible plague: or as soon as he had spoken these words, a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts; 6 And that most justly: for he had tormented other men’s bowels with many and strange torments. 7 Howbeit he nothing at all ceased from his bragging, but still was filled with pride, breathing out fire in his rage against the Jews, and commanding to haste the journey: but it came to pass that he fell down from his chariot, carried violently; so that having a sore fall, all the members of his body were much pained.
According to 2 Maccabees 9, Antiochus died only later in some obscure place — yet his afflictions are reminiscent of Peter’s words concerning Judas in Acts 1:18,
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
If true, it would explain why Judas needed to hang himself and ultimately be killed without his own or anyone else’s actions — that is, “without human agency.”
JUDAS AND PETER
In John 6:70 the Lord says of Judas, “but one of you is a devil” — yet He says to Peter in Matthew 16:23,
Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but men’s.
Then in Luke 22:3 there is a similar situation with Judas right before he betrays the Lord,
And Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who belonged to the number of the twelve.
Evidently, both Judas and Peter exhibited behavior the Lord equates with Satanic influence. If Peter is tempted to the point where the Lord calls him “Satan,” why should we be so self-righteous as to think we are somehow better than Peter? Could we not also be tempted in the same way as Peter and Judas?
The Lord explains exactly what “under the influence of Satan” means here: “You are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but men’s.” Even when the Lord was tempted in the wilderness, we see that Satan’s purposes are tangled up with the purposes of men:
- Tempted by fleshly needs, to which He said, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) — Israel murmured against the Lord when hungry (Exodus 16:2). He taught not to worry about these things saying, “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness.” (Matthew 6:33)
- Tempted by proof, to which He said, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7) — Israel tested the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us, or not?” (Exodus 17:7) He taught that “an evil and adulterous generation craves a sign.” (Matthew 12:29)
- Tempted by idolatry, to which He said, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.” (Matthew 4:10) — Israel created for themselves an idol (Exodus 32:4). He taught that we cannot serve God and another, because we “will be devoted to one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)
An entire generation failed these tests and were tempted by them all — dying in the wilderness. Should we be surprised that we must undergo those same tests?
Matthew 16:21-22 offers the context of Peter’s own error:
21 From that time Jesus began to point out to His disciples that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and to be raised up on the third day. 22 And yet Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You!”
Right up until the resurrection of the Lord, the apostles’ hearts were hardened to the fact that the Lord needed to die in order to fulfill the prophecy. Mark 8:32 even says that “He was stating the matter plainly.” Israel at that time expected a savior who would bring about a worldly Israelite kingdom in this life — and so the Lord Jesus obviously knew that was not how things were going to play out. For Him to fall into that worldly way of thinking would mean to fail the true salvation plan.
Right before that event of His death, the Lord says to Peter in Luke 22:31-32,
31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you men like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.
It was like the ultimate test that Peter’s heart was set on the purposes of God — that his faith would not fail at the Lord’s death. The sifting of wheat is the final purification process before it can be ground into flour — so the Lord warns that Satan would try Peter in such a way that if he had any impurity, then it would have been revealed.
Nevertheless, Peter made it out on the other side — despite not realizing that the Lord’s death was a part of the plan. By all worldly standards, the death of Christ Jesus probably made it seem like the messianic plan had failed in the apostles’ own minds. Yet Peter’s heart was set on the purposes of God — that in spite of things seeming lost to his fleshly senses — he weathered the trial and kept his faith.
Ultimately Peter gave his own life for the kingdom just as the Lord Jesus said he would in John 21:18-19 — and Hebrews 2:14-15 tells us that the Lord had taken away the power of death:
14 … through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Revelation 12:11 says likewise,
And they [saints] overcame him [Satan] because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that when “Satan entered Judas,” Judas was setting his mind on purposes of men — the things of the world — just as Peter briefly had. What was the “purpose of men” Judas wanted to attain? Material gain — he betrayed the Lord for money — which is why it’s crucial for us to understand this betrayal in the proper context.
Two Israelites — Peter and Judas — were tempted to the point of being called Satan — setting their minds on the purposes of men — yet one of them prevailed and the other didn’t. Many of us self-righteously don’t even consider ourselves ever to be tempted in such ways, thinking we are somehow better than Peter, our ancestors or even the Lord Jesus — each of whom were tempted in this way. We often fail to even consider that overcoming this temptation to be a crucial part of the Christian journey.
Many Christians should identify with Peter’s temptation because it is so common among us — he sought a worldly kingdom, not a heavenly one. We don’t even consider that we may be sinners when we set our minds on, as the Lord Jesus called it, the “purposes of men.” In Luke 12:15, He admonishes just how little material desire it takes to fall into this trap:
Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one is affluent does his life consist of his possessions.
While we may find ourselves saying, “Oh, I want only this and that — I don’t necessarily need to be rich,” the Lord warns us to be on guard against “every form of greed” — that is to say, there is no form of greed we don’t need to guard against.
From birth we are immersed head and toe in the most materialistic culture the world has ever seen. This should be cause for concern for anyone who takes the words of the Lord Jesus to heart — especially when He gave such a severe teaching as in Luke 12:15 to an ancient society whose jaw would drop at the excesses of today. To make it even more severe, in Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5, Paul states that greed amounts to idolatry — there is no difference.
Despite the fact that this very sin of greed led Judas into one of the most grievous errors in history, many Christians nevertheless believe they can engage in the same error and remain safe — rationalizing that Judas was a “non-white,” or that his greedy desires were somehow different from their own.
Christians actually believe that they can desire worldly things and serve God at the same time — believing that when the Lord proclaimed God and mammon to be diametrically opposed, there is some secret code of understanding which allows them to not be diametrically opposed. As if when the Lord said this, He actually didn’t mean what He was saying — rather, what He really meant was that if we believe just the right thing, we can have it all — God and mammon.
It’s no wonder He says they are opposed given how tenaciously Christians consistently oppose the plain words of the Lord in this case. Maybe Judas did too — so how does that make us any better than Judas himself? To believe that any material gain is a sign of our godliness or of God’s approval is a false doctrine, as Paul makes clear in 1 Timothy 6:3-12,
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a sick craving for controversial questions and disputes about words, from which come envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between people of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Paul succinctly spells it out for us — that if we believe this “different doctrine” from the “doctrine conforming to godliness,” we are “conceited and understand nothing” — and are “deprived of the truth” — yet many Christians go right on believing that “godliness is a means of gain.” They engage in all manner of controversy harmful to the unity of the Spirit — found in obedience to the Lord Jesus and the seeking of the heavenly city (Hebrews 11:16).
6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either. 8 If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.
Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:8-9 that “godliness… holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.” The Lord Himself said,
Is life not more than food and the body more than clothing? Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided to you. (Matthew 6:25-33)
Just as Paul said that godliness comes with a promise — which the Lord confirmed when He said, “Seek first His righteousness, and all these things will be provided to you.” Therefore, godliness is of great gain even in this life, if only we will be content with the essentials promised to us in our earthly service — and heavenly glory thereafter.
9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Paul clearly states that those who want more than “food and covering” have already fallen into a trap and ruin — yet many Christians nevertheless insist that because of their supposed “godliness” or “faith,” God has promised them more than mere “food and covering” in this life. Despite the fact that no worldly rewards — above the essentials — are ever promised anywhere in the New Testament, Christians stubbornly insist that their material possessions are their just “reward” — and that heavenly rewards are an after thought.
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. (1 Timothy 6:11-12)
Why would Paul so dramatically warn us to literally flee from this material mindset unless it were a matter of the utmost seriousness? Because it can ultimately lead you into betraying your own God.
This is why it is so important not to twist the story of Judas into something it’s not — believing somehow it was his “Edomite” ancestry which caused him to act a certain way. We each need to consider that if we have our heart set on anything of this world, we may be going the way of Judas — and betraying our Lord by doing so.
If these teachings of denying worldliness and its wealth and pleasures are taught with such severity in the Scripture, why do so many of us believe that we are somehow exempt from them? Why do we arrogantly believe we are any different from Judas? And why do we idolize our race so much that we deny that there can be any Judas goats among us?
When Paul was persecuting the church, the Lord said to him, “Why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4) When the Lord rewards the righteous in the eternal kingdom, He says to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brethren of Mine, you did it for Me.” (Matthew 25:40)
What we do to the Lord’s sheep we are doing to Him. If we try to mislead His sheep with worldliness, we are selling out their Master and Shepherd for thirty pieces of silver. Peter says that in greed they exploit the sheep with false words (2 Peter 2:3) — promising freedom while being slaves of corruption (2 Peter 2:19).
Does anyone think Judas was not a slave of greed and corruption? When we set our minds on the things of the world, we will in some way find ourselves persecuting the Lord Jesus and His sheep — who want only to be in the unity of obedience and godliness with one another.
Maybe when we become desperately hungry, or looking for proof of God in our lives — or pursuing our own worldly kingdom rather than God’s kingdom and not being content with food and covering — we will fail the test unless we learn that the world and our senses are lying to us.
THE MATTER IN PROPHECY
A rather peculiar line of prophecy in Revelation 1:7 refers to the Lord Jesus’ return:
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.
If the Lord were to return today, we would already be almost two thousand years after His crucifixion. How is it that “those who pierced Him” — crucifying Him — would see His return? Who are “those who pierced Him” in the first place? As usual, the Revelation is quoting Old Testament prophecy — this time in the form of Zechariah 12:9-10,
9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of pleading, so that they will look at Me whom they pierced; and they will mourn for Him, like one mourning for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
Zechariah 14 refers to that same time when the Lord “will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem” (Zechariah 12:9) in verses 3,5-6,
3 Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 5 … Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! 6 On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out.
