Two Seedlines

 

by an unworthy servant

 

 

(Notice to Readers and especially Christian theologians.  Please use what you can here—But with Credit to this website.  Please do not do as most Christian Preachers do by plagiarizing and stealing words and ideas from others.  The least you can do is to give credit when you take from others, to include taking from this website). 

 

 

I—THE GARDEN OF EDEN

 

The myths of Genesis 3

 

Genesis 3 shows the “serpent” beguiled or seduced Eve.  Most Christians would argue to their death that Satan here (in the form of a snake) talked Eve into stealing an apple or some other piece of fruit from a fruit tree.  No!  The evidence is considerably different than this children’s story.  The incident involving Satan and Eve was sex.  This reality is conclusively proven from the Word.  Actually, no other option is plausible. 

 

The Scriptural Account at Genesis 3

 

Gen 3:1

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

3:2

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

 

3:3

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

 

3:4

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

3:6

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

3:7

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

 

3:8

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

 

3:9

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

 

3:10

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

 

3:11

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

 

3:12

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

 

3:13

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

 

3:14

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

 

3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

3:16

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

3:17

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

 

3:18

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

 

3:19

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

3:20

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

3:21

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

3:23

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

 

3:24

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

More Than Adam in the Garden of Eden

 

In the Book, persons are called "trees" (Ps 1:3; Isa 56:3; Dan 4:20).  The trees in the Garden of Eden were, in fact, men (Ezek 31:3-18).  The early account of Cain/Kain and his reaction after having killed Abel assuredly communicates the presence of other humans/humanoids on earth beyond himself and Adam and Eve.  Note that Cain was fearful that “every one” finding him would kill him (Gen 4:14-15).  Surely, he was not afraid of his own father and mother.  Thus, who was that “every one?” 

 

Very quickly, Cain went to the land of Nod which was East of Eden (Gen 4:16).  Since Eden was somewhere in the Euphrates valley, it would seem that the land of Nod was in Eastern Asia--possibly in modern India.  There, Kain knew (if he knew her in Nod, is it not reasonable to believe that he first found her there?) his wife (was she a created chaiyah or behemah?) and soon built a city (Gen 4:17).  So, where did the wife come from whom he knew in Nod? 

 

Some 2,000 years ago, the famous Jewish philosopher Philo (who was to become beloved by Christians) asked if it was not reasonable to ask about Cain’s wife “for there had been no birth of any one other woman since that of Eve who was formed out of the side of the man” (“Philo,” translated by F. H. Colson, p. 135). 

 

Going on, Philo (ibid, p. 135) noted that “if any one says that Cain took his sister to wife, putting the impiety of such a connection out of the question, he will speak falsely; for Moshe represents the daughters of Adam as born late (per Gen 5:4, daughters were born to Adam after Seth--ed).  What then are we to say?”  Obviously, Philo had questions about the traditional beliefs which simply don’t hold water. 

 

Gen 4:17:  If Kain and his wife and their baby Enoch were the only humans/humanoids in the land of Nod, why did he built a city and for whom?  This whole presentation in Genesis 4 is very clear that Adam, Eve and Cain were not the only so-called human beings on planet earth at that time. 

 

Genesis 3:20 in the KJV suggests that Eve was the mother of all living (people).  This can be translated in different ways.  The word “all” is wrong and thus she was the mother of (some) living people—not all living people. 

 

The Serpent of Gen 3 Copulated with Eve

 

The serpent is an attempted translation of the Hebrew, proper noun name of Nachash, which means “to hiss like a snake” (see I Sam 11:1-2; 12:12 for an Ammonite king so named) in order to cast a spell, charm, enchantment, omen.  Thus, one is dealing with a clever, crafty humanoid being who talks and walks upright on two legs (Satan does both--Job 2:2).  Isaiah 14:12-18 identifies him as a male humanoid (Hebrew “ish,” but not of the Adam kind).  TDOT (p. 356-369) associates the noun with the color of copper or bronze.

 

As the Greek New Testament plainly communicates, Satan sexually seduced Eve (II Cor 11:2-3; I Tim 2:13-14). 

 

Gen 3:13:  This seduction is likewise brought out in the Hebrew word “nasha” (meaning to “delude or [morally] to seduce,” per “Strong’s”) as used for the seduction in Gen 3:13. 

 

Gen 3:1:  The Hebrew word “arom” (translated as naked in the KJV) appears at Gen 2:25 to describe both Adam and Eve’s evidently whole nude condition.  As William F. Dankenbring notes, this word arom is also used to describe the serpent’s condition (translated as subtle in the KJV) in Gen 3:1 (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60).  Dankenbring indicates that arom actually comes from a root word meaning smooth or slick (like in the case of Slick Willy).  It describes the smooth or slick skin condition in a state of nakedness. 

 

Gen 3:13:  The word eat in Gen 3:1-13 comes from the Hebrew “akal” which means “to eat (lit. or fig.) at all, burn up, consume, devour, dine, eat, feed, food, freely, in...wise, (lay) meat, quite” (per “Strong’s”).  Though this definition points to eating food, it does allow for sex (laying).  This same word is used in Proverbs 30:20 where sex is implied. 

 

Gen 3:2-6:  The word fruit in Gen 3:2-6 comes from the Hebrew “peri” (its root is “parah”), which means to “bear fruit, bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase” (per “Strong’s”).  Obviously, this definition can cover children.  For ages, the words and ideas associated with fruit have had sexual implications.  To this day, a person’s virginity is linked to the word “cherry.” 

 

Gen 3:6:  The words desired and pleasant (in Gen 3:6, the Hebrew “chamad” and “taavah”) both suggest a longing desire and lust (per “Strong’s”). 

 

Gen 3:3 uses the Hebrew “naga” (translated as touch in the KJV) which plainly indicates lying with a woman--as at Gen 20:6 and Lev 15:19. 

 

Gen 3:15 specifically mentions both the seed of the woman and the seed of Nachash.  In both instances, seed comes from the Hebrew “zera” which categorically refers to progeny (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 853).  Thus, the connotation on sex is present throughout Genesis 3. 

 

As Dan Gayman points out in his 1977 book, “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15” (p. 14), to correctly believe that the woman produced a seedline (as she did, and as most Christians believe) demands recognition that Satan likewise produced a seedline (which generic Christendom refuses to accept).  To be consistent, seed in both places must be interpreted in the same way (in contrast to inconsistent Christianity). 

 

The Curse in Genesis 3:14

 

Gen 3:14 has a curse which stipulates that this serpent humanoid (and evidently his progeny as well) is destined to move upon his belly and eat dust (as most English translations give it), deserves some analysis--since this explanation suits neither humanoids nor snakes (snakes do not eat dust, soil or earth, but life sources like flesh and eggs). 

 

In “The Serpent’s Belly” (p. 11), E. T. Tennyson correctly points out that the word “belly” comes from the Hebrew “gachown” which Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” defines as labor to issue forth on  a set course, like a river or stream (per Strong’s # 1512, 1518, 1821).  Hence, Tennyson says gachown means the set course or life’s work which Satan was thereafter destined to do (correctly, as a prosecutor in service of YHWH). 

 

Gen 3:17-19:  Has the eating of dust, dirt or soil as a part of the punishment upon Adam, in that he was to eat of the ground or soil in the context of vegetables, grains, nuts and fruits grown from the soil.  Now, while Adam (assuredly Israelites of the Adam kind) was specifically given the option of eating some clean meats in the Torah, the truth remains that plant and tree foods have always remained the primary food staples for Adam. 

 

From the illegal sexual adultery, involving Nachash and Eve, the first born Cain was seemingly a product of his father, the Devil (as the New Testament asserts--I Jo 3:12).  An interesting fall out of this miscegenation was that Satan effectively attempted to reproduce himself with Kain--just as YHWH is doing in terms of Adam. 

 

William Dankenbring makes the case that Satan and the later sinning angels, in connection with the flood (Gen 6:1-2), all attempted to reproduce themselves by copulating with human women and getting them pregnant (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60). 

 

While there might could be some question about the extent that the giants inhabiting the earth affected later human beings from Adam; the behemah, the chaiyah and certainly the Kain line survived.  The descendants of Cain reflect much of Cain’s father Satan--physically, mentally, emotionally and so forth.  Later comments will focus on some of the Devil’s human/humanoid descendants who have survived over the ages to influence world history dramatically for the bad.  Many of these descendants of Satan-Kain assuredly have the mind set and wickedness of their fathers. 

 

The Early Chronology of Sin

 

The early chapters of Genesis seem to lay out the sequence of events affecting Adam and Eve.  The couple was created on the sixth day of creation week (Gen 1:27).  Probably their marriage was consummated that day.  The next day, the Seventh day Sabbath, The ELOHIM spoke to them and gave them His Torah.  It’s probable that Satan’s preaching/instructions on sex came to them on the next day--Sunday (Gen 3). 

 

Satan’s seduction of Eve (Gen 3:6) likely occurred during his Sunday preaching effort.  At some point in time, thereafter (either immediately, just after Satan finished with her, or later in time), Adam did the same thing when he, too, surely partook of Eve’s fruit (Gen 3:6; 4:1)--which clearly was illegal in view of YAH’s Torah (Deut 24:1-4). 

 

Though it would seem that indeed Adam did partake of her fruit, after Satan finished with her, the wording of Genesis 3:6 may possibly open the door that both Adam and Eve partook of Satan’s fruit--allowing that perhaps Satan seduced Eve and then engaged in a homosexual act with Adam.  This writer is not suggesting that the first homosexual act took place then.  But this possibility must be put on the table.  In any case, it seems almost a certainty that Eve became pregnant there in the garden of Eden.  The birth of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1-2) came later after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. 

 

A reader of the lives of Adam/Eve can easily allow that Cain and Abel were, in fact, twins (the context of Genesis 4, the Targums and other ancient Jewish legends and literature allow that Cain and Abel were twins, which is a strong possibility).  In their conception, it seems plausible that Nachash initially seduced Eve and she became pregnant with Cain.  Then she next became pregnant with Abel from Adam. 

 

Can a woman get pregnant with twins from two different men?  Yes, it has happened on occasion in recorded history.  It becomes evident in situations involving Caucasian prostitutes who are with both a Black man and a White man on the same day.  When the twins are born, one can be an obvious Negro while the other is White.  This writer has seen newspaper pictures of such births together with background statements of the woman’s prostitution to produce the resulting different children. 

 

There is another possibility on this subject which is brought out in Genesis 4:1 that the KJV gives as Adam knew Eve (apparently sexually).  Most Christians automatically assume that the pregnancy with Cain happened when Adam knew her.  However there are problems with this text. 

 

The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 17) gives the correct reading here in the sense that Adam “had known” (Eve) before he was expelled from the garden.  Richard Elliott Friedman “Commentary on the Torah” (p. 26) text for Genesis gives Genesis 4:1 as “had known.”  Since Adam and Eve were expelled after this first sin, it might be that he knew her when they consummated their marriage on the 6th or 7th days of creation week (and preceding her seduction by Satan, as probably happened on the next Sunday).  Possibly this is what the first part of Genesis 4:1 says in context. 

 

Alternatively, the case can be made that after Satan finished with Eve, Adam too partook of her fruit (as can be the explanation here, per the above discussion).  The point here is that perhaps Adam did “know” her both before and after her sex with Satan.  Thus, Genesis 4:1 with its “had known” might just be a general remark on reality.  Anyway, it provides a clear disconnect between when he knew her and when she became pregnant. 

 

More from Ancient Judaism

 

In articles on angels and “Cain, Abel, and the Seduction of Eve,” writer William F. Dankenbring quotes a number of ancient Jewish authorities which establish the historic Jewish position as being that Satan seduced Eve in the garden.  He quotes the Talmud as saying that the Devil copulated with Eve.  The forbidden fruit was a symbol of illicit sex between Eve and Satan (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 61). 

 

As quoted in the Sep/Oct 2000 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 3), the Talmud is very specific in saying that “For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her” (Shabbath 146e), and “...at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her” (Yevamont 103b).  The Kabbalah even says that the idolatrous people of the earth are the children of the serpent which seduced Eve. 

 

Elsewhere, Dankenbring quotes (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79) from the ancient Jewish commentary “Pirqei deR. Eliezer 21” which noted that “The serpent came unto her and she became pregnant with Cain, as it says, ‘And the man knew his wife Eve.’  What did he know?  That she was already pregnant (from someone else).” 

 

The book of IV Maccabees has some observations by a virgin woman of character who reported that the Destroyer, the deceitful serpent, did not defile the purity of her virginity (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting IV Maccabees 18:7-8). 

 

The “Prophecy Flash” article also quoted from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip which said that Cain was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the serpent (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting the Gospel of Philip 61:5-10). 

 

A Dankenbring quotation from the “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan” (on Gen 4:1) notes that “Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael (another name for Azazel or Satan) the (wicked) angel of YHWH and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 78). 

 

“The Jewish Encyclopedia” (1903, v. III, p. 483-494; and 1905, v. XI, p. 69-70) states the historic Jewish position that Cain was the son of Satan and that pious men descended from Adam/Seth (“The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 412). 

 

Cain is Not of Adam

 

As a minimum, the context of Genesis 4 allows that Eve did not attribute Cain to Adam.  The KJV of Gen 4:1 says that with the birth of Cain, Eve said “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” 

 

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Book of Genesis” (p. 169) gives Gen 4:1 as “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.”  Of course, it is entirely reasonable to believe that Eve would have concluded that Satan was a messenger of light from YHWH (as others have done--II Cor 11:14). 

 

A friend of this writer once pointed out that Cain was never called a son of Adam in the Scriptures (as was true with Adam’s descendants).  The genealogy of Cain is always separate from that of Adam--suggesting that Cain was not a son of Adam. 

 

In the NT, Cain is never linked to Adam, but is identified as being of that wicked (Greek poneros) one (I Jo 3:12).  The Greek poneros is used several other times in the NT in apparent reference to the Adversary (for example--Matt 13:19; I Jo 2:13; 5:18). 

 

In fact, this linkage of poneros to Satan is so firm that the J. B. Phillips’ translation of “The New Testament” saw fit to translate I John 3:12 as “We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil...”  Phillips called him the evil one in I John 5:18.  On this, see also Matthew 23:33 and John 8:44. 

 

The Telegony Problem

 

In order to avoid the detrimental effects of telegony (as is common among mare horses when bred with a donkey and then later with a stud horse), it appears that some time (to be shortly defined) might be needed to clean up a female’s blood line once she has been impregnated by an alien seed. 

 

While modern science and biologists can never understand the reality of telegony, it is a part of the real world in the interbreeding of animals (and humans as well).  People who have raised mules are aware that when the bloodline of the growing fetus (with the blood of the paternal parent) comes into contact with the female’s blood (through the placenta), it’s possible for blood from the fetus to enter the mother’s bloodstream. 

 

Therefore, the female’s blood stream becomes contaminated with the blood of the fetus which can come from the male.  In the case of like kinds being involved in the pregnancy, this is no big deal.  But when “unlike” kinds produce the pregnancy, it is a big deal of evil. 

 

If a mare is impregnated by a donkey (to produce a mule), her bloodline becomes contaminated by the jack.  If she is with an ass several times, her bloodline will contain many of the DNA characteristics of the jack.  If she then is bred back to a stud horse, the ensuring pregnancy can produce a colt with “mulish” characteristics, as the mare’s blood comes into contact with the fetus during the pregnancy. 

 

The same phenomenon applies to humans/humanoids.  If a woman is impregnated in a legal marriage with one of her own racial kinds, her blood will pick up some of the male, DNA characteristics (from the fetus during the pregnancy).  Obviously, if an Adamite woman is impregnated by a behemah male, she will pick up some of his DNA. 

 

The more times she’s with a behemah, the more she will have of his characteristics in her blood.  Later, if she becomes pregnant with an Adamite male, it seems evident that the resulting Adamite child can become contaminated with the behemah DNA characteristics. 

 

In the case of Kain’s conception from Satan, it is plausible that Eve’s blood became contaminated from Satan.  Perhaps this situation also had some impact on the bloodlines of Satan’s descendant.

 

Hence, to the extent that Eve’s bloodline was contaminated with the blood of the developing Cain (from his father Satan), time was needed for Eve to regenerate new Adamic blood before Seth was born.  Consequently, it might be that there was “at least” a seven years lapse of time (actually longer) from Cain and Abel to the birth of Seth. 

 

Apparently, humans can regenerate all new blood in seven years (per Christian Identity leader Dan Gayman).  Actually, there seems to be some reason or reasons to believe that every molecule in the human body undergoes some change or transformation every seven years (Apr 2002 “Yavoh,” p. 3). 

 

Two Seedlines

 

The point of these early chapters in Genesis is that there seems to be two seedlines from Eve which went on to produce civilizations and inhabit that early Asian portion of planet earth--ultimately Seth from Adam and Cain from Nachash (per “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, by Dan Gayman). 

 

Clearly, this evidence is extremely convincing and of such substance so as to suggest that the line of Cain and his father has persisted among man to this day--surely, from Naamah (who likely married Ham) and possibly a male line as well (maybe, the Kenites) that survived the flood (if the flood was not universal, but was limited to perhaps portions of Asia). 

 

If this reasoning has merit, could a fourth racial type or blood line (from Nachash) be in existence in parts of so-called humanity?  Probably, the answer is yes--in the vein of the small, yellow-brown, copper, bronze peoples inhabiting the hot portions of earth from Europe and North Africa on East to Southeast Asia and on into the Pacific Islands.   