In the above verses we have two prophetic signs of the Lord’s return — the Lord coming with His holy ones and the luminaries dying out. The Lord says in Matthew 16:27 of His return,
For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his deeds.
He says the same in Matthew 25:31-32,
31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Jude says of the Lord’s return in verse 14-16,
14 … Behold, the Lord has come with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.
Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 14:3-6 then certainly refer to the Lord’s return.
We should note that Jude goes into some interesting detail as to this moment — affirming that those who engage in ungodly deeds have spoken against the Lord. The Lord says in John 15 that if the world hates us, then they hate Him before hating us (verse 18) — and that they hate the Father as well (verse 24). Again, what we do against His sheep, we are doing to Him.
Jude says that they are the ones who grumble and find fault with the Lord Jesus and His teachings — because they are following after their own lusts — even trying to flatter others for the sake of an advantage. How can we not see all of the evil which can come out of following after our own lusts?
The Lord says in Matthew 24:29-30,
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
Here again, Zechariah 14:6 which says that “there will be no light; the luminaries will die out” refers to the return of the Lord — because the sun is darkened, the moon as no light, and the stars have fallen.
The mourning of Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 seems to indicate that the mourning is the result of His coming. The ungodly finally realizing that judgement will, in fact, be executed upon them will indeed be a cause for mourning. This adds some critical context to the statement in Zechariah 12:10 — stating that Israel will mourn over the Lord Jesus whom they pierced when He returns.
Zechariah 12:11 even states that there will “be great mourning… like… in the plain of Megiddo” — the same place referred to in Revelation 16:14-16:
14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the entire world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. 15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and people will not see his shame.”) 16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.
The point is that all of this is connected in prophecy and that one thing is for sure: there will be Israelites who mourn over the Lord’s coming because they are accounted as having pierced Him — and in that moment, they are going to understand what they have done. They will understand that they went the way of Judas, selling Him out for the sake of advantage and following after their own lusts.
In all likelihood, until that point, their self-righteousness and self-justification will not have even allowed them to imagine that they were capable of such a thing — or that this accusation would ever have been leveled against them. They will be like those in Matthew 7:22-23,
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
BROTHERS, WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
In Acts 2 when Peter told the Israelites that they had murdered the Christ, verse 37 describes their response:
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what are we to do?”
This mourning will be in the fundamental understanding that Israel was responsible for the Lord’s death — and that we may continue to pierce Him even long after His own crucifixion — and we all have done so already by following after our ungodly lusts.
There are two points at which an Israelite will mourn over the death of the Lord Jesus with this knowledge: either before He returns or after He returns — there is no third option. Consider this matter a “sanity check” — a quick but reliable test as to the veracity of one’s faith in their own Israelite heritage:
If anyone believes they are an Israelite and has not yet mourned over what they have done — and what they are capable of doing to the Lord and to His sheep — then that mourning surely will come for them. It’s simply not a matter of if it will come, but rather when it will come — before the Lord’s return or after.
If one believes one is an Israelite and has mourned — being “pierced to the heart” — and thought, “What are we to do?” — then that mourning can be over with, and one can quickly move on to what those repentant Israelites did in Acts 2:42,
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
There are two sorrows before us, as Paul states in 2 Corinthians 7:10,
For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
James speaks of “sorrow that is according to the will of God” in James 4:8-10,
8 Come close to God and He will come close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be miserable, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.
With all of this being said, why do so many Christian Israelites insist on blaming others for the death of the Lord Jesus? It is painfully obvious in the Scripture that Israel is responsible — and that even the Israelites of the future — at the time of His coming — will be held liable for the same thing — along with “all the tribes of the earth.”
What is so hard about simply admitting that within our own ancestry is the potential for this evil? To deny it is to deny the Scripture — so to deny it is tacit admission that we are following after our own ungodly lusts. As we have shown, those who follow their ungodly lusts will inevitably mourn over piercing Him when He returns.
As if this message we are presenting were not sure enough, consider that even Judas mourned over what he had done — just as all of Israel will. He found no recourse for all of his mourning and it was so severe that he tried to take his own life (Matthew 27:3-5) — but he even failed in that — ultimately being disemboweled on the ground (Acts 1:18). In this way, he serves as a shadow and lesson for us all.
Yet it was Peter who mourned when He said before the Lord, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8) He “wept bitterly” when He realized that he had denied and disowned His Lord and Master (Matthew 26:75). Yet it was this same Peter whose heart — after being sifted by Satan himself — was found to be pure.
That same Peter sat before the Lord later saying, “I love you” — not once, but three times (John 21:15-17) — and he received the keys to the kingdom of God (Matthew 16:19). He is judge over Israel (Matthew 19:28) — and part of the very foundation of the spiritual temple — the heavenly city (Revelation 21:14). Even he mourned for what he did to our Lord Jesus.
True brethren in Christ, let us be like Peter who mourned according to the will of God — instead of Judas who mourned after there was no recourse for what he had done.
Let us take upon ourselves the mantle and responsibility for murdering the Lord Jesus — through our ancestry and in our own lives. No party in the world has done this before, so let us all do it and get it over with now — lest we have cause to mourn when there is no longer any recourse for our grief.
From of old did He not call us a stiff-necked people? Let us therefore humble ourselves in the presence of the Lord, that He may exalt us in due time. For “will God not bring about justice for His elect who cry out to Him day and night?” (Luke 18:7)
Judas was actually the son of Simon, the leprous Pharisee who lived in Bethany. In order to see this truth, you have to lay the 4 gospel accounts out side by side. Six days before Passover Yeshua comes to Bethany. Simon the leprous Pharisee invites him to supper. Martha serves, Lazarus sits with Yeshua and Mary anoints Yeshua, Simon wonders why Yeshua would allow Mary to touch him, the disciples, particularly Judas, think pouring out this ointment is a waste. Some people think there are 2 different accounts of a woman anointing Yeshua because Luke’s account is not chronological.
Luke 7:36-40 And ONE OF THE PHARISEE’S (SIMON) desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the PHARISEE’S house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a WOMAN (MARY) in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the PHARISEE’S house, brought an ALABASTER BOX of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and BEGAN TO WASH HIS FEET with tears, and did wipe them with the HAIRS OF HER HEAD, and KISSED HIS FEET, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the PHARISEE (SIMON) which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, SIMON (PHARISEE), I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. (NO MENTION OF LAZARUS, OR MARTHA, NO MENTION OF THE OINTMENT BEING POURED ON YESHUA’S HEAD, DOES MENTION SIMON IS A PHARISEE, NO MENTION SIMON IS A LEPER, DOES MENTION IT IS SIMON’S HOUSE, NO MENTION JUDAS IS HIS SON, NO MENTION OF MARY BEING THE WOMAN)
Mat 26:6 Now when Jesus was in BETHANY, in the house of (PHARISEE) SIMON THE LEPER, There came unto him a WOMAN (MARY) having an ALABASTER BOX of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and BEGAN TO WASH HIS FEET with tears, and did wipe them with the HAIRS OF HER HEAD, and KISSED HIS FEET, and anointed them with the ointment. But when his DISCIPLES saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? (SIMON IS IDENTIFIED AS A LEPER WHO OWNS THE HOUSE, NO MENTION OF LAZARUS, OR MARTHA, MENTIONS THE OINTMENT BEING POURED ON YESHUA’S HEAD, NO MENTION JUDAS IS HIS SON, NO MENTION OF MARY BEING THE WOMAN )
Mark 14:3-5 And being in BETHANY in the house of (PHARISEE) SIMON THE LEPER, as he sat at meat, there came a WOMAN (MARY) having an ALABASTER BOX of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. And THERE WERE SOME (DISCIPLES, MAINLY JUDAS) that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. (SIMON IS IDENTIFIED AS A LEPER WHO OWNS THE HOUSE, NO MENTION OF LAZARUS, OR MARTHA, MENTIONS THE OINTMENT BEING POURED ON YESHUA’S HEAD, NO MENTION JUDAS IS HIS SON, NO MENTION OF SIMON BEING A PHARISEE, NO MENTION OF MARY BEING THE WOMAN)
John 12:1-4 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to BETHANY, where LAZARUS was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and MARTHA served: but LAZARUS was ONE OF THEM that sat at the table with him. Then took MARY a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his DISCIPLES, JUDAS ISCARIOT, SIMON’S SON, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (SIMON IS NOT MENTIONED AS BEING A PHARISEE OR A LEPER, OR THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, LAZARUS, MARTHA, AND MARY MENTIONED, NO MENTION THAT MARY POURED THE OINTMENT ON YESHUA’S HEAD, JUDAS IS IDENTIFIED AS SIMON’S SON, MARY IDENTIFIED AS THE WOMAN)
John 11:2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)
I have only one thing to say that “GOD IS MY LORD AND SAVIOR” and as such I must follow his what he says
and thank him for all the graces he has given me and my family and all my love ones.
Edomites and other non-Yehudim (Yehudim – worshippers of Yahweh, which Jesus said the Jews are not.)
Jesus is an Israelite. You wrote all that garbage and do not even know the difference between an Israelite and a Jew? Educate yourself.
Joshua, you have a lot of catching up to do. Yes, we know the difference between a Jew and an Israelite, but maybe it’s you who have been misled. Start here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/was-esau-a-fornicator/
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-prophecy-of-malachi/
The Pharisees said they had never been slaves (in Egypt) so they can’t be of the lineage of Israelites.
No, the Pharisees never said they had never been slaves in Egypt — that’s your false interpretation of what they said. Their exact words are, ““They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”
And, no, they are not denying that they are true Israelites either by this statement. What they are doing is taking the previous words of Christ literally and personally, completely missing that Christ is speaking figuratively, spiritually, saying “31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
The Pharisees consistently twisted and perverted the meaning of everything Christ said, trying to prove Him wrong, and deny that He was the promised Messiah. Ironically, they believed that their messiah would free them from the yoke of Roman rulership — so blinded are they that here in John 8:33 they deny that they are held captive by the Romans — just to prove Christ wrong.