 

Before leaving the reality of Satan producing a seedline of people (who have inhabited earth both before and after the flood), the prohibitions on interracial marriage need recall.  It has to be important to note that the descendants of Ham are all generally stated in those prohibitions.  Thus, Yisrael was commanded to not cross with the seedline of Satan (or the behemah, chaiyah, etc). 

 

Characteristics of Satan’s Seedline

 

The eating of the soil or from the soil in Gen 3:17-19 addresses the seedline of Satan, as well as that of Adam.  In fact, the situation with Kain plainly communicates that he was an ascetic vegetarian who ate from the soil, and who apparently was devoted to animal rights (Gen 4:3).  This condition is especially prevalent today in the Eastern religions in India. 

 

This is a most fascinating Tanakh presentation which goes a long way in helping to identify and establish exactly who the descendants of Kayin/Kain/Cain might be in terms of history and contemporary peoples and particularly in respect to their likely linkage to the Kenites (living in the House of Yehudah), possibly to the Horites and later seemingly with the Edomites in their habitation of Petra or Sela. 

 

The context of Genesis 4:1-12 plainly communicates that early on Kayin was a tiller of the ground and that the soil initially did produce for him (Gen 4:2-3).  Evidently, he was quite successful at it, as Genesis seems to suggest.  Being a gardener of sorts (a vegetarian?), Cain chose to take some of his produce and offer it to YHWH as an offering in defiance of The ELOHIM’s commandments on this issue (requiring blood offerings/sacrifices). 

 

Of course, Hevel obeyed The MOST HIGH by sacrificing an animal for a blood offering.  YAH was pleased with Hevel’s offering and displeased with Cain’s offering.  This angered and upset the jealous Kain so he raised up and slew his brother Hevel--evidently shedding Hevel’s blood upon the ground.  Thereupon, Hevel’s shed blood cried out to YHWH for revenge. 

 

Genesis 4:7 makes a tie of Cain to Sin

 

However, beyond the just outlined obvious, there are a couple of other remarks which are most profound.  The first of these occurs when The HIGHEST tells Cain that “sin lies at the door.  And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (per the KJV at Gen 4:7).  Samson Raphael Hirsch’s commentary on “The Pentateuch” (v. I, p. 103) links this text to Satan’s role as tempter which is ultimately designed to allow men to master sin. 

 

Alternatively, “The Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. I, p. 13) suggests that “Sin awaits thee (Cain), and thou wilt add more (sin) to what thou hast already committed.” 

 

But for now, another interpretation of this text might be something along the line that Cain (and his line) has been given over to sin--because of the evil in his heart.  Therefore, it might be that sin (from Satan’s temptation) shall desire the Cain line--which will actually become such experts at sin or masters of sin that they effectively control it or use it for their own evil purposes.  Otherwise, maybe sin completely rules them and everything they do. 

 

This Cain propensity for evil was brought out by the Jewish writer Philo some 2,000 years ago when he suggested that the race of the Cain line shows “a life of plotting, and cunning, and wickedness, and dissoluteness, full of passion and wickedness” (“Philo,” p. 136). 

 

The Aug-Sep 1998 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 93) quoted various legends and oral history material from the ancient “Second Book of Adam and Eve” to show that the pre-flood Cain line was guilty of much robbery, murder and sin. 

 

Darrell W, Conder quotes the “Jewish Encyclopedia,” which said that the Epicurean philosophers were of the school of Cain--that advocated worshipping the sensual powers (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 9).  In time, this worship of sex was blended in by Cain or his descendants into popular sun worship. 

 

Apparently, all the sun cults have included the worship of sex in some manner over the years.  This evidence is most persuasive that Kain, the son of Nachash (Satan), introduced sex worship into the very earliest beginnings of false, pagan worship which quickly became sun worship (starting with Cain and/or his later descendants or in-laws--including Ham and Nimrod). 

 

Genesis 4:12 Ground won’t produce for Cain

 

The second extraordinary text at issue surfaced when YHWH prophetically cursed or condemned Cain (and the Kain line) by saying that the ground would not yield her strength (produce and food) for him (and his line) and that he and his line would be fugitives and vagabonds in the earth (Gen 4:12)—maybe like the Gypsies.   

 

The “Soncino Pentateuch” commentary (v. I, p. 106) has it here that for Cain “the earth will no longer yield its powers, yes, he will have no spot on earth that he can call his own as a home...the landless stranger.”  At a first glance, one might suppose that Cain and his descendants would not make good farmers and that they would never have a homeland of their own. 

 

On the curse on Cain, Christian Identity leader Peter Peters says that Cain would live away from the fertility of the earth--meaning that he would have to live off of the fruit of other people’s labors, like a parasite (Vol 3, 2003, “Scriptures for America,” p. 3).  On Esau, Peters notes Genesis 27:40 in that Esau lives by the sword; or as Peters interprets this text, Esau will make money from war (ibid, p. 3). 

 

For sure, the Kain line would likely live in cities (Cain built the first one, as described elsewhere herein) and be entertainers, lawyers, physicians, bankers, traders, merchants, politicians, and religious leaders--certainly crooked ones. 

 

The Canaanites are also interesting in this regard because the word Canaanite means “merchant, trafficker” (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary,” #3669).  The Canaanites were descendants of Ham and his wife who probably was Naamah (per some Jewish tradition), a descendant of Kain (Gen 4:22).  Certainly, this definition ties back to Cain. 

 

The Phoenician neighbors of the Canaanites had a similar description attached to them by the Prophet Yeshayahu (Isa 23:8).  He called them traffickers (at least some of them in the form of ancient Tyre).  The Phoenicians were Edomites who evidently descended from one of Esau’s marriages with Canaanite women. 

 

Gen 4:19-22 gives the children of Lamech of the Cain line.  One son was a herdsman (The Soncino Chumash gives it as being a nomadic herdsman living in tents and moving from place to place as temporary dwelling sites); a second son was a musician; and the third son was a worker with metals. 

 

For long ages, there was a prevalent legend about “the Wandering Jew” in most of the Christian West.  The essence of this Christian story was that the Jews were cursed to walk the earth until Judgment Day for their role in the murder of YESHUA (Jan 14, 2002, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 42-43). 

 

In terms of the Amalek-Edomite Khazars with the Kain link, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 944) notes that the name Khazar was explained as being derived from the Turkish “quzmak” meaning “to wander” or “to nomadize” or from “quz” meaning “side of mountain exposed to the north” (could this link to Petra/Mount Seir?). 

 

While the collective Jews certainly were not under such a curse, it is interesting that this concept and the associated curse on Kain profoundly link with the reality of the evil Amalekites (who definitely make money from wars). 

 

These Amalekites, above all other peoples of the earth (except possibly the Gypsies), are classic wanderers who wander around, without roots, in an attempt to steal, exploit and destroy everything possible in the Adamic society.  This seems to be the Amalekite Khazar history for much of the last 2,500 or more years (since they left their ancestral home in the Seir Mountains). 

 

Manifestly, these workers of evil have achieved enormous success in the 20th and 21st centuries in the US and the White British Commonwealth of nations.  If these sharks have ever found a welcoming home (where the people are totally gullible), it has occurred for them in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations. 

 

The Gypsies with all of their problems would seem to best express what the curse on Cain might entail. 

 

The Kenites (attached as parasites on the House of Yehudah) might could also qualify for this identification. 

 

In any case, the Cain people (like the Khazars) were historically a landless, nomadic people and certainly fit the description attached to Cain.  In the modern Israeli state, a number of Israelis are farmers and own excellent, rich, producing farms and gardens.  It’s very questionable that one would find any Kenites or Canaanites on these farms. 

 

To whatever extent that Kenites and Canaanites exist among modern Jews, it seems likely that they would be engaged in politics, trade, commerce and banking.  In particular, the descendants of Kain (especially the Amalek-Edomites) seem to predominate in the banking, entertainment and media industries. 

 

II--MORE PRE-FLOOD

 

The Cain Line

 

Gen 4 gives the line of Cain in the pre-flood era.  Gen 4:22 takes the reader down to the birth of a girl of Cain named Naamah.  Since females are not named in the Word unless they play an important role in history, Naamah was significant.  Jewish tradition has it that she was the wife of either Noah or Ham.  But it was impossible for her to be of Noah since he was perfect in his generations (Gen 6:9, to be discussed next).

 

Pre Flood Sin

 

Though marriage was ordained by YHWH in Gen 1-2, a marriage problem developed in Gen 6:1-5 from miscegenation/interracial sex which is condemned as being illegal throughout the Scriptures. 

 

The Word (Gen 6:9) carefully notes that in the saving of Noah, Noah was perfect in his generations, genealogy or race (as the racial miscegenation problem was great in the land).  Apparently, Noah and his wife and sons were some of the last of the pure Adamic peoples which had once populated the land. All of the others had miscegenated through interracial sex and marriage (with the lines of Cain and the behemah and chaiyah).  As YESHUA tells it, this same problem will exist in the age-end (Matt 24:37-38; Lu 17:26-27).  When interracial sex and mixed marriages become acceptable and allowable in the land, it is a sign of the age-end. 

 

III--OLD TESTAMENT POST FLOOD

 

The Ham/Canaan Problem

 

While Noah and his wife and sons were racially perfect, it is not clear about their wives except for Ham whose wife was Naamah, per Jewish tradition, which is borne out by the fact that he named a son Canaan (Gen 9:18), a derivative of Cain.  It is not clear why Ham married Naamah but since miscegenation was great in the land, she might have been his only chance.  Thus, Noah allowed them to enter the ark. 

 

The post flood era and the distribution of the descendants of Noah are discussed in the Commentary on Genesis at this web site.  Shem and his descendants were given most of the old Middle East from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.  This land grant was essentially the same land that made up the old territory of Eden.  In time, it would form the grant to Avraham.  Japheth was given most of the rest of Asia and Ham (meaning hot) was given the hot areas of earth in Africa and South America which broke off from Africa. 

 

But for purposes of this presentation, the focus here has to be on Ham since his wife appears to have been a descendant of Satan-Cain and his pre flood line.  Ham had four sons—Mizriaim who settled Egypt, Cush who apparently was given the land south of Egypt (now called Ethiopia), Put was given land west of Egypt.  It is not clear what land was granted to the fourth son Canaan but the odds are that it was in Africa, south of Put.  But the sons of Ham were not happy with their land allocations. 

 

Mizriaim’s Philistine descendants came to the Gaza coastal area east of the Mediterranean and stole it from Arphaxad, son of Shem.  Canaan didn’t like his grant and he stole most of the rest of the western land grant to Shem.  Cush’s son Nimrod didn’t has like his grant and he stole much of the land of Arphaxad along the Southern Euphrates as it empties into the Persian Gulf.  This Cush land became Babylon.

 

The family of Put went into South America and become the indigenous Indians of South America and probably the Caribbean area.  Part of the Egyptians went into South America and became the famous pyramid builders there (the Incas, the Mayans and Aztecs), while part stayed in Egypt and eventually was amalgamated into the invading Arab population.  The Philistines eventually departed Canaan and settled North Africa to become the later Moors (and still later invaded Spain to absorb its prior Cushite population). 

 

Of Cush, some became the Samaritans transplanted from Babylon to Canaan with the House of Israel deportations; some went to India and became the Dravidians; some went to Spain and were later absorbed by the invading Moors; some went to Italy and became the modern Italians; and some stayed in Ethiopia to miscegenate with behemah slaves. 

 

The Canaan Line

 

Of Canaan, many stayed and miscegenated with the later children of Lot (to produce the Moabites and Ammonites); some crossed with the line of Ishmael to become the modern Arabs; some crossed with the line of Esau (to be discussed below); some went east to become people of the great Malay migrations out of East Asia to the Pacific Islands; and some stayed in Canaan land to miscegenate with the conquering tribes of Israel.

 

In time, Noah got drunk and his nakedness was uncovered (Gen 9:23).  Since Noah placed a curse on Canaan for this (Gen 9:25), Canaan and/or his father Ham did something wrong with Noah.  Did Ham rape Noah’s wife to produce Canaan (but the context allows that the act involved Noah and not his wife).  Noah was the victim in that Ham/Canaan homosexuality raped Noah or that they castrated Noah so he would have no sons to compete with Canaan for the land. 

 

In mythology, Ham was Cupid, a bisexual.  Canaan had a problem in that his descendants miscegenated with the Behemah in the land.  And some of Canaan’s descendants at Sodom and Gomorrah turned to homosexuality. 

 

Avraham

 

Around 2000 BCE, the call came to Avraham to come to Canaan as YHWH would give him the land--that had formerly been granted to Arphaxad (Gen 12:1-8; 15:18).

 

Despite knowing not to mix with the line of Cain, via Ham, Avraham did produce a child Ishmael thru Hagar, an Egyptian woman.  He also married Keturah and six sons who could have come from the Cain line via Canaan, Mizriaim or Cush.  But the line of Avraham was reckoned thru his son Yitzchak who married his own kind, the same with grandson Yakov Yisrael. 

 

Gen 21:21 Ishmael married an Egyptian woman to produce the modern 12 nations of the Arabs.

 

Gen 36:1-43 gives the line of Esau/Edom who a daughter of Ishmael and two or more women of Canaan to produce 11 or 13 nations of Edomites.  Esau and his Hittite wife Adah bore his son Eliphaz.  Eliphaz and his Horite concubine Timna had the oldest son Amalek who eventually took over the Esau land at Mount Seir as the other Edomites moved on to other lands.  Besides the Horites, Mount Seir also had some people named Kenites which means the sons of Kain, some of which mixed with the Esau line.  Maybe they had survived the flood. 

 

The Canaanite-Amalekite Problem

 

Deut 23:2-8 reflects the position of YHWH on allowing racially mixed persons to be members of His Congregation—viz:

 

Deut 23:2

A bastard (Heb mamzer) shall not enter into the congregation of (YHWH); even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of (YHWH).

 

23:3

An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of (YHWH); even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of (YHWH) for ever:

 

23:4

Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

 

23:5

Nevertheless (YHWH thy ELOHIM) would not hearken unto Balaam; but (YHWH thy ELOHIM) turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because (YHWH thy ELOHIM) loved thee.

 

23:6

Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.

 

23:7

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.

 

23:8

The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of (YHWH) in their third generation.

 

In this cite from Deut 23, it is clear that with the mention of Balaam that the idea of illicit sex is introduced.  In fact, the Hebrew mamzer is precisely the definition of a racially mixed person.  The general rule seems to be that a ten-generation exclusion applies (that is if the mixed line continues to mix back with a true Shemite line from Adam for the number of generations cited).  But notice that the exclusion rule is to the third generation of the Edomite and Egyptian lines.  By the way, this exclusion seems to be the basis of the condemnation of the racial mixtures in Ezra and Nehemiah. 

 

Gen 24-27 details the history of the Yitzchak who married Rebekah and supposedly, per Judaism and Christianity, produced twin sons—Esau and Yakov.  Gen 25:23 opens the door to the possibility that the twins may have had different fathers in the statement that Rebekah was pregnant with two different peoples.  In mentioning this possibility, it must be said that Rebekah seems to have been a very good woman.  But Yitzchak did like Avraham with Sarah.  To save his own hide, Yitzchak was ready to palm her off on other men (Gen 26:6-7).

 

In any case, Esau (father of the eventual Edomites) struggled with his twin brother Yakov during the pregnancy of their mother (Gen 25:21-23).  In time, Esau sold his birthright to Yakov for a bowl of soup (Gen 25:33).  Later, Yakov took his blessings as well (Gen 27:19-30). 

 

This backdrop brought on a perpetual hatred by Esau for his brother and the desire and plan by Esau to kill Yakov (Gen 27:41).  Esau moved down to the Mount Seir area and miscegenated with the fallen Canaanite line of Satan-Cain-Ham and became a fornicator (Heb 12:16).  Yakov meanwhile went to Mesopotamia and took wives from among his own people.  These marriages in time defined the lineage and genetic differences of Esau versus those of Yakov.

 

Gen 34:1-30 has the story of the rape of Yakov’s daughter Dinah by the Canaanite Shechem, son of Hamor, and the revenge of Dinah’s brothers Shimon and Levi who wiped out the Hamor clan.  They killed the males and enslaved the women and children.

 

Gen 36:1-43 defines the genealogy of the fallen line of Esau-Edom and outline of his family as it mixed and miscegenated with the fallen line of Satan-Cain-Ham-Canaan in the Mount Seir area south-southeast of the Dead Sea.  Esau’s oldest son was Eliphaz (Gen 36:4).  Amalek was the oldest son of Eliphaz (Gen 36:12), meaning that Esau's hereditary birthright and possession of the Mount Seir area passed to Eliphaz and finally to Amalek.

 

Gen 38:1-30 gives Yehuda marrying a Canaanite woman and producing three sons with her.  The first two died and the third, Shelah, survived among Yehudah’s descendants.  While the first and second married Tamar, a Aramaen, she didn’t get pregnant before their deaths, so Yehuda lay with her and produced twin sons which set up the line to Dawid. 

 

Gen 41:45-52 tells the story of Joseph’s elevation in Egypt and his marriage to Asenath, daughter of Poti-Phera, a priest of On, which marriage produced two sons—Manasseh and Ephraim.  The racial background on Asenath is not clear in the Word.  There were large numbers of Shemites in Egypt so both of her parents could be Shemites.  Jewish commentators suggest that she was a mixed woman of Ham and Shem (allowing that Joseph’s sons could be in Congregation of YHWH if they met the three generation test of Deut 23:7-8, as discussed above).