As someone who does not have this high level of scholarly grasp on scripture I find the article intriguing and I agree that one should not just simply lay blame as an innocent victim, when one is drawn to sin.
When we are deceived and mislead into sin we are culpable, hence the devil seeks to deceive and lead us away from God.
That said, reading John chapter 8 is clear as day to me that he is speaking to an impostor priestly class alien to the God of Israel. Would he tell his lost sheep that they are not of Abraham? And that they are of their father the devil. I don’t think so.
Today you will find a priestly class proudly claiming their heritage to Pharisees, all you need is google for that research. Look at the last paragraph in your reply: ‘they consistently twisted and perverted the meaning of everything Christ said’ . They still do today.
Anon,
If you read the entire exchange Christ has with those sadducees, you’ll notice they repeatedly perceive His word through fleshy eyes. At verses 52, 53 and 57 especially.
The sadducees were that sect that did not believe in life after death, thus they were unable to understand what Christ said of death – Christ was speaking of the second death. Similarly, when Christ says they are not of Abraham, they perceive with fleshy eyes once again, assuming He means they were born of fornication. Remember those were their words and not Christs.
John also spoke of those that are of God and those that are of the devil, and he never mentions biology. He wasn’t speaking to universalism, for the entire gospel is for Adam kind alone. What he was doing was pointing out moral behavior as the clues as to who comes from where.
Even Christ dwelt in the wilderness with beasts before His ministry began, because He was walking a path man would take themselves to come to God. Just as Christ told John to baptize Him (cleanse Him of sin), even though Christ never sinned, which is why John refused at first. And when the symbolic act was finished, the spirit descended upon Christ, and God said that He was a son in which He was well pleased.
In other words, though we be seeded in the earth by God, we are not truly sons until we become His in spirit. First the natural body, then the spiritual body grows in us, as Paul described.
Therefore if we view John 8 in light of the gospel and what it teaches (and take note of what it does not teach), it is clear that Christ demands our ibedience in spirit, not our validation through flesh. He said of His own mother and brothers that they were not His mother and brothers, but gave that honor instead to His disciples.
In John 3 we are also told that unless one is born of water and spirit, they will not enter the gates, which again is a reference to what the gospel teaches through John and Christ’s ministries.
And since the sadducees did not honor God in spirit, but believed in the flesh, how can they and all they speak to be of God?
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” John 8:51
Notice Christ says
‘If’ a man keep His saying, not ‘if a man is simply descended of Abraham.
We see this also in Matthew 3 where John, perceiving ahead of time that the pharisees would invoke their lineage from Abraham to evade confessing their sins, tells them not to do so, because God could raise sons of these stones.
The gospel refutes salvation by race. Yeah, out of our race are sons made, but not because of it.
Agreed. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)
Kevin, your point is well taken not to think race in itself a guaranty of salvation.
We also know, and bible knows, that race can be a strong determinant of behavior and spiritual dimension is not completely separate from worldly. From the story of good samaritan and Canaanite woman we know that the door is not closed to non Israelites. It is clear also that our Lord said ‘I’ve come for the lost children of Israel’. Same are instructions he gave to his disciples in Matthew 10:5. They obviously went to peoples of European heritage. Today as we face a threat to our very survival on many fronts, this article concludes ‘we killed Christ’ . sounds odd like it was commissioned by the usual suspects of the counterfeit Israelite stock. (Philistine/ Canaanites)
Anon, did true, white Israelites kill Christ or not? If not, hopefully you can prove it. If you can’t prove it, then it’s true. If it’s true, and if it sounds strange to you, then maybe your ears have been betraying you?
Anon, I believe we should expect surprises from God. Who could have predicted that the non Israelite Romans would be grafted into Israel? Goes to show that He is always leading us in ways we do not see coming.
In that light, I myself take all.strong doctrinal opinions with a grain of salt, even CFT’s well thought out views.
If we follow Christ in spirit, examining the context of situations instead of the strict letter, we do well i think. Honoring His moral examples in our own actions is the best way to honor Him.
The author is historically incorrect, and fails to make his case in the headline. The fact is, Edomites were brought into the Maccabean kingdom by force, as John Hyrcanus conquered them, and the Samaritans, and other Trans-Jordan peoples in the Second Temple period. Under Hasmonean dynasties, they became part of the priestly class. By 6 B.C., all the lands of the Edomite Jews were part of the Roman province of Judea.
Reginaldus, let us try to follow your logic. Because the land of Edom became incorporated into the Roman province of Judea, the priestly class in Judea were therefore Edomites. Do you see the incredible leap of logic here? Where is your proof that the priestly class were Edomites? Not one single verse in the New Testament supports your thesis. However, many verses disprove your thesis. John 11:51 attests that the high priest Caiaphas was an Israelite. Acts 4:5-6 witnesses that the high priests were Israelites. Luke 1:5 states that the high priest Zechariah was an Israelite as a division of Abijah. But no witnesses to your “Edomite” hypothesis.
Chesterton wrote: “Do you deny that the destruction of Edom by Obadiah was fulfilled in Malachi 1: 1-5? “
Scripture denies this.
Obadiah makes many promises as to what will happen on The Day of the Lord, and they are yet unfulfilled. One very pertinent one is that every Edomite will be slaughtered by Jacob, and that there will be no survivors.
(CFT’s earlier April 2021 article on Edom does reaffirm “Obadiah is referring to a great, end time fulfillment…”, however it does not account for the promise of no survivors, Obadiah 1:18 [“…And no survivor shall remain of the house of Esau,” For the LORD has spoken.] when it contends that Obadiah’s “prophecy in some way was fulfilled around 150 BC.” Also, it does not address that the wording of Obadiah suggests all of its prophesied events will take place one time, which will be on The Day of the Lord.)
Malachi 1:3 describes a “desolation” that does not meet the requirements of Obadiah’s promised punishment, Malachi 1:4 specifically tells us that Edomites survived this “desolation”. That there were survivors guarantees that Obadiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled by Malachi.
While Mark 3:8 cannot be guaranteed to refer to ethnic Edomites, it does at least suggest that Edomites were still around during the time of Christ. This would be further proof from scripture that Obadiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled by Malachi.
I believe we are all in agreement that the Herods were Edomites, and that is “semi-Scripture” proof that Malachi did not fulfill Obadiah, since Scripture tells us that Herods lived after the “desolation” told in Malachi.
As of yet, no one seems to be able to answer the question: If not the Jews, then where are the Edomites right now? That would be the simplest way to put the “Edomite Question” to bed.
You want Obadiah to be a unique prophecy against Edom, but it just isn’t. Obadiah makes it very clear the destruction was coming to all nations, including Ammon, Moab, and the Philistines, all of whom turned their backs on Israel and participated in its plunder.
“….For just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink to the last drop, And become as if they had never existed.”
All those nations against whom Obadiah prophesied are gone, as if they never existed. It’s not difficult to demonstrate that “day of the Lord” is NOT confined merely to the second coming of Christ, regardless of what one CFT essay asserts about it. The phrase occurs many times in the OT, and make no sense to limit its meaning to just the second coming of Christ:
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=%22day+of+the+lord%22
As far as “the day of the Lord” is concerned, there is often a near and end times meaning, but the phrase suggests any day of reckoning when the Lord acts decisively. That meaning does not support your Edomite-Jew theory, so you ignore it and focus only on the meaning of the second coming because you are convinced that Edom still exists and is embodied corporally in modern Jewry.
The House of Esau-Edom has indeed been laid for stubble. It is now a byword for any of the Genesis 10 nations that antagonized Israel — which are all now laid waste. If Edom were important, it would be explicitly mentioned in the NT, but it is not aside from once passing verse. If Edom figured prominently in the future, it would be explicitly mentioned in Revelation, but it is not.
Modern Jewry is synonymous with the beast system, Mystery Babylon, and the synagogue of Satan, the antagonists of Israel, the camp of the saints — yes, like Edom was in the OT — and if you want to be like the rabbis, you can refer to Israel’s contemporary enemies as “Edom” collectively if that suits you. But that’s a Jewish contrivance. And, yes, it is contrived.
“As far as “the day of the Lord” is concerned, there is often a near and end times meaning, but the phrase suggests any day of reckoning when the Lord acts decisively. That meaning does not support your Edomite-Jew theory”
The same phrase or word in the English translations of the Bible can have different meanings in different instances, sure. One very important, and debated here, instance of that is “beast” and “beast of the field”.
However, we can see from Obadiah itself what “The Day of the Lord” means therein. I see that you have quoted Obadiah 15, which tells us that the Day of the Lord in context is referring to a time when all nations will face judgment, and “be as if they had never been”. Why doesn’t that confirm Obadiah is an end times prophecy, like CFT mentioned; Aren’t the nations still here?
Even without that phrase, Obadiah promises a very specific execution for Esau. The promise of Obadiah is no mere “destroyed” or “laid waste”. Even “laid for stubble” is not sufficient, as Obadiah promises us that Esau will not only be stubble but that the stubble shall be burned and annihilated.
The idea that “Esau is a metaphor because it has been annihilated” is difficult to accept because we know that when it was written it was to be taken literally as it pronounced a death sentence for Esau. We know also that Esau existed into the first century AD, which means that Esau was here at least 600 years after Obadiah was written.
For Esau to have transitioned into being a metaphor today, this very specific execution must have already occurred. So when, specifically, did it occur?
“If Edom were important, it would be explicitly mentioned in the NT”
I will definitely need a strong argument to support this position, because the “If it isn’t in the New Testament then it is not important” is a hallmark of Churchianity.
Additionally, as you seem inclined towards metaphors, I find it interesting that you require explicit references. What about implicit references, such as John 8:33? Is there a way to explain that verse, except to rely on more modern English translations and assert that the Jews were stating that they themselves had never, in their own lifetimes, been slaves?
“[Y]ou can refer to Israel’s contemporary enemies as “Edom” collectively if that suits you.”
Thanks for the offer, but I’d rather just call them the Jews.
RB, no, the meaning of “the day of the Lord” in Obadiah is not as self-evident as you claim, for it to fit into your Edom=Jews agenda. The Book of Obadiah was written in response to Nebuchadnezzar’s sacking of Jerusalem, in which Edom participated. So it’s a “you’ll get yours” prophecy — and Edom was, of course, destroyed afterwards. There is nothing in Obadiah that seems to foreshadow the coming of Christ — rather it is confined to dealing with this proverbial enemy who has done Israel wrong.
That said, we know what happened to Edom after it was incorporated into Judea in 150 BC, and books have been written on the subject. The Arab peoples eventually conquered the land of Edom, occupied it, and absorbed the people. If you want to find where Edom exists today, it is among the many genetic admixtures of the Arab people.
“Let us take upon ourselves the mantle and responsibility for murdering the Lord Jesus — through our ancestry and in our own lives. ”
Apologizing for what my ancestors may have done–I doubt mine were among the theocracy running Judea–does not sit well with me, it seems like what the leftists want all Whites to do for the “sin” of slavery, and there is no doubt that is no good.
As for what we have done in our own lives to murder Jesus, that’s a bit too metaphoric for me, but were we not like the “lawless men” for most of our lives, whom Jesus forgave in Luke 23:34 for performing the physical act that murdered Him? I know that I was, as I was not taught that I was an Israelite.
Indeed, I was like those Romans on Golgotha as I was proceeding under direction from spiritual and political leadership that, ultimately, was taking its orders from the scheming Jews. Jews who tried to persuade us that Jesus was some swarthy hooked-nosed heeb like they are, instead of the White man that He was. The more I learn, the more I realize how benighted I still am.
Ezekiel 20,
42 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers.
43 And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed.
44 And ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God.
This is also an end time prophecy because it speaks of Israel’s regathering. It says that Israel will be ashamed of its deeds before God.
Yet somehow as your knowledge increases, you excuse yourself all the more? How is it that your attitude is opposite to the attitude Israel is supposed to have?
Is Israel destroyed for lack or knowledge or does Israel excuse itself through lack of knowledge?
Apologizing for the sins of someone else, particularly someone else from ~2,000 years ago whom I wouldn’t know from Adam, just doesn’t work for me. I could only legtimately apologize for what I am responsible for, and I am not responsible for 1619 AD or 33 AD.
Though the same ethnic group is responsible for both of those events, and they would consider it “anti-semetic” if an apology were demanded from them.
Israelites were responsible for Christ’s death. You and no one else can prove otherwise. There’s no getting around it, unless your heart has become hardened to disagree with the Bible.
You say apologizing for the acts of others “doesn’t work for me”, but see Leviticus 26:
39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.
40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity
Daniel did this very thing in Daniel 9 when he confessed his own sin and the sin of his fathers and even all Israel in prayer. But that doesn’t work for you.
Why is it that you fight so hard not to see wrong within yourself? Can you not comprehend that you even have sin in your own life to repent for? Tell me RB, what horse do you have in the race for your own self-righteousness?
When you stand in front of Christ one day, will you excuse yourself and justify yourself in front of Him?
RB, do you not believe that God punishes individual Israelites and the entire Israelite people corporally for their iniquity? He surely does, as Hosea 12:2 says “The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him.”
It should be very clear that God punishes us individually for our transgressions and corporally as an entire people , and if you are an Israelite, you need to accept that you will be punished collectively for what your fellow Israelite people have done as a whole against God. If you reject that collective punishment, perhaps that’s a sign that you are not a true Israelite, not a child of the promise. Romans 9:6:
“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel…”
Leftists would have us take a knee for negroes and apologize for the sins of all White people throughout all of White history. I am sure that we all know that this is both a ridiculous and wrong thing to do, and instinctively balk at the prospect of doing it. American government is founded on this balking, as was the law of the Bible.
On the law of the Bible, Christ himself forgave the lawless men who crucified Him (Luke 23:34). The vast majority of Adamics were these “lawless men” at that time, since only a relatively small population residing in Judea knew the law, and the most powerful among them twisted the law to kill Christ.
CFT is wont to quote Acts 2:22-23, yet that verse also references “lawless men”. What about Acts 2:22-23 says that Peter’s speech mentioning the “Men of Israel” applies to those who were “lawless” at that time, or at any subsequent time (ie:now), but then were brought in by the adoption?
Acts 2:14 states that Peter’s speech was only for “Ye men of Judaeu, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem”. From this, we can see that in Acts 2:22-24 he is chastising those who were present when Christ was there, those who were both aware of the law and who walked with Christ during His earthly ministry. That is a very specific subset of people, at most only 2/12ths of Israel.
Peter goes on to say, in Acts 2:39, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Israelites today are not Israelites of old!
Once I asked an Jewish girl at my school reunion – who is a Jew is it by the father or the mother. She said only the mother knows who the father is. I thought of Solomon and those two Jewish mothers how could not decide – so Solomon made a wise choice. This Jewess was wrath at me for some reason. Not that I cared.
Then I heard it was through the Father that the lineage was calculated in the OT.
Now the Jews say the mother must be Jewish irrespective of the fathers lineage.
Clearly the old temple lineages required a Paternal seed to be Jewish or Israelite by the fathers contribution. See Deuteronomy 17:8 it says land was given to Abraham and his seed. Zerah = seed.
Modern Jews are not Israelite they do not even have consensus as to what a Jew constitutes.
Now concerning the guilt of the greatest ontological crime clearly the blame was laid upon one generation. Luke 11:50
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Moses recorded Jesus as a prophet. So the blood guilt of all the prophets came upon this one generation.
They lost their covenant and temple house of God as well as earthly Jerusalem.
There are no covenant seed line Jews today. So clearly that generation was Judged for the sins committed against Gods anointed prophetic class. From that day forward not prophet ever spoke to them again. Forgive them Father they know not what they do… Yet God judged this people who no longer adhered to any biblical Hebrew faith or heritage. The land claim was clearly based upon a male seed line.
Do I feel guilt for the crucifixion? No at all only joy and gratefulness.
God had never spoken to my ancestors up and till that point in history so there can be no national guilt of this sin upon me nor my people.
John 3:16 God sent His only begotten Son…so if you didn’t sin, you didn’t kill him. Jesus prayed that if possible the cup be removed, but the Father’s will be done…and it was. So we can be a bunch of racists and play the pathetic blame game, or we can humble ourselves, repent, and be filled with the Spirit, and love our enemies and love our neighbor as ourself. I know I sinned, I know I have been forgiven. If you try to build your kingdom on this Earth, you may be in for a disappointment.
Patrick Katz, “John 3:16 God sent His only begotten Son…so if you didn’t sin, you didn’t kill him.”
I’m sorry, but you lost me. What does John 3:16 have to do with “if you didn’t sin, you didn’t kill him”? John 3:16 doesn’t mention sin or killing. Everybody sins (1 John 1:8), therefore….? What does this have to do with who killed Christ? Do you dispute with Peter that the “men of Israel” killed Him?
PK, “So we can be a bunch of racists and play the pathetic blame game….” What does determining who is responsible for killing Christ have to do with “racism” a term that was unknown in the time of Christ? I’m not sure what Bible you read, but God loved only one people in the world, and that was Israel (Deut 7:6, Amos 3:2). That would qualify as “racism” by your standards. And Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, so he would agree with those verses (Matt 5:17).
You shall know them by their fruits. What have these people known as Jews done in the world? Have they been a blessing? If this is Satan’s world, is it too much for him to confuse identities?
Who shall you know who by what fruits?
For some reason that I don’t really understand, many Christians have gotten the idea that Matthew 7:20 “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” somehow is about identifying Jews, but there is nothing in Matthew 7 to suggest any such thing.
It’s about discerning the difference between the children of the flesh, who do no product good fruits, and the children of the promise who do produce good fruits. Since you can’t tell them apart physically — because they are both Adamics or Israelites — you know the difference only by their fruits.
Because we can often tell the difference between a Jew and a non-Jew just by looking at them, this verse, therefore, cannot be about identifying Jews. Even without knowing their fruits, we can identify Jews.
Why would Matthew 7:15-20 not apply to everyone, including Jews?
Sure, depending upon your level of “Jewdar” you can tell a Jew at a glance, but not everyone has “military-tier” Jewdar, and there is even the possibility of “false positives”. For example, I recently saw a bit of a Joel Osteen sermon and I was taken aback a bit at how his stage appearance and presence reminded me of Jerry Seinfeld.
Looking at the fruit produced by Jews, they are certainly thornbushes, thistles, and bearers of rotten fruit. There is no doubt that, referencing 7:15 specifically, the Jews are false prophets.
Under Roman law, Capital Punishment was reserved to ROME. ONLY the Roman authorities could impose the death sentence. The Romans were EXTREMELY tolerant of religious freedom, as proven by the numerous temples in Rome. Israel/Jews is extremely INTOLERANT as proven by their repeated stated demands that Israel be a PURE JEWISH state.
Therefore, when the Jewish Priests of the temple the Jewish Council – the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus wanted Jesus crucified, first they had to “herem”(excommunicate) him since they could not demand death for a Jew “in good standing”. Then they HAD to take him before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate to get permission to crucify him.