 

Gen 46:5-27 offers the story of the movement of Yakov’s family to Egypt.  Gen 46:5 notes the son of a Canaanitish woman named Shaul in the family of Shimon.  It is not clear that Shaul was a son of Shimon; some commentators suggest that he was a son of the raped Dinah and Shimon adopted him. 

 

Gen 46:12 tells of the movement of the mixed Canaanite Shelah, son of Yehudah, to Egypt with Yakov’s family.  Thus, there were at least two lines of mixed Canaanites (Shaul and Shelah) in the entourage going down to Egypt.  It would appear that these Canaanites further mixed with at least the Shimon and Yehudah lines in Egypt. 

 

The Exodus details the movement of Israel out of Egypt and the conflict with the Amalekites.  By the time of the Exodus, only Amalek remained in the Mount Seir area as the other descendants of Esau had moved on (i.e., the Phoenicians to the coast of Canaan and the others to eventual Turkestan).  With the passage of Mount Seir to Amalek, the perpetual hatred and desire to kill Yakov and his descendants passed as well to Amalek (Ezek 35:5; Jasher 58:28). This brought about Amalek's attack on Israel during the Exodus (Ex 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19).

 

To understand Amalek's attack and attempt to destroy Israel during the Exodus, it would be well to review the passage of Esau's hatred to Eliphaz and Amalek in Jasher 29 and the writings of Menachem K. Kasher in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation.  Jasher 29:31-41 notes that Esau commissioned his oldest son Eliphaz to kill Yakov.  So Eliphaz took ten of his mother's brothers with him and lurked after Yakov near Shechem.  But YHWH caused Eliphaz to be afraid and back off.  Thereupon, Eliphaz stole Yakov's property and took it to his father in Mount Seir.  Esau was furious because Eliphaz had failed to kill Yakov.  So, per an ancient Jewish Midrash, Kasher (v. viii, p.247) gives it that Esau later gave the same charge to his grandson Amalek. 

 

Following their attempt to kill Israel during the Exodus (Ex 17:14; Num 24:20; Deut 25:17-19; I Sam 15:2-3), YHWH ordered Israel to kill all of the Amalekite men, women and children--because they were so genetically evil.  Naturally, Israel, with so-called Christian love, refused to exterminate them; so they survived for the next 3,000 years to now bring havoc on Israel in the age-end (Ezek 36:1-7 and Psalms 83:2, 7).  From the time of Esau's charge to Amalek, to destroy Yakov Israel, Amalek has been working full time to fulfill that commission. 

 

To appreciate the Amalekite evil, one must take another look at the Hebrew Old Testament—which is accepted by Muslims and Christians as well as Jews.  The history of the Khazars reveals in the OT why they are so clannish and evil in their dealings with others.  As discussed above, these early writings fully explain their evil and why The CREATOR Himself has hated/opposed them for the past almost 4,000 years.

 

Thus, the Old Testament Prophets have views similar to those of Judaism on their genetic evil.  Obadiah 1:2-5 has it that "Comparatively small in number, small in honor, not merely despised, but 'greatly despised;' arrogant, 'Who shall bring me down to the ground?;' notoriously ambitious for money and power, exalting themselves 'as an eagle;' and rapacious beyond all measure or mercy.  Even gleaners of grapes would leave a few for others.  But the greed of these people is insatiable. They covet all for themselves.  These are the marks of Esau-Edom." (July 1999, "Destiny Editorial Letter"). 

 

IV--EDOM AND ITS DIVISIONS

 

Very quickly, in the South, the old land area of Seir (which became Edom) was associated with Eliphaz.  In Iyov’s day, it was evidently the Edomite Eliphaz from Teman in the East who came to see Iyov.  Surely, he was from the Seir Mountains area if Iyov was in Egypt. 

 

It seems true that the old Edom territory of Seir (the first Edomite controlled area) was passed on to Esau’s oldest son Eliphaz who, in turn, passed it on to his oldest son Amalek.  Since these Amalekites would have likely stayed in their inherited ancestral home the longest, it would seem that all the other Edomites migrated out at very early times. 

 

Though the sons of Eliphaz (except Amalek) were assuredly in the Seir area in the early days of Yisrael, there is some prevailing evidence that they did not stay there long since none of them seem to have been mentioned in the area in later years, nor were their names ever associated with any particular geographical regions in Edom over time (in the context that they had continued to live there, except for possibly Teman). 

 

Having now suggested that only Amalek remained in the (South) Seir area (actually from the Exodus on), the question must come up on what happened to all of those other Edomites?  As pointed out in Gen 36, there is every reason to believe that each of the sons or grandsons of Esau were destined to commence and found nations--just as was true with Ishmael and Yakov-Yisrael. 

 

The most obvious destination for a number of Edomites (from Eliphaz) has to be Phoenicia because Josephus said that they were Edomites.  Phoenicia covered a vast territory on the West coast of Canaan, all the way North to the Eastern edge of Anatolia in Asia Minor.  This kingdom was well established by the time of the Israelite judges and the later kingdom days.  

 

Some Edomites evidently moved on East into Central Asia to establish the once great Turkestan empire (which exists today in a divided form in Central Asia).  Manifestly, at a very early time, the Edomites became identified as Turks or Turkic people, which was to remain with many of them for identification for the rest of their history. 

 

In terms of language (which is also very useful from the standpoint of racial and ethnic identifications), they largely speak the Altaic language which was anciently found in much of Central Asia (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 465).  They must have originated or at least adopted the Altaic language upon leaving Palestine. 

 

These Turkestan Edomites in Central Asia miscegenated greatly with Mongoloids over the centuries.  Hence, many of them show strong evidence of the Mongoloid racial genes--even to this day.  This ancient kingdom survives presently in the areas of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistsan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kurdestan. 

 

The Tie to Islam

 

Many of the Turkestan Edomites were probably from Esau’s marriages with Mahalath (Bashemath) and Oholibamah, although it is possible that some of Eliphaz’s descendants also migrated into Central Asia to help form the Turkestan kingdom.  By the 9th and 10 centuries CE, most of these Turkic peoples converted to Islam (“An Encyclopedia of World History,” p. 348).  

 

In particular, it is very logical that Esau’s Ishmaelite marriage would have linked some of his children to the Moslem religion of the Ishmaelite Arabs.  This probably started happening in the Turkestan area of Central Asia.

 

This backdrop brings up the enigma of the modern Iranians.  They probably are the surviving remnant of the old Medeo-Persian empire.  While the Edomite territory in Turkestan certainly touched or overlapped a part of old Persia, and while maybe some of the modern Iranians are Edomites, there may be another explanation for these people.  Certainly, the ancient Persians were not Edomites.  But in looking at the situation in modern Iran and the fact that the ancient empire was made up of the Medes and Persians, it is highly plausible that the primary peoples inhabiting this territory were the descendants of Keturah.  They went East from Canaan (Gen 25:6). 

 

Since Keturah bore Avraham sons named Medan and Midian (which has to raise questions about the later Medianites), and since they were likely allied with the Arabs in the East, the case can be made that the children of Keturah are the progenitors of the later Medes and Persians.  With this background, it seems possible that the modern state of Iran can be traced largely to the children of Keturah with some miscegenation with Arabs, Edomites and Coloreds as well as perhaps even some Israelite influence in the days of Cyrus. 

 

The fact that Iran is 90% Shiite makes one be suspicious that the Shiite faith is largely a product of the Keturah influence on the Moslems.  The Shiite faith is also strong in Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Yemen as a matter of fact.  Azerbaijan is another nation which well could be from the descendants of Keturah.  Undoubtedly, the sons of Keturah produced nations as happened with the sons of Yisrael, Esau and Ishmael. 

 

More on Eliphaz from Esau

 

That leaves the several children of Eliphaz, some of whom apparently in time also became known as Turks or Turkic peoples.  Of course, Amalek inherited the old Edom territory to the South of Canaan and Moab.  His clan obviously stayed there for the next many centuries.  So, what about the other children of Eliphaz? 

 

There was a geographical place, apparently in the Northeast part of old Edom (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 965), called Teman (Gen 36:34).  Eliphaz was identified with it, c1700 BCE (Job 2:11).  This Teman area in or near Edom likely surfaced from Teman, son of Eliphaz, who must have lived there for a while. 

 

At a very early time, this territory was known as the land of the Temani or Temanites (Gen 36:34; I Chron 1:45).  But there are no references establishing Temanites as living there after the Exodus.  So they must have moved on previously--to be shortly established. 

 

There were towns in Yisrael in the North called Timnath in Ephraim, in Yehudah and in the important Dan area (Josh 15:10; Jud 14:1-5).  People in Dan’s Timnath were known as Timnites (Jud 15:6); and thus, descendants of Timna.  While this town in Dan was evidently in Philistia in Samson’s day, it could have been a part of the earlier Phoenician kingdom that controlled much of the coast. 

 

The point being is that there is a possibility that the Timna descendants of Eliphaz could be the Edomites who named the Timnath in the later Dan area and founded the Phoenician kingdom.  Whether the Phoenicians came solely from Timna or from some of the other Eliphaz sons as well cannot be ascertained by this writer. 

 

These Phoenicians were apparently great sea men and traveled much of the world’s waters in their boats or ships.  They settled several areas of the Mediterranean--like Carthage in North Africa.  Some Phoenicians even visited North America and left numerous monuments with their writings.  A number of these records in stone have been found from New Mexico to Ohio.  There may have been some Israelites accompanying these Phoenicians (since some Hebrew writings have also been discovered with the Phoenician records). 

 

For whatever it is worth, it should be noted that the Dec 20, 2002, “The Week” (p. 22) had a story on “Europeans:  The first Americans” which places Caucasians in North America perhaps earlier than the Mongol migrations across the Bering Strait.  An examination of an allegedly 13,000-year old skull found in Mexico City showed it to be of a Caucasian woman.  So Caucasians were in North America at a very early time. 

 

The previously quoted Yair Davidy discusses some people called the Berotins who lived at Var, near the mouth of the Rhone in Southern France.  Per Davidy, they had a Phoenician origin (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 79-80).  Davidy goes on to suggest that the early Phoenicians had a trade monopoly over the Mediterranean area and beyond.  He says that they established settlements in North Africa, in Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily and also had trading emporiums in Spain and Britain (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 214). 

 

Valerie Martlew, quoted previously from “Lost Celts,” allows that as Celts, the Phoenicians settled portions of Spain and Portugal and that the Spanish Basques were Celtiberians--hence, possibly Phoenicians (Oct 1998 “New Beginnings,” p. 12).  “Lost Celts” (p. 10-11) also presents some fascinating information on the find of possible Celtiberians (Phoenicians) in early China. 

 

This story received much publicity in 1988 when some 3,000-year old mummies were found in Western China.  These mummies were of Caucasian peoples, tall, long nosed and red haired.  This red hair is a tip off that they well could be descendants of Esau--perhaps Phoenicians.  Similar finds of red headed people were reported years earlier from the borders of Russia, China and Mongolia. 

 

Many of the Phoenicians eventually settled in Ireland; and there, or in earlier Canaan, miscegenated extensively with people of Yisrael’s tribe of Dan.  Thus, the peoples of Southern Ireland appear to be a mixture of Phoenicians and the tribe of Dan.  They have largely produced the Gaelic branch of the Celtic peoples.

 

Some of the Phoenicians may have inhabited other parts of Britain at an early time (in the context of the Celtiberians) and were forced to some of the remote areas of Wales and Scotland by subsequent invaders.  This outward push and motion also likely occurred with the darker colored Picts. 

 

The later Celts, who came out of the Middle East, were known as Cimmerians in history.  Possibly, these Cimmerians were not Phoenicians originally, but were likely of Yisrael’s tribes of Asher, Naftali, Zevulun and Yissakhar.  They, too, may have had some miscegenation with the Phoenicians in Canaan land or during later migrations.  It’s hard to say for sure whether Yisrael’s tribe of Dan was a part of these Cimmerian peoples or not.  Perhaps some of them of them were, while some other portion of Dan left the Middle East long before the Cimmerian development involving the other Northwestern tribes of Yisrael (which perhaps occurred during the Assyrian deportations). 

 

All of these peoples may have miscegenated and amalgamated somewhat in Palestine, although the bulk of the primary Phoenician miscegenation with the tribe of Dan could have happened in later years in Ireland.  In any case, this miscegenated and mixed Gaelic Celtic peoples in Southern Ireland seem to be a blend of Danites and racially dominant Phoenicians. 

 

It is interesting that the Celtic peoples of the British Isles and France carry a significant RH negative factor (plus A2 type) in their blood.  It seems highly probable that this blood phenomenon arose when the Celts lived in old Canaan land.  Possibly both the Phoenician Celts and Israelite Celts miscegenated greatly with the indigenous Canaanites.  This makes one be suspicious that the Canaanite descendants of Satan-Cain must have carried some heavy RH negative, blood type A2 genes.  Of course, the Phoenician Edomites already had strong Canaanite genes in their ancestry which could have powerfully influenced their lineage. 

 

The book of Jasher tied Eliphaz’s son Zepho to the land and people of Chittim (probably Cyprus, but also possibly some of the islands to the West, like Sicily, near Italy).  In time, Zepho allegedly became king of these people (Jasher 41:25).  He ruled Chittim as well as the land of Italia for 50 years (Jasher 61:25).  Since some of the people of Cyprus are Turks, this connection to Eliphaz makes sense. 

 

Yair Davidy mentions an early Egyptian illustration of the physical type of a Cypriot ruler (of Cyprus) as being “light red beard, light coloured eye (blue or pink)...pink skin... Traits characteristic of a certain type of Syro-Palestinian which one finds (illustrated) in many Thebon (Egyptian) tombs” (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 205). 

 

The next large Edomite territory was the Turkic Muslim Ottoman empire which initially seems to have involved Edomites from Eliphaz.  While the empire vanished by the end of WWI, the evidence is substantial that the Edomite peoples inhabiting much of it remained.  Apparently, there were several tribes of Edomites which came to inhabit the area of the once great Ottoman empire.  The earliest and most notable were the Seljuk Turks, who were a sect of a larger definition called the Ghuzz Turks that lived in old Turkestan (“An Encyclopedia of World History,” p. 272).  The Seljuk Turks gained power in Western Asia in about 1037 CE and began a conquest to the East. 

 

The Ottoman Turks came along much later (c13-14th century), when they came out of the East (apparently out of the steppes of Turkestan in Central Asia, Aug 1999 “Destiny Editorial Letter,” p. 2) to conquer the Seljuk Turks and many other peoples living to the West in South-central Asia, Western Asia (Anatolia and Iraq) and Eastern Europe (in Southeastern Europe and North to Hungary). 

 

While the Ottoman Turks may or may not have been from Eliphaz, likely many of the Mongol-Turkish peoples inhabiting the old Ottoman empire were.  It seems very evident that Edomite Turks started settling in Anatolia at a very early time.  Surely, these early settlers were from Eliphaz, who must have come in from the South. 

 

The early Phoenician empire extended North to the Eastern edge of Asia Minor, which from very early days seems to have been inhabited by Hittites.  In time, these Hittites came under pressure from various peoples who were moving into the Asia Minor territory.  William L. Langer suggests that around 1230 BCE, invasions by “Sea Peoples” put an end to the old Hittite empire (“An Encyclopedia of World History,” p. 50). 

 

While many of the Mediterranean peoples were known as sea peoples, certainly the Phoenicians were one of the most famous.  Consequently, it seems evident that some of the Phoenicians did migrate North, although there were other peoples living in Asia Minor from very early times (including some Israelites, as the NT establishes). 

 

In the “Compendium of World History” v. II, p. 162), Dr. Herman L. Hoeh indicates that the modern Turks (of Turkey) descend from Teman, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau.  Yair Davidy also suggests early Edomite settlements in Anatolia (“Lost Israelite Identity,” (p. 228).  Actually, this is quite logical in the context that the nearby Phoenicians were also evidently descendants of Eliphaz. 

 

Previous comments noted that there was a Teman area in old Edom.  While this Temanite territory was mentioned around 1700 BCE in the Book, it is evident that the Temanites must have soon left there because there is no further mention of Temanites in that land. 

 

Prophetically, this Teman area is mentioned several times by some of Yisrael’s prophets.  Sometimes these references are clearly to the geographical area (similar to the case of the prophetic area of Edom) and sometimes they are to the people (Turkey and/or the eventual Turkish people) who clearly had left there in long ages past. 

 

Likely, some of the Temanites relocated North to settle in Asia Minor at the end of the Hittite kingdom (although some of them could have come later, as a part of the conquering Ottoman Turks).  Since Eliphaz was one-half Hittite from his mother, it would have been a logical move for Teman to have moved into Anatolia of the Asia Minor area and proceeded on to miscegenate with any Hittites who were not killed or who did not move away. 

 

Of course, Eliphaz had other sons--like Omar, Kenaz, Gatam (could he be the progenitor of the Ghuzz Turks, who lived in Turkestan?) and possibly Korah.  Without being dogmatic, this writer takes the stance that they probably controlled some of the other Muslim Ottoman empire nations beyond Turkey--particularly in Southern Russia and Southeastern Europe (like Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania).  

 

Yair Davidy notes that the place name of Seir appears in Cilicia in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and in European (Greece) Thrace (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 60).  Davidy also makes mention of an Edomite enclave in old Russian Armenia, evidently in a territory called Uratu which was a land of Horite culture (ibid, p. 59-60). 

 

It’s hard to be exactly sure where this Edomite land was located.  But a good guess would be in some of the areas of the Transcaucasia (that formed the old Turkestan empire, like modern Kazakhstan).  Since the Horites amalgamated with the Edomites, one is left to ask if this Uratu people could have been from one of the other sons of Eliphaz. 