Pilate did NOT want to crucify Jesus, and sent them away. But the Jewish Priests, Annias and Caiaphas [Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death], knowing they could not kill Jesus without Roman sanction, returned and DEMANDED the death of Jesus. The Priests even gathered a riotous mob to DEMAND the death of Jesus. The Priests conspired to have the Romans act as their AGENTS. According to our Bible, it was Jews who were responsible for falsely accusing Jesus (pbuh), deceiving the masses about his true mission and causing him to be crucified by the Romans. It was the SANHEDRIN that condemned Christ to death, NOT Pilate.
Matthew 27:25 “All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
Wherever the Apostles went, there were Jews waiting for them–aiming to do harm.
The Bible doesn’t say how the Apostles were murdered, but it’s clear who was responsible.
I found the article to be a good read. I agree with most of it… however, I am of the opinion that Judas hanged himself by the neck til he was dead, and then he hung there for days: bloated up and full of maggots, probably pecked by birds, he fell headlong to the ground (maybe the branch or rope snapped?) and his skin being tight as a drum, popped and all his guts spewed out. I think that the two mentionings of his death are describing the same event, just not in great detail. Try prodding a dead and bloated animal that’s been lying in the sun for days… stab… pop… guts… then the SMELL! LOL! You get the jist.
Suicide is a terrible sin; would anyone have buried Judas? Evidently he was seen hanging… and the aftermath with guts and all. Did nobody wanna touch a suicide sinner?
“Suicide is a terrible sin” So did (for instance) hundreds more likely thousands of women in 1945 Germany who took their own life after being raped repeatedly by savage Russian mongol invaders commit a terrible sin? I could site many other examples of suicide that certainly doesn’t seem so terrible to me. It’s moralistic to be making such a categorical statement. Care to elaborate ?
Christians ought to be moral people. There is no Christian argument to be made to end one’s own life over fleshly suffering. To rationalize purely according to fleshly experience is humanist and Marxist… A slippery slope.
Those German women had a terrible time, but that doesn’t change anything.
Perhaps moralistic was not the right word, but i resent the Marxist, humanist reference. You know nothing about me or my life experience.
We all have the taint of humanism and Marxism in our hearts to some extent. It’s part of growing up in these times.
Lets rather resent it within ourselves and burn it from thence, that it does not fill our hearts like a cancer and proceed out of our mouths.
Yes, suicide is a terrible sin.
I can see what you’re saying, WaffenSS, but there are many things that happen to people everyday that are terrible, and those people do not top themselves. Whilst I have sympathy for the women you write of, it doesn’t change the truth that Jesus spoke when he said that your body is a temple. Man was not made to destroy himself, but to endure the trials that befall him. Job didn’t top himself when faced with his trials, for example.
1 Cor 10:13
There hath no temptation taken hold of you but such as is common to man. But God is faithful; He will not suffer you to be tempted beyond that which ye are able to bear, but with the temptation will also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
There is always a better day just around the corner.
And yes, as Grass said, a Christian should be moralistic.
It’s difficult to know for sure. Do you have mathematical proof?
I believe we all are responsible. We are all sinful. The obsession with Jews it’s a bit unhealthy…
There may be some truth…. God wants us to be kind and respect each other.
Nothing bad will happen if we are good and keep the commandments. We need to fear GOD ONLY. EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, JEW, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, ETC. ALL OF US!
Good God Rabbi!. Rabbi means my master so I puke at your insolence. You are guilty as all Germany is guilty as, Haman children were hanged, as all whites are guilty supposedly for the Jew slave trade. We do not even have Rabbinic consensus by the term Jew. Ytsak Shamir early Israeli Premier said ask 400 Rabbis whay is a Jew get 400 answers?
By the way Mr Rabbi he was a Budhist? Ester 8:17
17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.
See Rabbi by name you might be Persian not pure stock of Israel.
Prove to these devotees that you are Jew? Good luck.
I think this is the first time since I discovered this site that Ive really had much of a disagreement with the authors; sorry, but it appears pretty obvious that edomites are indeed that small percentage of modern jews that are Adamic. esau is edom according to Scripture and Jacob will war with esau forever says the Book also.
Too, judas iscariot was indeed apparently an edomite [as was herrod btw ] ; undoubtedly this led to his [judas’] greed and tendency towards betrayal. Genetics are hard to deny.
Now, on to the main point… yes, indeed and obviously there were many true Israelites in the crowd that were duped by the jews, their economic influence and propaganda who cried ‘Crucify Him’ , just as there are today. This does NOT absolve the jew as they were the instigator and were/are responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. Period. Certainly, the argument could be made that WE are responsible in that Jesus died for OUR sins, but I dont think this is the context of the statement. Forgive me if I am wrong. Jesus asked for forgiveness to those who ‘knew not what they do’ – note He does NOT forgive those who knew exactly what they were doing…i.e. the jewish leadership and their lackeys in the government. The Bible is pretty explicit that the jews sought to kill Christ – not the Romans nor even His own people, but the jews, beginning in Matthew the second chapter and something like 21 times in the Gospels.
So while He willingly gave up His life for Us and OUR sins so that WE might have eternal life, it was the jew who took it from Him in the physical sense. Yes, many of His own rejected him and were party to the murder, but it was then, just like now, the jew behind it and their father the devil behind them.
The “Jews” who killed Christ in the New Testament were not the Jews of today. That should be Christianity 101. Your whole theory is based on the false idea that the Jews in the NT are the same as today’s Jews, and they are not. Why would Christ allow the Edomites to kill Him? What would the point of that be in terms of fulfillment of prophecy? Makes no sense.
Christ did not die for the Edomites, who are not mentioned, as a people, at all in the NT. Whatever you are saying about “the Jews” is your theory that you are imposing on the NT. If the Edomites were so important to the narrative of the NT, they would be explicitly mentioned many times, but they are not. Isaiah would have mentioned them too in the context of the coming Messiah and his death, but he didn’t. Speaks volumes.
I agree with Danae.
I personally didnt come to the conclusion that Edom and Jews were one and the same from a need to “play a blame game”….But by prophetic markers that clearly show who Israel is (White Europeans) and who the enemies of Israel (the Jew) really are, and they have fullfilled these attributes to a “T” on both sides of the fence.
According to Rev. 2:9, and 3:9, the people calling themselves “Jews” are liars and imposters. So who are the true covenant people? Who is it that will really be put through a tribulation?
Only whites Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and kindred people have fulfilled all promises and prophecies regarding the 10 Lost tribes of Israel.
1) Israel was to become a great nation and a company of great nations.(Genesis 12:2; 18:18, 17:4; 35:11; 48:19)
2) Israel to keep the gates and ports of enemies ( Genesis 22:17,Joshua 21:43-45:)
3) Israel were to be seafarers, explorers, and colonizers (Genesis 28:14; 49:13; Numbers 24:7; Deuteronomy 33:19; Judges 5:17; Psalms 2:8; 89:25)
4)Israel were to be a blessing to all families (nations) of the earth (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 28:14; Isaiah 27:6)
5) Israel were to amass wealth and success as Farmers (Genesis 27:28; Deuteronomy 28:11; Deuteronomy 33:13, 14, 28)Boer, the word for whites in Africa, literally means farmer. And the starving masses in the African nations dispels them as farmers… Jews have been known only as bankers and merchants in history.
6) Israel was to be God’s witness and carry the word of God to all the world (Isaiah 43:10-12, 21; 59:21; Matthew 28:19-20)
7) Israel was to be God’s (“battle-axe” and an undefeatable military power (Numbers 24:8; Jeremiah 51:20-23; Isaiah 54:15-17; Micah 5:8-9)*Also note, the Battle axe was a weapon favored most by white people like the Nordic and Celtic peoples…*
8) Israel to be the first among the nations. (Gen. 27:29; 28:13; Jer. 31:7.)
9) Israel’s new home country to be north-west of the country they were driven from (Europe is NW from Israel) Isa. 49:12; Jer. 3:18.)
11) Israel was to be blind to its identity and be called by a new name and not known as Israel (Isaiah 62:2; 65:15; Hosea 1:9-10; Romans 11:25). God stated he would put his name on Israel (Numbers 6:27) And through the Messiah would be known as “Christians”(Acts 11:26). For nearly 2000 years, all, and ONLY white nations were known as Christendom, and whites were the only Christians. Its only through the false Zionist controlled Judea Christian churches that this has changed.
Do jews know who THEY really are then ? Yes, most of them…
“EDOM IS MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41.
So you see, NOTHING is lost yet, nor will it ever be. Prophecy is playing out to the letter, and this does NOT end well for the plunderers, defilers, and invaders of the lands of Gods people, the white Christian Americans.
White people didn’t “steal” the bible from the sub-Saharan Africans, nor did we adopt it from jews, who were constantly kicked out of Europe and were vagabonds and wanderers until the slave trade made them wealthy and powerful. Whites embraced Christianity FIRST because it was OUR religion.
“Christ is our King, and Christianity is our race which you knew once as Israel”- Justin Martyr, 100-160 AD, from Paragraphs of Trypho chapter 135.
[Edited for length, CFT]
I don’t think there is a need to argue that the true Israel of today only consist of white people. Proving that Jews aren’t Israelites isn’t the same thing as proving that Jews are Edomites. The former is easy to prove, the latter is impossible to prove.
““EDOM IS MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41.”
I’ve found this very book to verify the quote and it’s not there. Sorry to say it, but someone made it up. If you don’t believe me, try to verify it yourself.
Out of curiosity, what is on page 41 of that book?
RB, it is a general Biblical history of Edom making it very clear the Jews see themselves as something other than Edom. Whoever made up the quote found the section of the encyclopedia on Edom and put their own words in there.
Got a picture?