 

One More Note on Identifications

 

Besides race and culture, two more of the primary points of identification of the racial-ethnic classification of peoples remain language and religion.  In this context, a couple of observations seem germane in the present discussion on Eliphaz. 

 

While the Phoenicians (evidently descending from Eliphaz) appear to have held onto their historic Semitic language, during their long stay in Palestine, it gradually gave way to a so-called Punic dialect, as the Phoenicians moved West to Carthage and Britain.  Previous remarks in this publication focused upon the connection between this early Punic language and the Irish Celtic language. 

 

But contrariwise, the Phoenicians who migrated North into Asia Minor soon lost their Semitic language and adopted the more predominate Altaic language commonly associated with Edomites.  Even the Khazars (to be described later herein), and evidently from Amalek, adopted an Altaic language.  Much of this transition could be attributable to the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia from the East much later, however. 

 

A similar type of demarcation seems to surface in religion between the descendants of Eliphaz moving West (into Ireland, Sicily, etc), as opposed to those that went North to Anatolia or East to Turkestan.  The Irish, Sicilians and perhaps others moving West into Europe or North Africa all became Roman Catholics.  Yet, the Eastern Edomites seem to be Muslims.  

 

Though this contrast is understandable, in the context of Esau’s sons from Mahalath (Bashemath) and Oholibamah, as opposed to Eliphaz from Adah the Hittite, the difference still seems puzzling and particularly for Eliphaz. 

 

There is also a strange twist to this dilemma in that the Amalekites, from Eliphaz, mostly seem to have eventually adopted Judaism (although some few evidently became Samaritans), as cited earlier and to be further assessed below.  The writer of this study has no particular explanation on why the descendants of Eliphaz should bounce around on the question of religion, although it makes some sense in the case of the Amalekites. 

 

Significantly, the Amalekites (and perhaps the other children of Eliphaz in particular) are actually very much linked to Satanism/Luciferianism.  In this sense, their linkages to Judaism and Christianity and the Muslim and Samaritan faiths mean little or nothing. 

 

The Bottom Line on the National Edomites

 

Anyway, the bottom line here is that just as Yisrael and Ishmael were each to produce 12-13 tribes or nations of peoples, it appears evident that Esau likewise became the progenitor of a number of nations or peoples (possibly in the vein of Muslim states, like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistsan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kurdestan, Turkey, and Albania and among Christian peoples, like the Southern Irish and Sicilians; and the Amalekites amid the Jews (apparently many Amalekite Khazars still remain in South-central Asia as Jews, Muslims and/or Christians in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). 

 

Among the primary descendants of Esau, some fourteen of them are called “dukes” or chiefs in the Word (Gen 36:18).  This factor could be relevant in terms of the ultimate number of Edomite tribes or nations. 

 

Next, the number ten has been associated with Amalek.  It might be that, as a minimum, Amalek was to generate at least ten groupings or definitions of people (per Esther 9:12 and Jasher 29:31-41). 

 

Early Edomite Hatred

 

The earliest record of real Edomite oppression and hatred against Yisrael comes from the book of Jasher and the “Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation” by Menachem M. Kasher.  These sources describe some of the most extraordinary realities of Edomite hatred toward Yisrael.  From an ancient Jewish Midrash, Kasher (v. viii, p. 247) gave some Edomite background information by noting that the wicked Esau imposed an oath on his firstborn son Eliphaz to kill Yakov and that the birthright would revert to him.  Eliphaz was afraid.  So he ended up by going to Yakov and stealing his possessions. 

 

The book of Jasher (29:31-41) gives the details of this event.  After Esau secretly told Eliphaz to kill Yakov, Eliphaz took ten of his mother’s brethren with him and lurked after Yakov near Shechem.  YHWH caused Yakov to find favor in Eliphaz’s eyes.  So he didn’t kill him; but rather, stole his property. 

 

Esau was indignant with Eliphaz.  But he went on to take possession of Yakov’s property that was stolen by Eliphaz (Jasher 29:41).  In any case, with Eliphaz’s failure, Esau gave the same charge to Eliphaz’s oldest son Amalek, who agreed to the task, as Kasher notes. 

 

Early Edomite Attacks on Yisrael in Egypt

 

The Book of Jasher offers some information on possible Edomite attacks or plans for attacks on the Israelite people living in Egypt.  The first record seems to have surfaced around the time of the death of Yakov-Yisrael, c1700 BCE (Gen 49:33).  The Jasher account says that the Esau clan was dwelling in Seir at that time (Jasher 58:14). 

 

Apparently, the Edomite King Bela (in his 30th year) entered into a league with the children of the East to go and attack Yisrael and rescue their kinsman Zepho being held captive by the Israelites.  So the Ishmaelites, Edomites and others assembled at Seir and moved to Raamses. 

 

In the 50th year of Yisrael being in Egypt, Yosef and the Israelites attacked this evil force and defeated it and killed Bela (Jasher 58:14-19).  The Edomite Jobab replaced Bela.  As the Book of Jasher reports, the Edomites hated the sons of Yakov from that day on forward (Jasher 58:28). 

 

The Edomite Zepho got away and went to Dinhabah and became a friend of Angeas, king of Africa.  He periodically tried to get Angeas to attack the Israelites in Egypt (Jasher 60:1-6).  But Angeas would not initially agree.  In time, Angeas hearkened to Zepho’s words and made ready to attack.  But in the last moment, he backed out (Jasher 61:5-11).  

 

Zepho reportedly got mad and moved to Chittim and became prominent in that area.  In time, Zepho became king (Jasher 61:25) of the people in Chittim (which might be Cyprus--per “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 164 and/or the islands off Italy, p 173, 217, 225 “Lost Israelite Identity”). 

 

With his continuing hatred for Yisrael, Zepho reportedly contacted his relative Hadad, king of Edom, and purposed that they join together in an attack upon Yisrael.  The Seir Edomites hearkened unto Zepho and they gathered together with the Ishmaelites in Hebron (Jasher 64:16).  Since the Israelites were then effectively slaves, this attack meant an attack upon Egypt for all purposes (Jasher 64:30).  In this instance, the Israelites in time entered the fray with Egypt and defeated the Edomites (Jasher 64:41). 

 

While these writings from the Book of Jasher may or may not be correct since that book is not in the accepted Jewish canon of the OT, the fact remains that it does seem to offer some ideas on ancient traditional beliefs about the continuing Edomite hatred, plans and efforts to destroy Yisrael.  These efforts have continued over the ages. 

 

V--THE AMALEKITES

 

The Amalekites, Revisited

 

Certainly, Yisrael’s greatest enemy of all has been the Amalekite descendants of Esau.  There are any number of texts which describe the great, historic hatred that the Amalekites have had for Yisrael. 

 

In the “Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation,” Menachem M. Kasher (v. viii, p. 247) offers several interpretations on the meaning of this name Amalek.  He says that they are a lapping, greedy, locust-like people which multiplied like locusts and that Amalek was like a fly that is irresistibly drawn to a sore.  Kasher’s most pungent description came when he quoted R. Berechiah (c12th-13th centuries CE) who said that Amalek was called “la-luk” because he came to suck out the blood of the Israelites like a dog (ibid, v. viii, p. 247).

 

The Attack During the Exodus

 

Mention here might be directed again to Yisrael’s Exodus from Egypt.  Early on, Amalek became the first primary enemy to attack Yisrael.  An early Jewish Midrash taught that Amalek launched his attack on Yisrael from the Seir mountains (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 51).  Apparently, the Amalekites came some 400 parasangs to make this assault upon Yisrael (1,600 miles, per the “Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel,” p. 502).  A parasang is about 4,000 yards. 

 

Kasher (v. viii, p. 247, and as outlined in Num 13:29) quotes R. Judah ha-Nasi as saying that the Amalekites actually mustered/led five nations (the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites and Canaanites--plus themselves) to attack Yisrael.  Judah, ha-Nasi (135-220 CE), was a great grandson of Gamaliel I and a descendant of Hillel (whose importance is discussed at length in other comments at this website). 

 

Also, Kasher (v. viii, p. 247) quotes R. Jose b. Halafta who suggested that Amalek came with a plan and gathered all the other nations.  Since he did not gather any of his fellow Edomite relatives in this assault on Yisrael, it suggests that they were all already removed from the Seir area. 

 

Josephus made the case that the Amalekites sent ambassadors to their neighboring nations and exhorted them to join together against the Israelites.  The famous Jewish historian indicated that after sending out these embassages, “among one to another, they resolved to attack the Hebrews in battle” (“Antiquities of the Jews,” p. 67-68, verse 2.1). 

 

The conclusion from the Scriptures and the various Jewish authorities remains the same.  The Amalekites were apparently the only Edomites still in the South.  Therefore, none of the other Edomite families were contacted--only the various Canaanite peoples mentioned.  Other Edomite tribes weren’t contacted because they had obviously moved on out of the area to new lands. 

 

As Josephus communicated, all of the parties contacted agreed among themselves to attack Yisrael.  Obviously, there were no other Edomite tribes in the South to be invited into this alliance against Yisrael.  If any other Edomite tribes were in the South, the Amalekites would have contacted them and they would have been a part of the confederation (since they all agreed mutually to attack Yisrael). 

 

“The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch” (p. 502) communicate that this Amalekite assault and war on Yisrael was “on account of the disagreement which had been between Esau and Jakob.”  Kasher (v. viii, p. 247) echoes the same idea when he noted that Amalek made this attack to avenge his ancestor Esau. 

 

If this motivation was present in the hearts and minds of the Amalekites, it is quite manifest that this Edomite hatred and opposition to Yakov/Yisrael was clearly a genetic or racial disposition.  Most Christians could never believe that people can possess hatred in their genes.  But this account certainly communicates it. 

 

This Amalekite attack was the occasion when Moshe was able to raise his hands, so that Yisrael prevailed, and when his hands were lowered, the Amalekites prevailed (Ex 17:8-16).  Because of this incident, YHWH declared that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Ex 17:16). 

 

Some Jewish commentators see this as correctly being because the hand of Amalek is against YHWH’s throne--YHWH will have war with Amalek for ever.  Another interpretation here could be that YHWH’s true followers and/or people will have conflict with the descendants of Amalek perpetually in the future. 

 

Not content with their first attack, the Amalekites apparently made at least one more assault on Yisrael during the Israelite Exodus (Num 14:43-45).  “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 29) expressly defines this attack in Numbers 14 as a second attack which occurred some years later.  The first attack took place at Rephidim while the Numbers 14 assault took place evidently near Hormah.  Deuteronomy 1:44 outlines what seems to be an Amorite attack upon Yisrael near Hormah.  At a first reading, one would believe that the Amorite attack was something different from the Amalekite-Canaanite attack in Numbers 14. 

 

But Dr J. H. Hertz, in the “Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 742), suggests that both of these references describe one attack.  Hertz says that Amorite in Deuteronomy 1:44 is a general term for the inhabitants of Canaan.  This conclusion of Dr Hertz may or may not be correct.  In any case, the Amalekites did seem to strike Yisrael a second time. 

 

Details of this second attack seem sketchy and limited.  Yet, it must have taken place and succeeded in at least causing Yisrael some discomfort, as they possibly withdrew to Hormah, which is not clearly defined--though “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 491) says that Hormah was formally Zephath, a town on the South of Palestine. 

 

The Edom Land Area

 

There is another interesting event associated with Yisrael and the Edomites in the period of the Exodus.  Just before entering the promise land, YHWH commanded the Israelites that in their march North near the Edomites to not attack them or harm them or take their land away from them in any manner (Deut 2:4-6).  This command was most interesting. 

 

Thus, it seems to have prompted Moshe to send messengers to the king of Edom, asking if Yisrael could pass through his land.  Yisrael promised to stick to the roadway (the king’s highway), to do the Edomites no harm and to even pay for any water drunk (Num 20:14-21; Jud 11:17).  But the king of Edom refused the offer and Yisrael had to take a long trek around Edom.  In view of YHWH’s command (Deut 1:4-7), Yisrael by-passed any decision to confront the Edomites. 

 

On the surface, this event might allow that the king of Edom and his nation were not all Amalekites.  Or as a minimum, by the way that this report was handled, one could make the case that Edom was something bigger than just the Amalekites.  In other words, Edom could then have been a confederation of Edomite tribes.  But the better view has to be that these Southern Edomites were Amalekites at that time.  The geographical area they inhabited was known as Edom.  The king of that territory was the king of Edom, regardless of whether he was an Amalekite or not. 

 

It should be noted that Yisrael was at Kadesh when Moshe sent his request to the king of Edom (Num 20:14).  Kadesh was then on the border of Edom under the authority of the king of Edom (Num 20:16).  Previous comments have clarified Genesis 14:7--which described Kadesh as being the country of the Amalekites (at least, in the days of Moshe and the Exodus).  Besides their occupancy of Kadesh (either permanently or temporarily, since they were nomads), the Amalekites also dwelt in other parts of the territory of Edom.  For example, they were identified in context with the Seir Mountains (Num 24:18-21) and expressly in the vale area South of the Dead Sea (Num 14:25). 

 

This valley reference was mentioned early in the Exodus.  It is important to address because The ELOHIM specifically told Yisrael to by-pass that area.  In this instance, His command in Numbers 14:25 closely resembled His later command in Deuteronomy 1:4-7.  In both situations, He was telling Yisrael to avoid a confrontation with the Amalek-Edomites.  The point of all this is that the Amalekites inhabited various portions of the geographical region known as Edom.  Being Edomites, this makes perfect sense.  Whether they were spread out in this huge territory or only nomadically wandered over it from time to time is unclear. 

 

The best bet is that the king of Edom was an Amalekite.  Although if he was a cousin from one of the other Edomite tribes which had not yet removed, it would not alter the basic premise that very quickly, by the Exodus or soon thereafter, only the Amalekites remained in the South to inhabit the old land area of Edom. 

 

Perhaps the most important reference of all that seems to limit the land area of Edom to the Amalekites in the Exodus days was penned by Moshe when he wrote about the five nations inhabiting the land before Yisrael (Num 13:29).  As noted previously, those five nations were:  Amalekites in the South (then in the vale and at Seir); the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites in the Mountains; and the Canaanites (apparently the rest of the collective Canaan peoples) by the sea and by the coasts of the Jordan. 

 

If there were other Edomite tribes in Edom, one has to wonder why they were not enumerated in this list of nations facing Yisrael.  Surely, all of the Edomite tribes in the South would have had to be listed since the Edom territory was directly in front of Yisrael’s march to the promise land (Num 20:17-21). 

 

Even in prophecy, there are reasons to believe that in certain instances the prophecies relating to Edom, and particularly in the geographical context, might refer to the Amalekites. 

 

This point was possibly made by the prophets Ovadyah, Amos and others.  For example, Obadiah 1:7 mentions an Edom confederacy (possibly of Amalek’s allies) and Amos refers to an Edom attack in which the Edomites pursued Yisrael with a sword and in anger (Amos 1:11).  Perhaps both of these references focus on the Amalekites and their attack on Yisrael during the Exodus, although both remarks could apply to the Phoenicians and/or the collective Edomites in a future context. 

 

More on the Amalekites

 

The final group of Edomites from Eliphaz (the Amalekites) stayed initially in the South in the Seir Mountains and Rift Valley Area (called the Vale), South of Moab (Num 13:29; 14:25).  It appears that these Amalekites became the primary Edomites who amalgamated with the Jews in the two periods of assimilation as will be described in comments to follow. 

 

Per Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24:20), it is manifestly clear that the Amalekite grandchildren of Esau were the Edomites who stayed in the Seir area to eventually assimilate with some Kenites who were there originally and/or later came there to settle as well.  This amazing prophecy by old Balaam also seems to link Amalek prophetically to the Seir Mountains (Num 24:18-21).  This prophetic connection goes a long way in helping to identify the Amalekites.

 

Having mentioned these Amalekites, who hated and hurt Yisrael so greatly in the context of Edomite oppression against Yisrael, some uninformed Christians will go back and cite Genesis 14:7 which mentions the “country” (correctly the fields in the Hebrew) of the Amalekites in the time of Avraham.  Some sources, like “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 31) suppose that this reference in Genesis established the original Amalekites in the time of the patriarchs and thus not the grandchildren descendants of Esau.  Actually, the wording in Genesis disproves that theory. 

 

The correct interpretation of the Genesis reference was supplied by the Jewish Midrash Rashi, as being: “‘all the country of the Amalekites’ must be understood to mean, ‘the country afterwards inhabited by the Amalekites,’” the descendants of Esau (“The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 51).

 

The conclusion here is that the Genesis remark is to represent a clarification of the geographical country, fields or land area that would later be inhabited by the Amalekites.  Actually, this area was to the South of Canaan, to include the Seir mountains and evidently some part of the Negev and Sinai (Num 13:29), since the Amalekites were nomadic and roamed over a large area in the South. 

 

It was from here or likely nearby that the Amalekites lived and attacked Yisrael during the Exodus (Ex 17:8; Deut 25:17-19).  Please note that in Moshe’s day (when he compiled the Torah), this land area of old Edom to the South of Canaan was known as the land or country of the Amalekites (Gen 14:7).  Clearly, it was synonymous with the land of Edom. 

 

Moreover, subsequent references to the Amalekites and their linkages to the various other descendants of Esau (their obvious relatives) and their connections with the Kenites in the Seir mountains also go to prove that the remark in Genesis has to be to the land area which the later Amalekites would inhabit. 

 

There seems to also be a later reference to some hill country of the Amalekites, North, in the territory of Ephraim (Jud 12:15).  The “Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. 2, p. 263) suggest that this name could be associated there with an early intrusion, temporary occupation or early settlement by the Amalekites.  This reference may have surfaced during the age of the Judges when Amalekites attacked Yisrael from time to time.  In fact, an earlier remark in Judges (Jud 5:14) allows that some Amalekites did have a conflict with Ephraim or that some Ephraimites dwelt in those Amalekite hills (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” v. 2, p. 197). 

 

Beyond the likelihood of an Amalekite harassing intrusion or guerrilla attack on some of the people of Ephraim and the attachment of their name to the hills where the assault may have taken place, there is also the possibility of some prophetic aspects of these references in Judges.  Since hills and mountains represent national powers, is it possible that these references may have some allegorical prophetic references to the age end when Amalekites assume positions of power and rulership over the people of Ephraim? 

 

The Southern Edomites Were Amalekites

 

In the days of the Judges and Israelite kingdom, most or all of the Scriptural references to the Edomites were made in the context of them being Amalekites.  If any non-Amalekite Edomites remained in the South after the Exodus, they never seemed to be singled out and separately identified, as was the Amalekites (or the Phoenicians in the North).  Therefore, none likely remained. 

 

While there were many Scriptural comments on Edom, most of these were in the context of geography or prophecy.  From the available Scriptural references, it could be suspected that from the Exodus on, only the Amalekites remained as Edomites in the old Seir area of Edom.  Since the Seir Mountains of old Edom prophetically seem to link to Amalek, one may suppose that prophetic references to Edom are to Amalek. 

 

Almost 500 years after the Exodus, the prophet Shmuel was to recall Deuteronomy 25:17 in the context of Amalek in old Edom.  He instructed Shaul to go out and smite them and kill all of them, including men, women and children (I Sam 15:2-3).  At that early time, the Kenites were allied with the Amalekites, apparently in Seir (I Sam 15:6). 

 

Shaul advised the Kenites to separate from the Amalekites and some did so at that time, although many earlier had likely already miscegenated with the Amalekites.  Also, some Kenites may have later joined back with the Amalekites in the Seir area to amalgamate, in the context of Balaam’s famous prophecy on the eventual future of these two peoples in the Seir area (Num 24:18-25). 

 

During this attack by Shaul on the Amalekites, Yisrael captured their king Agag.  Shmuel thought so bad about the Amalekites that he hewed Agag into several pieces (I Sam 15:33).  “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” explains this by saying that Shmuel cut some pieces of flesh from the live Agag and fed them to ostriches (Piska 3, p. 49, also explaining Job 18:13). 

 

Piska 3 in this source (p. 49) also quotes R. Samuel bar Abdimi, who suggested that Shmuel followed the practice of the heathen nations and had Agag bound in four directions and pulled apart in those four directions.  Piska 3 suggested that Agag asked Shmuel if he executes princes in such cruel ways (I Sam 15:32). 

 

Later, the Word reflects a war or some attacks by David upon the Amalekites (I Sam 27:8-10; 30:1-31; II Sam 1:1-13).  Elsewhere, there are remarks about David having subdued Edom and/or Amalek from which he took spoils and later gave the seizures to YHWH (II Sam 8:12; I Chron 18:11).  Thereupon, the survivors became servants to David (I Chron 18:13).  While David killed many of them, some survived.  The “Soncino Books of the Bible” (p. 256, I Chron 18:11-13) indicates that the Edomites in Edom were ruled by a deputy appointed by David.

 

It must be noted that II Samuel 8:12 identified these Edomites as Amalek and I Chronicles 18:11 refers to them as Edom and Amalek.  Yet, I Chronicles 18:13 calls them Edomites.  Since Edom is often a geographical reference, it would seem that David’s war was against the Amalekites then living in Edom. 

 

Perhaps this explains why the terms Edom, Edomites, Amalek and Amalekites are used interchangeably.  As the writers of Samuel and Chronicles both indicate, it seems proper to have referred to these people in the South as either Amalekites or Edomites.  Assuredly, all Amalekites are Edomites (but all Edomites are not Amalekites). 

 

Subsequently, in Yehoram’s day, these Edomites revolted from under Yehudah and appointed their own king and Yehoram smote them (I Chron 21:8-11).  As late as Hizkiyahu’s time, the Amalekites were still expressly identified in the South because the people of Shimon invaded Seir and killed many of them (I Chron 4:41-43). 

 

This reference to the Amalekites in Hizkiyahu’s days seems to be the last OT reference to the Edomites in the South, beyond a few prophetic remarks.  This last reference is important because it proves that the Edomites in the South were still Amalekites.  Later, the NT has the single text at Mark 3:8 which refers to the Idumea geographical area. 

 

Another Problem

 

There is another complication when just the words Edom or Edomite are used without a further definition.  Sometimes, this expression can apply to the Amalekites, as just noted; but otherwise, it might could apply to the collective Edomites, the old Edom land area or perhaps some other definition (i.e. Tyre or the Phoenicians). 

 

This last option might materialize in II Chronicles 28:17, where the Edomites attacked Yehudah and took captives in the days of Ahaz.  The context for this assault could connect it with Jericho and the Yehudah problems with Yisrael and Syria and the plea to the Assyrians (II Chron 28:15-17).  Historically, the Amalekites had previously attacked Yisrael and seized Jericho (Jud 3:13).  While it is plausible that the Amalekites attacked Jericho again, the reader is left with some uncertainty on this remark in II Chronicles 28:17. 

 

In the related presentation at II Kings 16:6, the “Soncino Books of the Bible” leaves open the possibility that Elath in the South was involved.  Soncino (p. 293, on II Chron 28:17) also connects the “again” of this remark back to II Chronicles 21:8 and the time of the Edomite confrontation with Yehoram, as outlined above.  Thus, Soncino builds the case for II Chronicles 28:17 to link to the Southern Amalek-Edomites.  

 

Alternatively, there was also a Tyre and/or Phoenician attack on Yehudah during the days of Yehoram (Joel 3:4-8; II Chron 21:16-22:1; and possibly Amos 1:6-11) which must not be ruled out in the context of Edom and/or the Edomites. 

 

Diminishing Use of the Amalekite Definition

 

However, in the late First Temple days and later in Second Temple days, there was a tendency to no longer refer to the Southern Edomites as Amalekites (though they were clearly Amalekites).  Usually, the place name of Edom or Idumea is referred to in the Word and especially in prophecy. 

 

Other Jewish writings in Second Temple days (like Josephus) also seem to refer to these people with the collective Edomite or Idumean description (i.e. the Herods) without a recognition that the people involved were Amalekites. 

 

There is a possibility that the identity of these Southern Edomites, as actually being Amalekites, had slipped from Jewish mentality in Second Temple days or that the Amalek references were edited out of the Tanakh in late Second Temple days or by the time of the work of the Masoretes. 

 

If this reasoning is true, OT references to Edomites (in the South) were actually to the Amalekites who inhabited that area; although after Shaul’s war with them, there were only a few clear references identifying the Amalekites as the Edomites in the South (I Sam 30:1-18; II Sam 1:1-13; 8:12; I Chron 4:43; 18:11). 

 

While Shaul killed many of them and though the survivors were subsequently subdued by David and later kings, the point is that they were never completely wiped out during the kingdom days.  They increased and survived--because prophetically, they are in existence in the age end (Ps 83:7). 

 

Though the Amalekites were under a mass extermination order from YHWH, as was true with the Canaanites, neither group of these peoples were ever totally destroyed.  Yisrael disobeyed both of these commandments from YHWH and accordingly suffered the adverse consequences over the next many centuries (even until today in the early 21st century). 

 

Exodus 17:14-16, revisited

 

The MOST HIGH, Himself, declared that prophetically the Amalekites would survive--just after their attack on Yisrael in the Exodus.  The Israelites were given the task of destroying the Amalekites forever (Ex 17:14; I Sam 15:3).  Evidently, YHWH knew that the Israelites would refuse to obey YHWH in this effort.  So He prophetically declared that He would have war with Amalek perpetually from generation to generation (Ex 17:16). 

 

The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 433) explains Exodus 17:14 by saying that it was Yehoshua’s “duty to remind Israel to square accounts with Amalek for their treacherous conduct... Not from a desire for vengeance, but at the express will of God, Israel had the duty completely to blot out the memory of Amalek (Rashi), because they provoked God to anger...” 

 

For verse 16, Soncino (p. 433) says that “God has sworn by lifting His hand eternal war against Amalek (Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides).  The Divine name is here Yah, only half the divine designation, and the word for throne is kes instead of the usual kisse, because as long as Amalek exists His name and His throne cannot be perfect (Rashi).” 

 

The treacherous and wicked Amalekite attack upon Yisrael is important because in Deuteronomy the Word is clear to say that it was an attack on the rear of the Israelite column, which was made up of the feeble people--the old women and children who were traveling.  The attack was bad enough, but an attack on feeble and helpless people is even more deplorable. 

 

Exodus 17:16 is profoundly important because it shows the prophetic character of the continuing presence of the Amalekites and their perpetual war and conflict against The ELOHIM (at least, in the sense of the fulfillment of YAH’s purpose for Yisrael and indeed for Adam at large).  YHWH’s name and throne will not be complete until the Amalekites are totally destroyed (which will happen by the millennial rule of YESHUA). 

 

The Edomites Move

 

In any case, starting around 500 BCE, the Edomites started moving West and North to take advantage of the lands vacated by Yehudah.  Again, the best estimate is that all of these Edomites then in the South were actually Amalekites (since Amalek had inherited the old land area of Edom and the other Edomites had all left by the time of the Exodus or shortly thereafter). 

 

As these Edomites started vacating old Edom, some Nabateans (an Arab tribe, “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. ii, p. 348, division 1) started arriving East of the Rift to fill up the area being vacated.  In time, it seems that all of the Amalek-Edomites left the Edom area in the East. 

 

The Amalek-Edomites in the South were allied with the Babylonians and later Greeks and Romans.  Their only problem seemed to have been with the Persians.  With the fall of Jerusalem, there was this vacuum of people in Southern Judea.  While some of the Edomites may have moved over to the Negev or Sinai Peninsula areas previously, they certainly started moving in that direction around 550-500 BCE, after the Babylonian conquests. 

 

Thus, the Edomites West of the Rift and to the South of the returning Jews from the Babylonian exile were most assuredly Amalekites.  Certainly, they were racially part Canaanite from Esau’s Hittite wife Adah (the famous Ashkenazi nose, hooked or figure 6, came from their Hittite ancestry—the Hittites in archeological history were noted for their hooked noses).  

 

In time this Edomite habitation in Southern Canaan and the Negev became known as Idumea.  During Second Temple days, this Idumea area was further subdivided geographically into an Upper South and a Lower South (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 6, p. 377). 

 

Apparently, the Upper South area was largely stolen from Yehudah.  As was discussed in previous comments, the Persians (who anciently were not Edomites, as are possibly portions of the modern Iranians) actually made the Amalek-Edomites return some of this stolen land area back to the Jewish Israelites. 

 

Edomite Integration

 

To appreciate where these Edomites came from in Judea in the first century CE, it would be well to turn to "Asimov's Guide to the Bible," where the popular science writer mentions the vacuum of people that occurred in the land of Judah when the remnant of the House of Yehudah was deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, c554 BCE. 

 

Dr Asimov says that the Edomites moved Northward into Southern Judah from their desert homelands in the South to fill up much of that vacuum.  The Scriptures allude to this Edomite land acquisition as well (Ezek 25:12; 35:2-10; Oba 1:10-16).  Actually, from the perspective of true Jews, this Edomite land seizure of Yehudah was correctly a theft, as the Apocrypha conclusively proves. 

 

On this land theft, it is interesting that one of the actions of the later Persian King Darius was his order that the Edomites were to surrender certain villages (and evidently some of the involved land) that they had stolen from Yehudah earlier (I Esdras 4:45-51; Enoch 89:66).  Despite this limited land return, the evidence is that much of the stolen land area remained under Edomite control from the Jewish exile forward. 

 

Wherefore, by the time of the Jewish return to Palestine, Southern portions of the old land area of Yehudah were then inhabited by Edomites and came to be known as Idumea.  It is this group of Amalek-Edomites (with the Hittite linkage) who quickly started moving North into Southern Judea.  It is also quite manifest that this Edomite presence extended far North, perhaps even to Jerusalem/Samaria. 

 

The Ethiopian book of Enoch (v. 72) allows that it was the Edomites who interfered in the rebuilding of the Second Temple in the days of Yeshua, Zerubbabel and Ezra.  While it’s possible that the Edomites were directly involved in this oppression with the Samaritans against Yehudah, there could be another explanation. 

 

It’s possible that some of the Edomites integrated and amalgamated in the Jerusalem and/or Samaritan areas with the Cuthean-Samaritans before/during the Jewish exile and were sometimes referred to as Samaritans after the Jewish return (in the sense of a geographical definition).  If so, this explanation would account for the great evil and treachery which the Samaritans exhibited against the returning Jewish Israelites.  Clearly, some Jews did mix with the Samaritans after the exile. 

 

For example, Dr Randall Price (“The Coming Last Days Temple,” p. 336) tells the story of one priest named Menachem, who married Nikaso, daughter of the Samaritan king Sanballat (who was the Samaritan king opposing Nechemyah in his work on rebuilding Jerusalem--Neh 2:10; 4:1-7; 6:1-14).  Nechemyah chased him away from the restored Jewish priesthood (Neh 13:28).  According to Price, the story is that Menachem went to Samaria where his father-in-law built a Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim and made him high priest of it.  This became the sacred site of the Samaritans for their warped religion. 

 

Also, one must recall a suggestion from Josephus that some apostate Jews moved to the Samaria province to live.  Is it possible that some of the Amalek-Edomites, posing as Jews or Jewish converts, moved to the geographical land area of Samaria to live. 

 

These options gain some credibility from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  One document mentions the great Jewish hatred for the Samaritans and the reality of their great evil and wickedness (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 333-334).  This outline of Jewish feelings and beliefs closely parallels Jewish motivations for the Edomites and particularly the Amalekites. 

 

In these remarks, please remember that the Assyrians settled the Cutheans and other Cushites in the Samaritan geographical area after the conquest of the House of Yisrael.  Much early literature refers to these people as Cutheans.  Conversely, the word Samaritans was a term for residents of this geographical province.  After the Jewish exile, the people living in this area were called Samaritans--which could refer to anyone living in the area and not necessarily to Cutheans. 

 

VI--THE AMALEKITE CONVERSIONS TO JUDAISM IN SECOND TEMPLE DAYS

 

The above backdrop on the Edomites brings us to the Jewish efforts to convert the evil Amalekites to Judaism.  The first of these efforts seems to have largely brought about the integration and assimilation of some part of the Amalekites in Idumea with the Jewish Israelites through the work of John Hyrcanus in Second Temple days. 

 

Jewish historian Josephus is careful to mention that all of the Edomite peoples, living in two whole Idumea towns, were circumcised and became Jews during the time of John Hyrcanus, c134-104 BCE, by force (“Antiquities of the Jews,” book XIII, chapter 9, verse 1).  Evidently, this Edomite conversion involved thousands of individuals.  Actually, per Josephus, John Hyrcanus' conquest of Idumea provided the impetus for the forced conversion of most of its inhabitants to Judaism ("Antiquities of the Jews," book XIII, chapter 7, verse 9 and chapter 9, verse 1). 

 

"Encyclopaedia Judaica" (per 1971 edition, volume 6, page 378) interprets this event by saying that "Thenceforth, the Edomites became a section of the Jewish people" and that this proselytization was the first of its kind in that it was one of an entire race of people (ibid, v. 8, p. 632).  While this remark is in Judaica, there is other substantial evidence suggesting that some part of Lower Idumea did not convert to Judaism in this work by John Hyrcanus.  Thus, only a part of the Amalekites converted. 

 

It must be noted here that this conversion was contrary to YHWH’s laws which precluded Edomites from becoming members of the congregation or assembly of Yisrael until the third generation (Ex 12:45; Deut 23:7-8).  The point is that Hyrcanus and his colleagues were more interested in gaining converts than they were in obeying The ELOHIM’s Torah. 

 

Edomites Assumed Power Over Yehudah

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 632) also went on to relate that the Edomites became an inseparable part of the Jewish nation and that their upper classes began to occupy important positions in the government and society of the Hasmonean kingdom.  With this conversion, the Edomites were to thereafter attain and maintain a leadership and dominating role over the House of Yehudah.  This is an important fact to keep in mind when assessing the character of the supposed Jewish leadership in Jerusalem in YESHUA’s day. 

 

In recognizing this Edomite assumption of a leadership role over the House of Yehudah, it should be observed that the nokri/nekar Edomites could not legally exercise rule over Israelites (Ex 21:7-8; Deut 17:15; Joel 2:17).  Moreover, just as it was illegal to allow the Edomites in positions of rule over Israelites, their conversion to Judaism and membership in the Congregation were so blatantly wrong that one has to wonder how in the world that Jewish religious authorities could have silently sat back and allowed it to have happened.  Somehow, Jewish leaders have never understood YHWH’s plain laws on the Edomites. 

 

People quick to criticize and condemn the Israelite Jews, over allowing the conversion of Edomites to Judaism, and the elevation of nokri/nekar Edomites into leadership roles over Yehudah, need to back off.  The Christian House of Yisrael nations have been doing the exact same thing for ages now. 

 

Interestingly, the House of Yisrael nations have not only willingly allowed the most vile and diabolically evil Edomites of all into leadership roles over their nations, but the Christian Churches have always welcomed those willing to convert with outreached arms.  In this regard, Christian theology is as bad or worse than Jewish thinking. 