The section on Edom starts on page 40:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jewish_Encyclopedia_Volume_5.pdf&page=72
Joshua, it’s a fake quote, just like many circulating the internet about Jews admitting they are Edom like the Gerald Soman quote about Jews being Edomites. You can look it up for yourself. We can guarantee that you will NOT find it anywhere.
Read this:
https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-have-meltdown-when-u-k-school-assigns-homework-about-jews-role-in-murder-of-christ/#comment-44458
Allan Ahrend, the quote “EDOM IS MODERN JEWRY.” The Jewish Ency. 1925 Ed., Vol. 5, Pg. 41” is fake and no one has ever been able to confirm its authenticity. The entry for “Edom” in the Jewish Encyclopedia from that time does not include that quote. Unfortunately, it’s been repeated by many who took it for granted that it was authentic. Many such quotes about Jews circulate online….
A most compelling argument, top marks. Men of Israel you killed the Christ. Acts 2:22…22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know. 23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
Clearly they put Him to death at the hands of Lawless men (Romans not under the Law). The most concise verse on the matter.
How is it that Persians became Jews – by FEAR. See Ester 8:17
17In every province and every city, wherever the king’s edict and decree reached, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many of the people of the land themselves became Jews, because the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.
These were not Judeans nor Jews but they became Jews by fear. How exactly do we reconcile this obvious dilemma. There was at various points in Israels history proselytes accepted into the Jewish people.
Perhaps one of us can explain this? No one ever sees that Freemasons also fear the Jews. Masonry is subordinate to Jews through their fearful oath and blood filled initiations. Fear God and not man – that is the beginning of wisdom. Jews want you to fear so they may hold the God position of we rule by divine right and blood lineage. Not so!. How do you all propose a fearful Persian gentile became a tribe’s member of the Jews? As they were not in Judea!
The complex answers are not helpful I think. Focus is important and recognition that God revealed this conversion. Not by blood decent but fear did they convert.
For this great article many thankyou’s. It could not be more timely.
birnie wrote, “How exactly do we reconcile this obvious dilemma?”
Well, the simplest answer is probably the right one. The Book of Ester is fiction, almost completely ahistorical, as most biblical scholars agree. The Jews obsess over it because it provides a mythical basis of Purim, when the “enemies of the Jews” are defeated. Its origins can be traced to Babylon, like much of their other spurious myths and legends. There are many later fictional additions that aren’t in the earliest manuscripts, suggesting a post hoc justification for the embellishment of this fiction. This is the only book in the entire Bible where God is not mentioned. No student of the Bible should give this book serious consideration.
Tenafly, thanks you. We have one massive problem with Christian Zionism. Both Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionist claim modern Jews are a pure homogeneous group stemming from Abraham. Both these groups take this verse to be authentic. Might we just as well throw the cat among the pigeons. Its is their firm belief the Jews are the original stock and blood line of Jacob Israel. This presents a weapon against the Zionist pretensions of racial pedigree. It also proves that the Rabbinic class are so stupid they included a verse that counters there claims. Never let a good opportunity go to waste say the Jews. Nor should we! Lets ask every Zionist what this verse means to their vain glorious theory of racial purity in modern Jews. It once and for all proves that a racial stock nor maternal lineage is necessarily to Rabbinic Judaism, given their perspective. To dismiss this verse casually would be a great error considering how Palestinians have more Jewish blood than the Khazaars. You see quit plainly their greatest festival of hate (Purim) proves fear of Jews not God makes one a Jew. They will struggle to defend and it will expose the right of return (alliah) to be nothing but a scam. After all he who adds to or removes from the bible let him be accursed. Let them take that curse if they did add the verse they will suffer the plagues and curses promised.
God said there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed. This is an Israeli and a Rabbi’s worst nightmare. Proof that to be a Jew you do not have to have ancestry. I do not need to explain it point out the obvious dilemma.
Tenafly, I hope that give you an insight into my reasoning.
We don’t need the Book of Ester to prove the Jews are fake Israelites and that the ersatz state of Israel is a violation of both the Old and New Testaments. Evangelical Christians obviously don’t read their Bibles, or understand it when they do read it. They allow the Jews to interpret the Bible for them. Very few evangelicals ever leave the cult they are in because that cult attracts a certain personality type that is superficial in many ways, not prone to introspection or healthy skepticism.
“Very few evangelicals ever leave the cult they are in because that cult attracts a certain personality type that is superficial in many ways, not prone to introspection or healthy skepticism.”
Here, here! Very well put, and astutely observed.
The “happy-clappys” drive me bonkers: they are only interested is “feeling the Holy Spirit” and having an emotional experience in church. They are mostly all phlegmatic-melencholic personalities that thrive on the excitement of being in a crowd and following what people around them do… just like sheep. They are all “feelings” and very little “facts”. It makes me quite sad when I try to talk to them about Jesus: they just don’t have the reasoning to even contemplate the “strong meat” of scripture. I try to be humble when talking to them, but I usually get looked at like I’m mad.
Yes, they finish up a “praise and worship session” feeling elated by the beat and the music and say, “Did you feel the Spirit move today?”
But they are only admitting to the superficial nature of their religion, because true religion is not found in fleshly feelings. True religion is in obedience to Christ, no matter how it makes us feel.
I have a question. I believe I am 96.6-97% White (0.5 percent Ashkenazi Jew and the 3% American Indian). Do I still count as an Israelite. I pass off as a German. I always viewed myself as white, because my skin is very fair.
CitizenKane, sounds like you took a DNA test? Disregard the results. They are not accurate. The DNA companies intentionally put a low percentage of “Ashkenazi” DNA in many results to make people think they are part Jewish. Most people who are part Jewish know who their Jewish ancestors are, it’s part of family lore. And most American families that claim to be part “American Indian” are not, it’s just romantic family lore. I wouldn’t believe either of those things….
I agree with HWH. I think you’d know thru your family history if you were part indian or jew: even if your family had a “nigger in the woodpile” way back when that got hushed up, I’d say that you’d probably know about it by now as these sorts of family secrets and skeletons in the cupboard don’t stay buried for-ever, in my experience, and, it usually shows up in physical characteristics and appearance (not always, but most of the time).
For example: Roy Rogers was part indian… his eyes give it away. Lady Gaga looks like a jewess… she says that she’s Italian, but her appearance says otherwise. It’s not 100 per cent accurate, but it’s the best we have to go by: family trees and appearance. The DNA tests that people pay for are just too doubtful to trust, in my opinion, in todays political psy-op climate.
Might I also say that Jesus calls His sheep and His sheep hear His voice… 🙂
The DNA companies use a completely arbitrary definition of “Ashkenazi” genetic identity, which has no objective, empirical basis. There is no “Ashkenazi” gene that all Ashkenazi Jews share that can be traced back to a Jewish “Adam”. In reality, Ashkenazis are so genetically mixed with all the populations they have lived among that it’s impossible to sort out what a “biological” or “genetic” Jew actually is. And in a blind test, geneticists have failed to ascertain Jewish identity from randomized populations. In other words, Ashkenazi is a nebulous term that encompasses such a broad range of genetics that it is all but meaningless, except in a cultural context.
Most Rabbis even Israeli right of return require your mother to be a Jewess (only). Irrespective of your father or whether you converted. The Rabbis do not know which rules to follow as they are confounded. So we can safely say you are a mamzer. I hope you feel good about your Talmudic classification. Yet under pure Mosaic Law you can never own land in Israel as that was purely based upon male lineage for tribal affiliations. Again we see the Rabbis ignore tribal lineage as they have no genealogical proof required by Ezra and the Mosaic Law. There are no Jews today only people masquerading and purporting to be Israelites without a legal proof to offer. If Christians could only get this in their thinking the dispensational hersey collapses on this one point alone. Rebuild the temple who will prove they are sons of Aaron without a record going back to Moses. Therefore you have no priesthood. Mellenialisim is a false teaching for fools. This is why Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus gravitate to Pentecostals because it give their gang a wonderful opportunity to deceive naive Christendum. Edom or Jews it makes no difference they are no able to legally prove under Gods Law that the land belonged to there ancestors.
If the case is to be made that the Jews are not the Edomites, then it is necessary to explain where and who the Edomites are at this very moment in time. Scripture, the Book of Obadiah, tells us that they are here right now. So if they are not the Jews, then who are they?
How can it be said that the Blood Curse of Matthew 27:25 has not had a lasting effect when for almost 2,000 years we have had a people (Jews) who have defined themselves by having the blood of Christ on their hands?
How can it be Israelites who killed Christ when John 8:33 tells us that the Judeans who had Christ killed were not Israelites?
On that last question, earlier on here I discovered that 1 Kings 11 sets up a scenario by which there could be a people who are Edomites by matrilineal descent but also Israelites by patrilineal descent. This would produce people who could count as Israelites but who were not ever held in bondage, and that would provide a “loophole” to the John 8:33. However, it is going out on a limb a bit.
Lastly, how could Peter tell the difference between an Israelite and any other Judean? As I have learned here, per Josephus, the only way to tell a Greek from a Judean was by his circumcision.
Besides the Herods, no Edomites are mentioned in the New Testament. Why do you insist that they are there? If they were important to Christ or the apostles, they would have mentioned them, no?
The Book of Obadiah tells us that the Edomites will be here until the Day of the Lord. As the Day of the Lord has not yet occurred, we know the Edomites are still here.
As for Judea during the time of Christ, we know that they were there: CFT wrote an article back in April reminding us that us in 150 BC the Edomites were conquered by the Judeans and were offered Judean citizenship if they presented as practicing Hebrewism.
CFT’s same article points out that the Edomites may have been mentioned in the New Testament, as Mark 3:8 mentions that people from the land of Edom came to see Christ. I see no guarantee that these people were Edomites. CFT, however, contends that they were indeed Edomites.