 

Here, two more remarks are needed.  Later commentary herein will define these evil Edomites, ruling over both Yehudah and Yisrael, as actually being Amalekites.  In terms of the Amalekites, Christian Identity leader James Bruggeman teaches that David’s two wives kidnapped by the Amalekites (I Sam 30:1-5) were prophetic of Yehudah and Yisrael.  This connection could well be true. 

 

While Judaica’s conclusions, outlined above, are important to consider, the point must be made that this massive Edomite conversion to Judaism in Palestine only involved a portion of the larger definition of Edom.  The actual historic Edomite family and dispersion consisted of a number of groups of other Edomite people as discussed so far herein.  In other words, the person searching for the Edomites in history must look in several directions beyond just the Jews. 

 

Edomite Assimilation With Yehudah

 

Clearly, there was a significant Edomite presence in Jerusalem by the time of the Herods.  This point cannot be disputed.  Of course, Jewish racial integration and amalgamation with these Idumeans soon commenced and proceeded on in the Judea area (but not so in the Galilee which was the home of the Hillel Pharisees of which YESHUA was one), until the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.  It was this mixed Amalekite-Jewish population in Judea which was slaughtered and captured by the Romans. 

 

Significantly, a Reader's Digest book on "Jesus And His Times" maintains that all of the Edomites living in Idumea eventually became Jews by the time of the birth of The MESSIAH.  While the totality of the Idumeans in Palestine may not have converted to Judaism, howbeit, many certainly did.

 

With such an enormous Esau link to the Jews, it perchance did follow that in some respects the two peoples living in Judea and at least Northern Edom appeared to be essentially one.  On this, Josephus told of at least a single instance when the Idumeans observed and celebrated Pentecost with the Jews (“Antiquities of the Jews,” book xvii, chapter 10, verse 2). 

 

Also, as noted above, the New Testament noted that some persons from Idumea came with the Jews to see YESHUA in the first century (Mk 3:8).  From the earlier presentation, in this chapter on the Edomites of Southern Canaan, a point of clarification is now needed. 

 

While much of the Northern part of Edom converted to Judaism in Second Temple days, the fact remains that Esau had a host of descendants--many of whom eventually became separate peoples and nations and never stayed in that section of Palestine to become Jews in Second Temple days--like the Phoenicians (to include part of the mixed blooded Irish), the Ottoman Turks, other non-Arab Muslims and still even a part of the Amalekites in Idumea.  This reference in Mark 3:8 is prima facie evidence of Edomites in Idumea which did not convert to Judaism in Second Temple days. 

 

The Herods

 

This brings us to the Herod family which were Amalek Edomites, some of whom ostensibly converted to Judaism over the years.  This family started with its progenitor Antipater in Idumea in the early first century BCE.  Antipater was a minor official who sided with the Hasmonians and was probably a supposed convert to Judaism.  By 49-48 BCE, he sided with Caesar in the Roman Civil War.  While he was not powerful with the Jews, his son, Herod the Great, did successfully take over Judea, the Galilee and other portions of Palestine. 

 

Like his father, the Amalekite Herod the Great linked in with the Romans and convinced them of his supposed importance.  Accordingly, he was made the so-called King of the Jews.  He ruled in Jerusalem from 40 BCE to about 4 BCE.  Herod the Great was ruler when YESHUA was born in Bethlehem.  While he apparently was a 100% racial Amalekite, Josephus and other informed Jews came to say that he was a “half Jew.”  At best, he was supposedly a convert to Judaism but his actions declare that he was a stark pagan/Satanist in philosophy and religion.

 

It was the Amalekite Herods and Herodians (Amalekite followers of Herod in Judea) who had taken over Judah (Joel 3:19).  Hence, the enemy, who had become the head while the true Jews had become the tail, was not the Romans.  It was the Herods and Herodians, whom the Jews had forcibly/supposedly converted to Judaism in the first and second centuries BCE.  Without attempting a complete explanation of why the Amalekite Herods and their fellow Amalekite followers (the Herodians) were such staunch enemies of Judah in the first century CE (this explanation is given in v. 10, 11, 12 and 29 of Ezekiel and YHWH's Judgment for the Good News People), a few facts on the backdrop will be shared here below.  

 

The story of sexual depravity and sickness of the Amalekite Herods characterized this family from its beginning.  The trouble started with Herod the Great himself and persisted for generations.  Tragically, he was a bi-sexual pedophile with very perverted sexual appetites.   For example, old Herod had ten beautiful wives and a number of concubines.  But this wouldn’t satisfy him because the Amalekite Herod also turned to “boy lovers” (Mar-Apr 2002 “Biblical Archaeology Review,” p. 30).  Here is clearly one of the most notorious homosexual pedophiles of all history. 

 

But there is more on Herod.  New research suggests that old Herod suffered from chronic kidney disease and a rare illness that causes gangrene of the genitalia (Feb 8, 2002, “The Week,” p. 18).  He had an array of bizarre symptoms, including a decaying stomach, putrid breath, intestinal problems, intense itching and gangrene of the penis. 

 

Early research by various scholars suggested that Herod eventually died from either gonorrhea or Hodgkin’s disease.  But some later work by Dr Jan Hirschmann of the University of Washington suggests that Herod had a multitude of problems.  Truly, he was a madman. 

 

Otherwise, the best known and most publicized instance of evil in the miscegenated Amalekite Herod’s family probably occurred when Herod’s son, Herod Antipas (also known as Herod the tetrarch), married his niece, who had been married to his still alive, brother Philip.  Since this whole arrangement was Scripturally illegal, Yohanan the Baptist spoke against it and was accordingly murdered (Matt 14:3-12). 

 

The sexual perversion was so predominant in this Amalek-Edomite family that it quickly occurred again.  The next NT reference is to Herod Agrippa II and his shack-mate and sister Bernice.  They heard the plea of Shaul in Caesarea (Acts 25:13). 

 

Bernice had been married to two other men before her affair with Agrippa--first to her uncle Herod of Chalcis and next to King Polemon of Cilicia.  She soon abandoned Polemon and moved into shameful incest with her brother Agrippa II (“Word Pictures in the New Testament,” v. III, p. 433).  Later, she became mistress to Vespasian and Titus, father and son, and successive emperors of Rome. 

 

More on Herod

 

But there are still some more features of these Amalekite people which need mentioning in the context of how crafty, foxy and wretched Abimelech was in his methodology of ruling over the people. 

 

Herod and his family were known to be brutal, ruthless and murderous in attempting to rule over and dominate Israelites.  The cases for Herod’s murder of the righteous and even people at large characterized this family from its beginning.  

 

Yes, it was this very person Herod who murdered the innocent babies at Bethlehem, just after the birth of YESHUA (Matt 2:13-18).  While many persons wish to blame the Jews for the later murder of YESHUA, the Scriptural truth is clear that it was Herod’s descendants and Herodian colleagues who were responsible and certainly not the true Jews in Palestine (for an explanation on this, see v. 23, Politics and Murder in Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People). Too, it was Herod’s son, Herod Antipas who murdered Yohanan the Baptist (Matt 14:1-12). 

 

Either because old Herod (the Great) was simply insane and nuts for power or because he thought some members of his family were plotting against him or because members of his family were plotting against him, something set him off on several occasions to go on murdering campaigns against his own family, close colleagues and others (like the babies at Bethlehem). 

 

For example, Herod murdered his wife Mariamne, her mother, her 80 year old grandfather, one of her brothers named Costobarus (in c25 BCE) and one more of her brothers, 17 year old Aristobulus in c36 BCE (“Oxford Companion to the Bible,” p. 281).  He then turned his attention to his own children.  He murdered at least three of his own sons--Alexander, Aristobulus and Antipater. 

 

Before being murdered by his father, this Antipater supposedly accused his aunt Salome and two of his own brothers (Archelaus and Philip) falsely of plotting against Herod (Antipater may also have been one of the accusers against his brothers Alexander and Aristobulus).  But before murdering Salome, Archelaus and Philip, Herod decided that his son Antipater was lying to him.  So he ordered him executed instead (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 317).  

 

Otherwise, old Herod seems to have murdered any and all persons who dared to speak against him in any fashion--like the 45 friends of his enemy Antigonus (ibid, p. 317-318) and the two “rabbis” just before he died.  From history’s viewpoint, it meant certain death to be an enemy of Herod the Great.  He was ruthless in murdering his opponents. 

 

In c46 BCE, Herod was summoned to come before the Sanhedrin to stand trial for executing people without the Sanhedrin’s permission.  Herod came.  But he came with an armed body guard which intimidated the council (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 317).  Needless to say, all charges were dropped against him. 

 

But that was not enough to pacify the diabolical Herod.  He immediately had the council members all murdered; and then, he appointed a new Sanhedrin (“Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian,” p. 391).  From that point forward, old Herod ruled the priesthood and the Sanhedrin (“Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian,” p. 365, 386).  No one could or would dare speak out against him in public. 

 

In “The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah” (p. 165), Alfred Edersheim has it that thereafter Herod packed the Sanhedrin with Sadducees (including many of the Amalekite Herodians) and priests of his choice.  Manifestly, the collective rulers marched to his tune or they were in trouble.  Edersheim described Herod’s rule by saying that the people hated him. 

 

They “detested his semi-heathen reign; they abhorred his deeds of cruelty.”  He surrounded himself with “foreign councillors, and was protected by foreign mercenaries.”  As long as he lived, “no woman’s honour was safe, no man’s life secure.” 

 

Herod and Spying on the People

 

While many modern Israelites are keenly aware of the massive spying, intimidation, oppression and entrapment by modern Amalekites (like the ADL, JDL, SPLC, etc) are well known and now taken for granted, the reader might be surprised to learn that these Amalekite practices of evil against their Israelite enemies go back a long way.  Interestingly, there is a fascinating record of this very Amalekite depravity from 2,000 years ago. 

 

With all of his evil and sickness, Herod employed an “army of spies” to spy upon the people.  In “Sketches of Jewish Social Life” (p. 50), Alfred Edersheim quoted Josephus about the work of the Amalekite ruler Herod, who employed spies in the first century BCE to go among the people and observe their conversations in the unrestrained confidence of friendly social intercourse.  This secret police force would ferret out the opinions of the people even while over their cups. 

 

The crafty and evil Herod would actually disguise himself and lurk about in the streets at night to overhear conversations and entrap unwary citizens.  At one time, Herod imposed martial law which prohibited the people from meeting, walking or eating together (presumably preventing public meetings or banquets).

 

Herod and the Pharisees

 

Upon Herod’s initial assumption of power over Jerusalem (c46-37 BCE), some, many or most of the Pharisees (evidently in Judea) refused to swear an oath of loyalty to him after he had made such demands (either because of religious or political reasons). 

 

In “Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian” (p. 483), writer Lester L. Grabbe notes this event and suggests that Herod’s reaction against them was unclear.  However, this time frame (mentioned by Grabbe) did set the stage for a great religious revival among the Pharisees, producing the theological schools of Shammai and Hillel--perhaps because of Herod’s terror against the Pharisees.  While not discussed by Grabbe, it is evident in the NT (Matt 23) that the Amalekite Jews took control of the Shammai Pharisees--certainly by the first century CE.  Probably, the Amalekite control began happening as early as Herod’s days (despite the fact of Shammai’s alleged nationalistic feelings which conflicted with Herod’s reign and ideology). 

 

In fact, it is a good bet that as the Shammai Pharisees were developing (after Herod took over) that they allowed Amalekite Jews in the area into leadership positions because of fear of Herod (or maybe, because Herod commanded that the Pharisees appoint an Amalekite leadership as a condition to not murder them and destroy their religious movement). 

 

Perhaps Herod’s clannish connections to these Amalekites pacified him somewhat and motivated him not to murder all of the Pharisees (or at least not the Pharisee leaders in Jerusalem), as could have otherwise happened with his mentality and brutality.  Obviously, something happened with the ruling Pharisees in the Jerusalem area (the Shammai Pharisees) to save them from destruction from Herod. 

 

When a man is facing torture and death, he will normally go to any extreme to save his own hide.  In the American military’s code of conduct, it was treason to aid and assist an enemy with military information (beyond name, rank and serial number).  In the Vietnam war, many captured Americans publicly committed treason in order to save their own lives (including Arizona Senator John McCain). 

 

Likely, the Shammai Pharisees did the same thing.  They turned their leadership offices over to Amalekite bankers/masters in the area.  The only question about this exercise is whether Herod commanded it (as a condition), or they thought up the idea on their own as a means of survival.  As a minimum, at some point in time, Herod did successfully impose a loyalty oath upon some part of the Pharisee definition (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 141).  It is unclear which and/or now many Pharisees were subjected to this process and finally succumbed to Herod’s pressures and threats. 

 

It would be easy to speculate that Herod certainly focused upon the Shammai leadership in the Jerusalem area.  They either marched to his tune or they were in trouble.  It was the Pharisees in the outlying areas who refused to take the oath to Herod and who suffered the most from his actions (as allowed by Lester Grabbe).  Likely, these Pharisees were of the Hillel school. 

 

Since the priesthood was or almost was synonymous with the Sadducees (in the Jerusalem area), it is manifest that Herod also exercised enormous control over the Sadducees (and may have required a loyalty oath from them as well).  For all purposes, Herod and his Amalekite allies in the Herodian political sect, controlled much of Judaism in Jerusalem--but probably not all of it. 

 

While the Hillel Pharisees obviously still had some influence, there was an internal struggle within Judaism to see which philosophy would survive--that based upon the true historical faith of the people or that of the Amalekite usurpers who had moved in on Yehudah like flies.  Significantly, the Amalekite evil did not capture “all” of Judaism at that time, despite the efforts displayed (as allowed in former chapters). 

 

Still More on the Herods

 

When Herod was almost 70 years old, he came down with his final illness.  While on his death bed, some young religious Jews (conscious of the Torah) heard that he was dead and went to the Temple and tore down a large, golden eagle put over the gate of the Temple by Herod in contempt for YHWH and His Temple.  The men were arrested in the act and brought before Herod.  He ordered the ringleaders burned alive. 

 

Josephus dates this event on the day of an eclipse of the moon  (“Josephus, The Essential Writings,” by Paul L. Maier, p. 252).  Maier has a footnote which says that this occurred on March 13, 4 BCE (which, of course, places YESHUA’s birth before this date).  Josephus went on to note that Herod wanted the people to be sad and show grief upon his pending death. 

 

Accordingly, he ordered all of the men of distinction in the land arrested and held captive inside the hippodrome that he had built.  He then instructed his sister Salome that when he died, all of these captive people were to be killed so that there would be appropriate grief throughout the land (“Josephus, The Essential Writings,” p. 252).  On his death, Salome reneged on his wishes and freed the captives. 

 

As noted above, Herod was known for high and excessive taxation efforts which were imposed upon the common people. 

 

When Herod died and the likelihood that his rule over Judea would continue with his surviving sons (those that he didn’t murder), a delegation of Jews (probably real Jews) went to Caesar Augustus to ask for direct Roman rule over Judea (“Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian,” p. 419). 

 

This happened in 6 CE.  With direct Roman rule under a Roman Governor, it is unclear how much independence the Sanhedrin exercised (as shown herein, the Sanhedrin had very little independence from the evil Amalekites).  While Rome took over direct rule of Judea, other provinces in Palestine were turned over to the sons of Herod to rule.  So the Amalekite Herods were ever around to influence decisions. 

 

Later Herod Rule

 

Old Herod’s grandson Marcus Julius Agrippa I (who was popularly called Herod Agrippa) seems to have been a close friend of the Roman Emperors Caligula and Claudius.  In about 41 CE, he was given a kingdom in Palestine that even exceeded what Herod the Great ruled (“Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian,” p. 432).  This grant included Judea and Samaria (thus, temporarily ending direct Roman rule in Judea). 

 

Probably, Agrippa began to exercise personal control over the Sanhedrin at that time.  But his rule was limited because he died in 44 CE.  Judea once more came under direct Roman rule.  However, Agrippa’s son, Herod Agrippa II, was allowed to continue the Herod control of the appointments of the Jewish high priest and the Sanhedrin (“Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian,” p. 436). 

 

There is much evidence to suggest that from the time of Herod the Great forward to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE that the Amalek-Edomites (usually, in the form of the Herod family) exercised general control of the Jewish priesthood and the Sanhedrin.  This point is extremely important in the vein of the murderers of YESHUA. 

 

Old Herod’s son Herod Antipas (who was one-half Edomite and one-half Samaritan [“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 318], and who ordered the murder of Yohanan the Baptist) was referred to as that “fox” by YESHUA (Lu 13:32).  So it is clear that this family was clever and cunning.  Antipas’ brother Herod Agrippa murdered Yakov (Acts 12:1-2) and imprisoned Kefa (Acts 12:3-5).  Herod the Great’s brother, Pheroras, was accused several times of plotting the murder of old Herod (ibid, p. 316).  So evil, plotting and conniving was par for the course for this diabolical family of Amalekites. 

 

So while the fall of Judah to the Babylonians was important historically, it was the fall of Judah to the Romans where Judah’s internal enemies assumed center stage.  Thus, it was the fall of the House of Judah to the Romans in 70 CE where Judah's real enemies were not the Romans, but the internal Herods/Herodians who were pretending to be fellow Jews when in fact they were the classic enemies of Judah--the Amalekites (see Rev 2:9 and 3:9 on these people pretending to be Jews when they were not Jews at all). 

 

VII--THE AMALEKITE CONVERSIONS TO JUDAH IN CENTRAL ASIA IN C740CE

 

The Division of Edom

 

The division of Idumea into upper and lower parts, mentioned earlier, necessitates another visit to the question of the Amalek-Edomite conversion to Judaism.  While most modern scholars tend to believe that all of the Southern Palestinian Edomites converted in Second Temple days, the better view might be that only those in the Upper North were conquered and converted by John Hyrcanus.  

 

This writer takes the stance that some of the Idumeans--in the Lower South, Negev area--may not have converted to Judaism, since they were still separately identified as Idumeans at Mark 3:8 and by Josephus (rather than as Jews) at the fall of Jerusalem almost 200 years later (“Josephus The Essential Writings,” p. 317-364). 

 

If they would have been religious Jews, would Josephus and Mark (Mk 3:8) have identified them as Idumeans?  Or were these references only used as geographical definitions?  As a minimum to identify Edomite Jews, Josephus called Herod a “half Jew” and identified Jewish leader Simon as “bar Giora” (meaning a proselyte).

 

The New Testament is more precise on the Judean Edomites by using very descriptive references which make it clear, as to their true identity (but always, in the context of Second Temple Jewry).  The NT calls them sons of the Devil, sons of Satan, serpents, snakes and vipers (because genetically, they were children of Satan and thus of the serpent seed).    

 

This writer is suspicious that most or all of the Edomites in Upper Edom were forced to convert by John Hyrcanus.  In Lower Edom, it is possible that some converted (or were forcibly converted) while perhaps others in the South escaped conversion in Second Temple days. 

 

For sure, whatever part of the Edomites converted, it was likely for show purposes only, as was true with the later Marranos of Spain.  As elsewhere outlined herein, there are real questions to be raised in any speculation about the possibility that an Edomite can actually have the true Hebrew faith described in the Scriptures.  As discussed herein, some Edomites can easily bounce around from religion to religion.  But in their hearts, they always remain devoted to Satan (as proven at this website). 

 

A real Edomite conversion to truth (and Second Temple Judaism was very close to Scriptural truth) must remain a questionable occurrence.  Hence, while the sword hung over their heads, the Edomites pretended to be Jews.  Without the sword, they would have quickly abandoned any semblance of the Hebrew religion--unless they stood to personally gain from the affiliation.  But whatever the case, they maintained their traditional false religion in their hearts, which has been an Edomite trait for the last 3,900 years.

 

But Amalekite Power Over Judah didn’t End in 70 CE with the Fall of Jerusalem

 

Of extreme relevance for the true Jews and indeed for planet earth, at large, the Edomite presence and power grip didn't end with the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE.  Because, in more modern times, there is another group of persons known as Jews who have used their political and money powers to not only control the collective Jews and the modern Israeli state, but also much of the so-called Western world.  These alleged Jews are the Khazars who evidently come genetically from Esau (as will now be established below)

 

The Khazars

 

Recorded world history tells about a most fascinating ethnic grouping of people known to historians as the Mongol-Turkic Khazars.  Because of the Yiddish language they spoke historically, they also were identified nationally as Yiddish. 

 

They are called Jews and thought to be Jews by many persons in the world in our age; but in reality, they are not of Yehudah at all (per "The Thirteenth Tribe" by Arthur Koestler, “Encyclopedia Britannica,” “Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” and “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 10, p. 944-953). 

 

Consequently, they collectively constitute one of the greatest hoaxes to be accepted and believed by a vast number of people in world history.  These Khazars descend racially from a seed line that reportedly converted, en masse, to Judaism in Western Asia and Eastern Europe around 740 CE or so (per Arthur Koestler and “Encyclopaedia Judaica”). 

 

While the bulk of them today are not of Yehudah, there could potentially be a few who do descend from some of the early “rabbis” eventually brought in from Oriental and Sephardim communities (with roots from First and Second Temple peoples) to teach Judaism to the Khazars, sometime after their conversion.  Thus, some of the “rabbis” and perhaps a few sincere religious Jews with the Khazars, over the years, could be of legitimate Israelite stock. 

 

The previously quoted Dr Alfred M. Lilienthal said that the Khazars are the lineal ancestors of Eastern European Jewry is an historical fact.  Jewish historians and religious text-books acknowledge the fact, though the propagandists of Jewish nationalism belittle it as pro-Arab propaganda (“What Price Israel,” p. 222).  Lilienthal also relates that the modern Ashkenazi Jews come essentially from this stem of Eastern European Khazars (who historically used the mixed Yiddish language with Hebrew characters). 

 

In the “Concise Dictionary of Judaism” (p. 23), Dagobert D. Runes ties the Khazar description to the Jews of Northern and Eastern Europe, but then goes on to state that their origin is unclear, while citing Gen 10:3 and Jer 51:27. 

 

Khazar Ties to Japheth

 

Genesis 10:3 and I Chronicles 1:6 do indicate that Noah’s son Japheth had a grandson named Ashkenaz by his son Gomer.  The Khazar tie to Ashkenazi Jews has prompted some scholars to speculate that the Khazars descend from Ashkenaz, Gomer and Japheth.  Even Dagobert D. Runes, just cited, subtly allowed for this connection.  But this writer disputes that conclusion. 

 

Otherwise, some of the historic Khazars themselves have argued that they descend from Togarma, another grandson of Japheth and brother of Ashkenaz (Gen 10:3), apparently as other Turkish peoples are alleged to descend from Togarma (“The Thirteenth Tribe,” p. 72).  Again, this writer would differ from this historic position. 

 

It might be historically and genealogically true that as the Khazars wandered North through Asia Minor and into the Western Asia and Eastern Europe regions that they did miscegenate and intermarry with some of the Ashkenaz and Togarma peoples from Japheth.  This would be a very plausible scenario and particularly so if these Ashkenaz or Togarma peoples inhabited the same area where the Khazars settled as seems to be the case with Ashkenaz. 

 

It is true that Noah had a great grand-son named Ashkenaz.  He was a son of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth.  A check of Scriptural maps of the distribution of the children of Japheth after the flood shows that Ashkenaz inhabited an area in central Asia called Ashkenaz.  Today, it is generally defined as being Georgia (the Khazar Jew Stalin came from this area). 

 

This is the old land area that the Khazars or Yiddish inhabited when they came into central Asia.  With their alleged conversion to Judaism, to be described below, they came to be called Ashkenazi Jews—not because of descent from Ashkenaz, Gomer or Japheth; but rather because of their habitation in the land that historically was allocated to Ashkenaz.  While there, it is possible they intermarried or crossed with descendants of Ashkenaz to some extent. 

 

Being descendants of the Cain, Ham, and Canaanite lines it is a historical fact that these Khazars have been known to be nomads and wanderers.  They bounce around from nation to nation without roots.  They come to innocent nations and people to steal, plunder, cheat and destroy. 

 

Arthur Koestler notes that Soviet archaeologists found that their early houses were built in a circular shape and the foundations were sunk into the ground (“The Thirteenth Tribe,” p. 18).  Koestler (p. 18) makes the case that these dwellings symbolized the transition from portable, dome-shaped tents to permanent dwellings and from the nomadic state to a settled or semi-settled existence.  He also suggests that in their early history in the Caucasus, they were under tutelage of the old Hun empire and later under Turkish power (ibid, p. 24). 

 

In any case, it has been primarily this line of Eastern-European Ashkenazi Khazars, who have become so dominant in American (New York, Washington and Hollywood) and European affairs.  Even the modern Jewish state of Israel has been somewhat under the political control of these same individuals (although up to one half of the Israelis are true Jews—mainly from Oriental Jewish roots in the Sephardi classification). 

 

Incredibly so, some modern, so-called “Bible scholars," ignorant of the history of the Khazars, actually believe that these Khazars out of Eastern Europe and Russia, in particular, are of the lost House of Yisrael.    

 

As a matter of information, the Khazars appear to be mostly (but not necessarily in total) racial and ethnic Edomites (as are most Turks generally), in the main, with doses of Kenite and Mongoloid genes and perhaps even some presence of other racial types (like Japheth and the behemah) with no evident link to the real racial Jews of Palestine at all. 

 

Khazar Tie To Seir

 

Here, it is interesting to note that knowledge of the Khazar genealogical linkage to Esau has persisted to our time primarily because of their own handed down traditions, as documented in some early diplomatic correspondence (a letter) involving King Joseph of the Khazars (per "The Jewish Encyclopedia," 1905 edition, volume IV, page 3). 

 

This letter, under discussion, was written in 960 CE and referred to the tradition that the Khazars once dwelt near the Seir Mountains which were the ancestral home of the Edomites (Gen 32:3; 36:8-9, 21; Deut 2:5; Josh 24:4; Isa 34:6).  Evidently, they descend, in part, from Esau and at least one of his Canaanite wives (Jasher 29:20-23). 

 

With the reality of Edomites to the color red (to include the modern Irish because of their Edomite-Phoenician roots), it should be noted that an early Arab chronicler said that the Khazars’ hair was predominately reddish, while a later Arab writer said that they were black headed with some being very swarthy and dark and others being white in color (“The Thirteenth Tribe,” p. 19-20).  This Khazar hair color change could be attributed to years of miscegenation with the darker races. 

 

Yair Davidy makes the case that the Khazars were of three types--dark haired and dark complexioned, like the Hindus; dark haired and light pale-skinned; and red haired, blue-eyed, large limbed, wild countenanced, and heavy moving ( “Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 270).  Again, the dark hair and coloring could have occurred over the years from miscegenation with dark peoples.  Davidy also tries to build a case for the Khazars to be Israelites.  He specifically tries to identify some people called “Agathyrsi” with both the Khazars and the Picts that migrated eventually into Britain (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 275-277).  Davidy believes that both peoples were of the lost tribes of Israel which inhabited Scythia for a time. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 944) makes an interesting point on the Khazars which might be relevant to the Agathyrsi, as mentioned by Davidy.  Judaica notes that in the empire of the Huns in the fifth century CE, the Khazars were known as “Akatzirs,” as derived from Aq-Khazar--the White Khazars, in contrast to the Qara-Khazar, the Black Khazars.  All of this is interesting in view of the Hebrew word “khazir,” meaning swine. 

 

More on the Picts of Britain

 

While part of lost Yisrael probably inhabited Scythia and were known as Scythians, there seems to be no viable reason to link the Scythians to the Khazars or Picts.  Likely, the Picts were Hamitic peoples (Canaanites?) or Edomites out of the Middle East who may have lived in Scythia, the Caucasus and any number of other areas before eventually reaching Britain. 

 

If the Picts were the Agathyrsi and if they connect in some manner to the Khazars, it is highly plausible that they, like the Khazars, descend in some manner from Esau.  If they are Edomites, their darker colorings would suggest that their line had miscegenated greatly with Colored peoples in the Middle East or in Asia before reaching Britain (a common Edomite trait). 

 

Author Valerie Martlew makes the case that the Picts were early Celtiberians (“Lost Celts,” in the Oct 1998 “New Beginnings,” p. 10).  If they were Celtiberians, they were clearly Phoenicians who had miscegenated with darker Hamitic peoples.  In any case, it is plausible that the Picts link in some way to Esau. 

 

Certainly, this is true for the Khazars.  For reasons discussed herein, the best estimate would be that the Khazars descend from Amalek, son of Eliphaz (and his concubine Timna, who was a Horite--Gen 36:12, 22), son of Esau and his Hittite wife Adah (Gen 36:1-16; I Chron 1:36), who lived in the early Seir area. 

 

The Hittite Noses

 

Perhaps this is a good place to recognize the relevance of the very distinctive, big, hooked or curved noses of a sizable number of Eastern European Khazars.  This distinctive nose is so commonplace among the Khazars that it has come to illustrate their principle characteristic.  Charles A Weisman, in his book “The Origin of Race and Civilization,” connects this unique, big nose back (by archeological evidence) to the Hittite peoples of the Middle East (part of the Canaanite nation, discussed earlier).  Significantly, Esau seems to have married perhaps two or three Hittite women--including the just mentioned Adah (Gen 26:34; 36:2). 

 

The “Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” (v. 9, p. 60) goes on to say that “The Hittites represent in antiquity the Armenian type, and as a result of the intermixture with the Jews...introduced into the Jewish people that element which in Europe, especially in caricatures, is generally regarded as being specifically Jewish (small stature, smooth skull, arched quiline nose, slight obliquences and slit-like form of the eyes, tendency toward obesity, small, slightly arched limbs).” 

 

Incidentally, before leaving this issue, it would be well to note that this same, unusual, big, figure 6, hawk nose is also occasionally seen among modern Italians, Greeks, Turks and several other Southern European and Middle Eastern peoples.  It is not linked solely to the Khazars. 

 

Even some persons in France, the British Isles and other supposedly Caucasian nations have the same Hittite noses, as well.  Certainly, these noses have nothing to do with the true Yehudim or Israelites at all--though some Hittites were connected to Yehudah from very early times. 

 

In our contemporary society, a number of diverse, famous individuals have presented some evidence of this distinctive nose, such as Charles DeGaulle, Ross Perot, Michael Dukakis, George Washington, Henry Kissinger, Guy Lombardo, Jimmy Durante, Barbara Walters, Victor Mature, Marlon Brando, Gabriel Byrne, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, etc. 

 

Without a doubt, Tony Bennett, Barbra Streisand and Ron Silver all have classic Hittite noses.  In mentioning this extensive presence of Hittite noses throughout various nations, it becomes manifest that the Hittite noses are not the exclusive property of Edomites. 

 

A Revisit to the Amalekites of Idumea in First Century Palestine

 

Apparently, the Romans abolished the separate Edom administrative territorial government (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 6, p. 378).  But it perhaps remained for all purposes as a geographical entity in the minds of Jews—like with Josephus and the NT Mark.  With the fall of Jerusalem, there is a strange void in historical literature on the outcome of the Edomite people still living in Southern Idumea. 

 

Most historians wish to believe that they were all Jews and all of them faced the same fate as Jewish Israelites.  However, a study of the historical facts and particularly the Scriptures which deal with the Edomites, makes that supposition untenable.  This writer has searched any number of books and authoritative sources and nothing can readily be found on the destiny of the remnant of Amalek-Edomites in Edom. 

 

Beyond the few that escaped to become Romans or went into Roman captivity with the Jews, the others seem to have vanished into thin air.  The best guess, as to what happened to these Southern Edomites, who had not previously converted to Judaism, or who quickly abandoned their pretended conversions with the fall of Jerusalem, is that they fled Palestine about the time of the close of the Jewish-Roman War (c70 CE). 

 

While the Romans were making havoc and destruction in Judea, those Amalek-Edomites in the desert of the Lower South would have had a perfect opportunity to resume their historic predisposition to be nomads and wanderers.  In fact, with Roman attention focused on Masada to 73 CE, the Romans hardly were in any position to do much about the people of Lower Idumea. 

 

By wandering North to join their Turkic Edomite cousins in Asia Minor, the remaining segment of the Amalek-Edomites definition probably proceeded on to eventually establish themselves in Western Asia and Eastern Europe.  It was this remnant of apparent nomadic Amalekites which eventually reached the Transcaucasia area to settle in the Lower Volga region.  Here, they were known as Khazars from the second century CE on forward (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 450). 

 

In “The Mask of Edom” (p. 5), William Norman Saxon places the arrival of the Khazars in Eastern Europe (correctly in the Lower Volga region) in the first century, CE.  This is an interesting date because it jives with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the likelihood that the Amalekites left Palestine during or after the Jewish-Roman War.  Saxon goes on to suggest that the Khazars came from Middle Asia (which had been an important center of Edomite peoples for some centuries).  Possibly, when they left Palestine, they went initially to Middle Asia (probably Turkestan) and/or possibly to Asia Minor for a short time before moving on North to the Volga. 

 

Thus, with the first century CE Jewish-Roman war, many of the Amalekite Idumeans (who had not converted to Judaism) and some of their Herodian cousins who had ostensibly converted fled Palestine and migrated north to the land area of Ashkenaz (as documented above by William Norman Saxon in the Mask of Edom [p. 5] where the movement of the Amalek Edomites in the first century CE is traced from Southern Idumea north evidently through the Transcaucasia area to the Lower Volga region of Ashkenaz where they became known as Khazars/Yiddish.  Various encyclopedias confirm this movement and settlement in central Asia--like the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, page 450). 

 

The tie of the Khazars back to Palestine in Second Temple days can be proven in a fascinating report from the US government, made sometime after WWI.  This reality is borne out in an interesting fashion in a citation from an “Official Report of the U.S.A. Army Intelligence,” on “Bolshevism and Judaism,” as transmitted by the U.S.A. Army Staff, 2nd Bureau and as compiled by the Official American Services, per a transmission to the US by the US Ambassador to the French Republic (quoted in “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 413). 

 

This US Army report refers to Jews, but those mentioned are political Zionists, “the great majority of whom are not Jews by blood, but only by religion, they being descendants of the Herodians, who were Idumeans of Turko-Mongol blood, and are actually Edomites.”  The Herodians were Second Temple Edomites, living in Judea (as discussed above). 

 

The Khazar link to the Seir Mountains was outlined above in the context of some diplomatic correspondence of the Khazar King Joseph, c960 CE, in which their ancestral home in the Seir Mountains was mentioned.  Since the Seir Mountains seem to prophetically connect to Amalek, it appears certain that the Khazars are Amalekites.  Manifestly, they are Edomite Turks (as all encyclopedias acknowledge) and have historically spoken a dialect of the Edomite Altaic language. 

 

Thus, these Khazars converted to Judaism (the modern version and not the Second Temple variety) around 740 CE.  Thus, the modern Jewish definition clearly includes the Amalek-Edomites. 