Jews aren’t Edomites though, so I guess it doesn’t really matter what the book of Obadiah says about Edom as it relates to Jews.
When looking at that article you linked, I think the only way to claim that Jews are Edomites is to see things which aren’t actually there i.e. claim Jews are Edomites is on the same level as claiming Israelites follow ancestry by matrilineal descent.
You really can’t just throw down “Jews aren’t Edomites though”, because that is not cut and dry, as demonstrated by the debate the subject brings up here on CFT.
ReformingBoomer,
There was a man who stared at the sky and marveled. Some others came by and said, “Why are you marveling at the sky?” He said to them, “Because the sky is green like an emerald!” The others responded to him and said, “Surely you can see with your eyes the sky is blue?” The man replied to them, “No, but the sky is green! If the sky is not red, then why is it not green like an emerald?” Confused, the others wondered at the man and his reasoning and said, “Surely you are not saying, ‘the sky is green because it is not red?’ How can one thing be something because it is not something else?” The man responded, “Nay, but because it is not red, then it is green like an emerald!” Not being able to reason with him based on plain sight, nor plain logic, they resigned themselves to leave him to his delusion. But the man continued to reason with himself, “Because I still question the blueness of the sky, the matter of the sky’s color is still in question.”
Mark 3:8 mentions Edom in passing, along with many other groups of peoples, including people from Canaan, as coming to see Jesus. If you really want to get technical, Mark 3:8 would suggest that Edomites were not among Christ at the time, which would mean they were not among the Pharisees, etc.
And just because the Edomites were given cittizenship of Judea, does not mean they all swarmed into Jerusalem and the north. It meant that they could stay in their ancestral land — which had become part of Judea — and be citizens. People think this meant they mixed with everyone else throughout Judea, but there is no proof of that in Josephus.
Look at a map of Edom. That became part of Judea in 150 AD, it was conquered. Obviously, according to Mark 3:8, the Edomites stayed where they were living in Edom. Josephus said they were eager to live in the land of their forefathers, that is, historical Edom, not Jerusalem or the north.
Why would Edomites travel to see Jesus though?
Obadiah promises that on the Day of the Lord, all of the Edomites will be annihilated by the Israelites. No remorse, no mercy, no way out of God’s absolute wrath.
Why would people for whom there is no salvation go to see the Savior?
This is part of why I suspect that Mark 3:8 does not say that Edomites came to see Him. Someone can be in Edom without being an Edomite, just as non-Judeans were in Judea..?
RB wrote, “Someone can be in Edom without being an Edomite, just as non-Judeans were in Judea..?”
That’s stretch, don’t you think? Edomites/Idumeans were part of the Genesis 10 nations. Do you think they would have been given citizenship of Judea by John Hyrcanus, an Israelite Hasmonean King, if they weren’t white? Does that make sense?
Mark 3:8 suggests that the Edomites who became citizens of Judea remained in their land, remained separate. They didn’t necessarily just mix in.
And yes, Christ came for those nations too, not just Israelites. Jews cannot literally be Edom….
No need for a “shoah” because the annihilation of Edom in the prophecy of Obadiah was fulfilled in 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
But as you can see, even after Edom was made a desolation, Edomites survived to come see the Day of the Lord in Judea in Mark 3:8…..
“But as you can see, even after Edom was made a desolation, Edomites survived to come see the Day of the Lord in Judea in Mark 3:8…..”
Chesterton, the Day of the Lord is an end-times prophecy, not a reference to the first coming of Christ. Mark 3:8 is not an account of The Day of the Lord.
The Book of Obadiah proves this, because it states that on the Day of the Lord the Edomite would be annihilated by the Israelites. Yet not only were there Edomites on this Earth during Christ’s earthly presence but for years after his death, resurrection, and ascension.
This also confirms for us that the events in the Book of Malachi did not fulfill the prophecy of Obadiah, as Edomites survived well past the time of that Book.
It is no stretch that there would be non-Edomites in Edom during the time of Mark 3:8 because Edom was a conquered province. Naturally the conquerors would at least have some presence there.
RB, the Day of the Lord has both near and end times meaning in the OT. There are near and end times prophecies that have already been fulfilled in the OT, and most of Obadiah is one of them. The meaning of “the day of the Lord” is most certainly not confined to the second coming of Christ because fulfillment of many OT prophecies was not contingent on His second coming.
The first advent is surely the day of the Lord as well. You want it to have only end times meaning because you think it fits your agenda that way, but the end for Edom came long ago, it is laid waste, and the people exist as a recognizable people no more, just like many other OT tribes.
You conflate Edom with the Jews of the NT, as if it is self-evident, but the writers of the gospels obviously didn’t see what you see. But you know better than them? Explain exactly why those who are called “Jews” in the NT are not Israelites. Is it their behavior? Do you just refuse to accept that Israelites could behave that way? Do you think Israelites are all sinless saints? What’s your litmus test?
Do you deny that the destruction of Edom by Obadiah was fulfilled in Malachi 1: 1-5? If not, explain what the destruction of Edom in Malachai was about.
On the converse of your argument, where in the OT can you point to such egregious behavior by the Edomites. The worst thing they did in the OT was not helping Israel during the Exodus, during their time of need. Do you find that to be especially “Jewish” behavior? The Moabites didn’t help them either. Does that make them “Jews” too? What is so uniquely “Jewish” about the Edomites?
Judas Iscariot means Judas the Ish of Kerioth a area rich in esau’s descendants. that is why Jesus called him a devil. Haven’t I chosen you all and one of you is a devil.
The word devil here just means human adversary.
Judas was an Israelite, who happened to live in an area on the border on Edom.
Is it that common to think of whites living among unclean peoples such as NYC, or the local ghetto?
Not for nothing…Serpent Seedline adherents place all blame on “the Other”, never is any responsibility called for among the native pureblood Sons.
ReformingBoomer asked of the Edomites, “So if they are not the Jews, then who are they?”
The most likely candidate for modern descendants of Edom would be the Arabs who overran and conquered Edomite lands over a long period of time. By 700 AD, the Arabs had swept through the Levant, and more specifically, the territory of Edom, according to George Robinson in his 1930 definitive book, “The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization: Petra, Edom, and the Edomites”. Edom today is found in the Arab peoples…..
If conquering the land of Edom makes the conquerors into Edomites then that would be more evidence that 1 Kings 11 tells us the Edomites were Israelites.
The Israelites also swept through the territory of Edom, around 1000 BC. Their army killed all the men in the land of Edom and then stayed there for six months. The same passage tells us that King Solomon had taken Edomite women.
Genetically, the modern Jew and the modern Arab are “kissing cousins”, which is unsurprsing as from Arabia through Persia the same huge honking schnozes are on display. So if the Arab is the Edomite then the Jew is also..?
No one is an Edomite today. No one is a Canaanite today. No one is an Ammorite today. No one is a Moabite today. No one is an Amalekite today. No Jebusites. No MIdianites. Why? Because all those lands are now occupied by Arabs. Where did the original people go? Some may have moved out of those lands, but most of them were absorbed or died out. Once mixed, they lost their identities, just like Israelites. Does an Edomite remain an Edomite no matter who they mix with? If so, that would make them quite unique to say the least.
There are most definitely Edomites on Earth at this very moment, because Obadiah promises us that they will not be annihilated until the Day of the Lord.
Unfortunately, this would seem to imply that an actual shoah can not happen until the Second Coming…if the Edomites are the Jews.
This implication makes me want to believe that the Jews aren’t the Edomites, but then I remember that the Jews have been expelled somewhere between 110 and 300+ times from countries, and it would seem to me that the only way the Jews could survive all these purges that they have brought upon themselves is if they have divine protection.
As Scripture tells us that the Edomotes do.
RB, reading your comments, it sounds to me like you’ve already decided what you want to believe about the Jews. Now you’re trying to find your view within the Bible. Putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think?
Curious… Do you debate this topic with others around you? Do you risk “losing face” if you let go of this view that Jews are Edomites?
RB, the gypsies have been expelled from just as many states and countries as the Jews have in Europe, so does that make the gypsies Edomites too? Do the gypsies have “divine protection” to survive all these purges?
Does an Edomite remain an Edomite no matter who they mix with?
Yes. “Nation” is a racial word, not a geographic or political one like “country.” If the Arabs conquered Edom, that doesn’t mean the Edomites magically became Arab; even after generations of alleged race-mixing (Edomites are already the RESULT of race-mixing as Esau went and took foreign wives.) It’s a GENETIC thing, not a political thing. Maybe it’s possible to breed the Edom out, but that’s not the point; all sons of Adam can come to Christ, even the lost Hebrews before Israel became a nation (I think probably native Americans are Hebrew, also the Ainu people are not Asian, but “white” or ruddy.)
Joshua wrote, “Edomites are already the RESULT of race-mixing as Esau went and took foreign wives.”
Actually, no, there’s no proof in scripture that Esau was a race mixer, or that the Edomites were non-whites.
Please read these two CFT essays on Edom and show where they are wrong:
https://christiansfortruth.com/was-esau-a-fornicator/
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-prophecy-of-malachi/
The old covenant pertained to natural lands, peoples and events. Christ elevated things into the heavenly, so that the state of the heart is the defining attribute.
Anyone reading any OT scripture trying to apply it to this age, will find it impossible to glean a literal interpretation of peoples, places & events without fanciful distortions or using selective text & applications
Spiritually speaking, Edomites are those that were in line for a blessing or inheritance, but rejected it, choosing to hold to what they had. The unbelieving Jews were given the gift of the Holy Spirit but rejected it, choosing rather to hold onto the natural elements & benefits of the Old.
When Christianity is judged & spiritually enslaved in the years to come, adherers to the Old covenant will be rejoicing & joining in the afflicting of the Christian faith
Herod was part Edomite, according to Josephus, right?
https://i.imgur.com/ghierMu.jpg Even in old artistic depictions they acknowledge this.
Josephus also said he had burnt the genealogical records to hide his own ancestry. Why would he have done that unless it was something that Israelites would murmur about and use to legally object to his authority?
How can the “lost sheep,” who weren’t even present in Judea, be more culpable than the Edomites who were present and had influence/ power in those lands?
Even the Khazarian Edomites must have mixed with the exiles to have received their texts & traditions.
How can the descendants of the “lost sheep,” who were mostly already far-out into Europe, be more culpable than the very people who have descended from Edomites, and have adopted the religious texts & magic arts of the sects who made up the laws that led to Christ’s death?
Of course there were legitimate Israelites living in Judea at that time and even amongst the relevant theocratic sects, and many were corrupt, just as the Lost Tribes were, this makes them culpable too, and, if unrepentant, their lines were likely, eventually, ended by Romans or they were otherwise exiled & mixed into an “Ereb” populations.
Christ spoke to the “men of Israel” because these are the ones he wanted to appeal to.
There is a collective guilt for Israel, because the events are a direct result of having fallen so far from grace and into immorality, rather than trusting God, but the Lost Tribes were punished for this by being scattered abroad, and in my understanding, they are the ‘abandoned Cornerstone’.
I do not care about whether you consider the Edomites & their descendants “adamic” or not. I can not even believe that God would create two hugely different kinds of human and then create them with the function to reproduce between each other. Even amongst the spectrum of Humankind, there are still species within that kind, and these species are a result of separation over many generations. We are all collectively the result of our progenitors & ancestors choices, desires & habits – each generation in a family-line can improve or they can deteriorate, eugenic practice & dysgenic practice. What matters is that the Edomites and others like them, are not legitimate Israelites because they are also descended from Canaan, and that makes them a wrench in the gears for true Israelites.
Num 33:55 “And if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be pricks in your eyes and thorns in you.
56 And it shall be that I do to you as I thought to do to them.’ ”
Mal 3:14 “You have said, ‘It is worthless to serve Elohim. And what did we gain when we guarded His Charge, and when we walked as mourners before YHWH of hosts?
Mal 3:15 And now we are calling the proud blessed – not only are the doers of wrongness built up, but they also try Elohim and escape.’ ”
So if someone is descended from Israel and Canaan, does the curse upon Canaan overwrite the blessing of Israel or is it the reverse? The commandments to Israelites to remain “set-apart” and “drink from your own cistern” lead me to believe it is the former.
I did not come to my conclusions by following a self-proclaimed “teacher” or “pastor,” I only consider there to be one teacher and he is not among us in the flesh. Whatever ideas you present, there is no doubt in my stance towards Jews, they are not just amoral, they are wilfully immoral and antinomian.
Btw, when the Hasidics call us “Edom”, that is meant figuratively, as a spiritual successor, it just means they associate Europeans with Arch-nemesis enemies, they even admit this, but the Zoharists won’t tell people that it is because they call the “best of Goyim” “Amalek,” as in the most effective ‘Hylics’ at resisting the self-proclaimed ‘divine.’ Not just an issue of intelligence or calculative ability, but particular qualities, like what they describe as a potential “inner drive” in the Protocols.
Where is there any room for theories about Edom being involved in the NT events? Although from what you are saying, it seems like you are looking for things not in the Scripture that are not explicitly stated, right?
“I do not care about whether you consider the Edomites & their descendants “adamic” or not. I can not even believe that God would create two hugely different kinds of human and then create them with the function to reproduce between each other.”
The giants and the Canaanites reproduced with one another, right?
That’s kind of the point though… Let’s stop making up our own ideas and just believe what’s written in the Bible. What we “can not believe” needs to take a back seat to what the Bible actually says…
What you are saying with “humans” and “species” sounds like evolution, not the Bible.
Macro-evolution is false imo, micro-evolution is demonstrably true. The term species or sub-species has meaning, I won’t be shamed from using words to evoke specific meanings.
With complete anti-scientism, you may as well adopt all manner of superstitious belief. The science we have now is a complete mess, putting political ideology & ideals of fairness before rational thought.
I’m not shaming you for using words, but you have given yourself over to the world’s definition of their meaning. I can tell, because you keep looking for their meaning in the Bible. You won’t find it, because you have decided that an uncompromising interpretation of the Bible is “all manner of superstitious belief.”
This whole thing Adamic vs non-Adamic was revitalised by Evolutionary evidence. If you don’t believe in Homo-erectus, and that Africans are closer related to Archaic Homonids, then why would you come to the conclusions you do?
Very Gnostic interpretations too…
If the interpretation was true, I’d expect to see a word for non-adamic people that is separate from “beast of the field” which is open to interpretation and also includes actual cattle. I’d also expect to see many explicit verses on the matter, as it seems like a very important matter. In reality there is only a few verses on being set-apart and it is never explicitly stated that it was from the perspective that the outsiders were not considered descended from Adam.
Angelic beings were created to be outside the physical realm but with the manipulative power over the physical realm as well as it’s natural laws, they are not physical beings like us or animals, so in my mind it doesn’t follow the same pattern.
The Nephilim, giant or not, would not have been half ‘spirit’ as the Book of Enoch states, but would have inherited qualities from the physical manifestation of angelic beings, which they were free to determine. I do not think the Nephilim would have been written in the book of life to start with because they are the result of such a heinous transgression.
It was never intended for Angelic beings to reproduce with humans, they simply have the free-will to transgress those rules, and have certain innate abilities outside of our understanding, like manifesting in a physical form despite being apart of some other existence which is not restricted by the same rules.
Evidently they were not physically restrained from such a thing until later when it says they were thrown into ‘Tartarus’ and kept in dense darkness, which I assume is not literal, but the closest thing that could be communicated about that state.
Creating two kinds of homonid, one primitive & animalistic, one with the capacity for higher thought, is obviously going to lead to conflict, no matter what. One is practically incapable of anything but evil, the other is not so evil because they have the potential to be intelligent/ moral.
If a species is too divergent from another, they can not produce offspring with one another. So people are saying that God made these hugely divergent prototype people, whom were made to be evil, and whom he said not to breed with, with the capacity to breed with his divinely inspired ‘children,’ whom he supposedly cares about?
It is nonsensical, so I can’t believe it.
It also implies that the Creator really is Yaldabaoth or a cruel Demiurge. It is also what is written within the Quran, that Allah created the ‘black ants’ and the ‘red ants’ and he was quite indifferent and callous towards the ‘black ants’ (they’re not ants but humans). If that is affirmed, then of course, the belief in eternal torture for kaffirs follows. If that is the true interpretation, then Luciferians are the ones telling the truth, despite every horrific thing they’ve done.
That is the secondary reason as to why “I can’t believe” your man-made doctrines & interpretations.
“Let’s stop making up our own ideas” that is impossible until God appears before you and tells you directly what is right/ wrong, and obviously he didn’t even explain everything to the Israelites, and there are many people who claim to have seen or spoken with God or received messages from the beyond/ holy spirit, and they collectively advocate for many contradicting & irrational things. Whatever you have in your head, is “your own ideas,” your ideas aren’t objective where as mine are subjective, they are both subjective, but we both understand that there must be an objective out there somewhere, and that is what we are trying to find.
Despite what I said, I do believe I have the potential to be wrong in my interpretation but the self-righteous & dogmatic do not, and it is the dogmatic who lack the qualities to see or determine truth. There is no self-awareness.
Truth is determined by logic, if something contradicts, it is not true, that is logic. So I’m not going to trust the opinions of people with no logical foundation in the head. It’s like, how do you define who is sane and not? It is by how grounded they are in reality & logic. There are not many people who are partially grounded and I don’t think anyone can be perfectly grounded with all this confusing nonsense & conditioning going on.
By promoting illogical thinking, you are validating your adversaries assertions that God is a powerful being that wants dumb automatons that he can easily control & play with.
Dan, your “logical foundation” is comprised of feeding yourself rhetorical questions and statements like “How can this”, “How can that” and, “I expect some other thing”. It’s seasoned with confident statements entirely unaccompanied by any kind of Scriptural evidence.
Whatever you have in your head, is “your own ideas,” your ideas aren’t objective where as mine are subjective
I’m not particularly bothered by people who have dreams and visions. There is a place where ideas meet and are weighed up against one another, and that place is the Bible. By proposing that objective truth is “impossible until God appears” is covert moral relativism. Furthermore, it is a coward’s approach to Biblical exegesis.
Why do you even bother to quote the Bible then? Except when you are challenged to support your ideas, you hide behind this “no objective truth” argument. Then I’m sure you’ll go right back to seasoning your comments with Scripture as you see fit. Then when someone challenges, no doubt you will run for cover again.
If you want to talk about the Bible, then let’s talk about the Bible. If you want to wax lyrical about your “science-based” ideas, then at least don’t pretend it’s Christian or use the Bible.
Herod had the genealogies destroyed because he had no right as a non-Israelite to sit on the throne of David. He probably hoped that in the future, historians wouldn’t know he was an illegitimate king by bloodline, which was sheer hubris. Herod tried to have the Christ child killed because he was a legitimate heir to the throne of David.
Yet as an adult, Christ was no longer targeted by Herod or Pilate because they knew he was not fomenting revolution or desired their earthly power. He was a threat only to the Pharisees’ power.
“The crowd shouted, ‘Crucify Him!'”
“Why? What evil has He done?”
“But they shouted all the more, ‘Crucify Him!'”
“When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing but that rather a riot was starting he took water and washed his hands saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood.'”
“Then answered all the people, ‘His blood be on us and or children!'”
Yep, they got their wish not long afterwards.