 

This fact agrees with the previously cited “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 6, p. 378) charge that the “Edomites became a section of the Jewish people,” and with comments from "The Jewish Encyclopedia" (v. 5, p. 41 of the 1925 edition) recognizing that "Edom is modern Jewry." 

 

Since these Ashkenazi Khazars are known to change their names and religions (to better fool and deceive the goyim), they come with German and English names and as Jews or even as Christians in many instances as they spread out from central Asia.  But per the Word (Rev 2:9; 3:9), they are of the Synagogue of Satan (also called sons of Satan/sons of the Devil, serpents, vipers or snakes in the New Testament).  In Albert Pike's work on Morals and Dogma, he defines them as being worshippers of Lucifer--thus Luciferians.  Too, many of them publicly pretend to be atheists--like the Khazar master Timothy Geithner, the US Secretary of the Treasury.  

 

As noted above, these classic enemies of Israel first took over Judah and the Jews in the first century BCE with the Herods and Herodians and later in about 740 CE with the Amalekite Khazars in central Asia.  Now, since about 1913 CE, they have gained total control of the House of Israel. 

 

So while these Khazars have willingly converted to any and all religions in order to be able to steal and plunder from deceived and unsuspecting persons, the truth is that they all seem to be either atheists or Luciferians (worshippers of Lucifer).

 

Historians, like Roman Catholic priest John D. O’Connor of Pennsylvania, who have studied the Khazars extensively, indicate that one motivational reason on why the Khazar king in 740 CE tried to convert his people to Judaism was the recognition that they were extremely evil, immoral and depraved.  He thought that with conversion to a believed moral religion, like Judaism, that the evil and depravity naturally present in them could be destroyed from their thinking and mentality (as O'Connor outlines in his video on the Synagogue of Satan).  The Khazar king (called the Kagan) actually believed that they could be changed and improved with conversion (many Christians believe the same thing).  But the Khazar Kagan was wrong because the problem was genetic.

 

On making the Khazar conversion to Judaism in c740CE, Jewish leaders in Babylon sent religious teachers to the Khazars to try to install some sense of morality, honesty and integrity into the pagan Khazars.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 948) indicates that soon the central Jewish authorities (in Iraq) lost interest in the Khazars, partly because of their imperfect adherence to Judaism which is illustrated in their retention of a number of pagan (shamanist) customs, dating back to their Turkic past.

 

The “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 367) adds that even after their supposed conversion to Judaism, or even Islam as many converted to Islam over the years, they continued to practice their pre-Jewish and pre-Islamic customs of evil.  In other words, conversion meant nothing to them.  Thus, their so-called conversion was nothing but show and pretense.  They never changed their evil and depraved ways.

 

They were as bad after conversion to Judaism as they were before conversion.  The same phenomenon exists when they have converted to Islam and Christianity over the years.  They have always continued their same evil ways with the same atheism and/or Luciferianism.  This is why most of us lose our shirts whenever we try to have any financial dealings with these Khazars.  They are extremely evil people—but smart and tough.

 

Being descendants of Satan, Cain, Ham, Canaan, etc, these Amalekite Khazars are never found to be farmers working the land.  Instead, their pursuit in life is as traders, merchants, bankers, entertainers, government officials, etc.  This being the case, all or most all of today’s modern international bankers are Khazars in racial ancestry.  Perhaps the Rothschild family of Europe is the most famous of this crowd.  There are many others of the same ancestry—like the Oppenheimers, Lazards, Schiffs, Kuhns, Loebs, Warburgs, Roggenfelders (who use the alias Rockefeller), etc.  But the Rothschilds are the most ruthless and have come to be the leaders of this pack of crooks.  They constitute a Cabal of snakes. 

 

In the age end, this Cabal has come to control the US, Britain and White British Commonwealth completely and much of Europe as well.  This came about because the 18th century banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild said to permit him to control a nation’s money and he cared not who wrote its laws (most of us know about the golden rule—he who has the gold does the ruling.  Proverbs 22:7 says about the same thing—in that the rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender). 

 

Balaam’s Thinking

 

Because of their descent from Satan, Cain, Ham, Esau and Amalek with the genetic predisposition of hatred of the Adamic race generally and Israel particularly, these Khazars are now working full time to destroy Israel especially as well as the rest of Adam.  To do this, they are following two MOs—wars which they cause and implementation of Balaam’s advice on how to destroy Israel. 

 

Of course, this Amalek-Edomite scheme of following Balaam’s advice focused on using permissive interracial sex and prevalent miscegenation to damage Israel (along with war).  Historically, the House of Yehudah seems to have had succumbed to this advice with some powerful support from remarks by Yechezkel when he charged that Edomites had been guilty of acting revengefully against the House of Yehudah (Ezek 25:12-13). 

 

While it remains to be seen exactly how far this Amalek-Edomite scheme will succeed on bringing Africans and Hispanics to Palestine (as will be discussed below) in order to miscegenate them with true Jews, there could be some further opposition on the part of true Jewish Israelites.  Regardless, the line of Esau has already damaged and hurt Yehudah enormously. 

 

The Edomites Focus on the House of Yisrael

 

With the passage of the years, these same Amalek-Edomites have moved into positions of power and control over the House of Yisrael nations.  Just as they have controlled the House of Yehudah for most of the last 2,000 years, they are now largely in control over all of the House of Yisrael nations. 

 

Not content with the great damage and hurt they have put on the House of Yehudah and true, good Jews over the centuries, the wicked Edomites turned their sights upon the House of Yisrael nations to destroy or damage them as well.  Their goal (from Esau’s days, 3,900 years ago, to the early 21st century) has always been the same--the destruction of Yisrael. 

 

With their great wealth, strength and resources (particularly with their control over the governments, the media and entertainment industries, and money and banking institutions), the Amalek-Edomites have been instrumental in promoting racial amalgamation with distinctively different races, as the publicly accepted (politically correct) norm and standard. 

 

Of course, the gullible, ignorant, stupid, blind Christians of the Israelite population have gotten on the politically correct band wagon to do everything possible to destroy themselves--just like the true Jews did centuries ago.  It looks like the Christians would have learned something from Yechezkel, Josephus and history.  But they haven’t. 

 

Israel Cohen

 

Over the years, any number of Amalek-Edomites have revealed their plans for the destruction of the White race along with and/or to include Yisrael (depending upon how one might wish to define Yisrael racially). 

 

For example, in 1912, the famous Jewish writer and British Zionist Israel Cohen (1879-1961--an apparent Amalek-Edomite) outlined his thinking for the 20th century.  

 

He wrote that “While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes.  We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment.  With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause” (per “A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century”).  Cohen was right on target in his prediction for the future of America. 

 

Emanuel Rabinovich

 

At a special meeting of the “Emergency Council of European Rabbis” in Budapest, Hungary on January 12, 1952, R. Emanuel Rabinovich (an Amalek-Edomite?) reportedly said:  “We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa.  I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born.  Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter-racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites.” 

 

Going on, Rabinovich noted that “white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women.  Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory.” 

 

Rabinovich concluded with “We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world.  Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples.” 

 

This prediction, just cited above from Rabinovich, has certainly come true for most of the so-called White and/or Black descendants of mixed sexual crosses.  As long as there is a Negro ancestor in one of these families (to the tenth generation), the children tend to be grossly dullards and even if they are extremely Caucasian in appearance and are taken to be White in the generic population. 

 

These dullards are very easy to manipulate and control.  Assuredly, mind control processes (promoted and controlled by far more intelligent Amalekite bankers/masters) are far easier with these mixed mamzer peoples than would be true with other racial variations.  It just seems that a real curse dramatically comes on any line of people with these Black genes. 

 

Therefore, as more and more people come along in the overall mixed society of Blacks and Whites, the possibilities of Amalekite imposed mind control increase dramatically.  Of course, this precise situation could be one of the reasons why the coming world government of oppression, tribulation and tyranny can be achieved so quickly.  The miscegenated, confused society will lack the perception to stop it. 

 

It is utterly fascinating that this condemnation in children does not appear significantly with White crosses with Mongoloids or Hamitic peoples.  It is primarily a phenomenon of White crosses with Blacks.  Even Hamite crosses with Blacks do not seem to be as bad as White-Black crosses.  And manifestly, the curses last for ten generations!  It’s hard to imagine that an Amalek-Edomite would be this revealing (as happened above with Rabinovich).  But if Rabinovich did exist and did speak these words at the reported meeting, it is a fantastic revelation of evil Amalek-Edomite plans. 

 

Christian people in the West, who have been totally mesmerized and zombiized by the Amalekite controlled media and entertainment industries, may argue on and on that these pronouncements never happened.  But the facts of history reveal that they have been precisely on target in the West since WWII.  Since they have been accurate in predicting the future, why should anyone doubt their existence? 

 

Noel Ignatiev

 

The Dec 30, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 17) had some remarks from Vince Ryan on “Why Does Everybody Hate Whitey?”  Ryan quoted Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, of Russian Jewish parentage (meaning that he is assuredly an Amalekite Khazar--ed).  Ignatiev openly advocates the genocide of the White race. 

 

Ryan quotes Noel as saying-- “every group within white America... labor unions, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers, and white women... has advanced at the expense of the black people as a race.”  Ignatiev further adds: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.  Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society...” 

 

Although Ignatiev evidently did not directly address the issue of racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation as his solution to the problem he alleged, it is a fact that for 3,500 years (since the days of Balaam), this practice has been the most popular one pushed by the evil Amalekites (as cited herein). 

 

Norman Podhoretz

 

The Sep/Oct 2000 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 4) quoted the well known liberal Jewish writer and editor Norman Podhoretz (a likely Amalekite), who expressed his desire for racial miscegenation between Whites and Blacks by saying “I share this hope, but I cannot see how it will ever be realized unless color does in fact disappear: and that means not integration, it means assimilation, it means--let the brutal word come out--miscegenation. 

 

“The Black Muslims, like their racist counterparts in the White world, accuse the ‘so-called Negro leaders’ of secretly pursuing miscegenation as a goal.  The racists are wrong, but I wish they were right, for I believe that the wholesale merging of the two races is the most desirable alternative for everyone concerned.” 

 

Harold Wallace Rosenthal

 

The wisdom of the Amalekite Harold Wallace Rosenthal is important here.  Suffice to say, he was an administrative assistant to Amalekite Senator Jacob Javits several years ago.  In an interview with Walter White, he said:  “We’re smart--we are so powerful and at the proper time we will mix up your Gentile women with the Blacks and in 50 years you’ll be all mixed up.  Niggers love to scr-w (copulate with) your white women and we encourage it by using them to our advantage” (pamphlet “The Hidden Tyranny,” p. 36). 

 

James Yaffe

 

The Mar-Apr 2001 “America’s Promise Newsletter” (p. 1) quoted author James Yaffe, from his book “The American Jews” (p. 245, 256), on the linkage of modern political liberalism with American Jews.  As established herein, there is a phenomenal correlation between the “red” leftist, liberal, Communist and Socialist motions and with “red” Amalek-Edomite Jews.  This tie is undeniable. 

 

As discussed previously, the Amalekites early on adopted Balaam’s advice on how to destroy Yisrael.  Racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation were the essence of Balaam’s thinking--which has been diligently followed by Amalekites for the last 2,100 years (since John Hyrcanus stupidly began the process of tying the Amalekites to the Jews). 

 

Liberalism and leftism in the political arena have paved the way for this racial amalgamation.  Yaffe says “It is often said that liberalism is the American Jews’ lay religion.  The facts bears this out completely.  The climate of opinion in every Jewish organization (with the exception of the American Council for Judaism) is liberal... American Jews have been predominately liberal throughout the country’s history.” 

 

Yaffe adds:  “...we must examine the behavior of the Jewish community in the face of the one crucial test of liberalism in America today--the problem of Negro rights.  The evidence in favor of the Jews has been given many times.  They also began to take an interest in improving the lot of the American Negro. 

 

“In the forties Alexander Pekelis of the American Jewish Congress established its Commission on Law and Social Action, and in collaboration with the NAACP it brought test cases on discrimination to the courts.  In a few years AJC and ADL became involved in the same sort of activity.  AJC was particularly effective in persuading Jewish businessmen around the country to provide jobs for Negroes... 

 

“The National Council of Jewish Women ran strong pro-civil rights articles in the national publications...  There is no question that the Jewish organizations were fighting for Negro rights long before any other white organizations, religious or secular, on the American scene...  For twenty-five years the president of the NAACP has been Jewish...and simply indicates the heavy Jewish financial support which the organization has always received. 

 

“As far back as 1923 Louis Marshall became a director of the NAACP and argued cases for it before the Supreme Court.  And today (1968) the head of its legal defense fund is a Jew, Jack Greenberg.  Jewish activists and Jewish money were, until recently, the mainstay of all the other influential civil rights groups, particularly CORE and SNCC.”  Truly, Amalekites have led the way for racial amalgamation in the US. 

 

Yes, Miscegenation Means Genocide

 

So the House of Yisrael nations are moving fast down the road to the genocide of their own people (under Amalekite leadership).  If YHWH YESHUA does not intervene soon to stop this mad rush to oblivion, no true Israelites will remain alive to enter His millennial kingdom.  In other comments at this website, material will be presented to demonstrate that He will intervene to stop this insanity. 

 

The acceptance of humanoids of any and all races and kinds has led vast hordes of behemah, chaiyah, mamzer and nokri aliens (Scripturally--dogs, thorns and briers) to flood the House of Yisrael nations as immigrants (legal and illegal) here in the age end.  The demographics of these House of Yisrael nations have changed remarkably.  As amalgamation proceeds, there is a dramatic “darkening” of the Israelites. 

 

Any person familiar with world history, current events and the Scriptures can readily identify the House of Yisrael nations because of the power and influence which the present Amalek-Edomites have had in bringing about the racial decline of the Israelite peoples.  Given sufficient time, this whole process will bring about the absolute end of Yisrael--which could never have been achieved in any other way. 

 

Though the possibility does exist for the absolute and total destruction of the Israelite peoples through racial integration, amalgamation and miscegenation with alien races, there are Scriptural reasons to believe that YHWH YESHUA will intervene and cut short the misrule of men over this planet for the last 6,000 years. 

 

While this focus has been on Yisrael and the work of the Amalek-Edomites to destroy her, the truth is that this same reality exists in terms of the Adam-kind creation and the work of the Adversary to destroy it through racial amalgamation and miscegenation with the behemah and chaiyah. 

 

Now, the Latest

 

This discussion herein on race and how the Amalekites are doing their level best to destroy the whole House of Yisrael, via interracial sex and miscegenation, opens the door to the tragedy of our time as the Khazar bankers have completely taken over the House of Israel to bring enormous hurt and damage to it.

 

Other studies at this website will discuss the situation with the US controlled media (which is essentially in the hands of plutocratic Amalekites).  Television, radio, the entertainment industry, newspapers, magazines and on and on are either owned outright by Amalekite plutocrats or they are controlled by the Amalekite plutocrats. 

 

Of course, the controlled media is working overtime to promote interracial sex and miscegenation--often by very subtle and discreet methods.  Naturally, in the Christian West, the gullible goyim are also doing more than a fair share to destroy themselves.  While the Amalekite bankers/masters are out front leading, the stupid Christian goyim are almost all blindly following behind. 

 

Interracial sex, integration, amalgamation and miscegenation are such popular themes today that not only does the controlled media present stories, right and left, about the benefits of racial amalgamation, but even advertisers follow suit (both Amalekite and goyim advertisers like Microsoft).  Thus, printed advertisements and television commercials are obsessed with Colored peoples. 

 

Negroes only constitute about 12% of the US population.  But one would never know it by looking at TV, radio, magazine and newspaper ads and programming (because today, the American media is flooded with Blacks and Black greatness). 

 

National Public Radio (NPR) frequently has people stories or entertainment and music stories.  Perhaps 50% or more of these presentations are about Blacks.  One would never understand that there are some White people in modern America by looking at these ads and programs. 

 

VIII--THE LATEST JEWISH CONVERSION EFFORTS

 

Just as Christianity has been at work trying to flood the Colored world with evangelizing missionaries for some time now, it appears that organized Jewry has also decided to get into the same proselytizing business (much as the Jews did in the days of John Hyrcanus and his efforts to amalgamate the true Jews with the Amalek-Edomites). 

 

The latest Jewish scheme seems to be one of sending out missionaries to Latin America.  Some Israeli “rabbis” were sent to Peru some ten years ago to put some Peruvians through the conversion process.  In mid 2001, another team of evangelizing Jews headed for Mexico to convert a number of Mexicans (Dec 17, 2001, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 7).  

 

The next Jewish efforts centered once more on some Peruvians in mid November 2001.  This time a team of four “rabbis” (two Ashkenazim and two Sephardim) headed South to convert some 150 Peruvian Indians to Judaism (ibid, p. 6).  Reportedly, the Indians were known as “Inca Indians.”  They had been studying the OT and had adopted much of its outline on righteousness. 

 

The February 22, 2002, “Forward” (p. 1, 7) took a look at this evangelistic effort by noting that a team of Conservative leaders had went to Uganda in the heart of Black Africa in February 2002 to form a beit din (rabbinical court) to convert 600 Blacks to Judaism. 

 

These stories from the “Jerusalem Report” and “Forward” on these recent Jewish (correctly Amalekite) evangelizing and conversion efforts noted the ultimate fall-out of the conversion process.  Once converted, the Indians and Blacks are then allowed to immigrate to Palestine and become a part of the state of Israel; or alternatively, to the US to further damage America. 

 

The Paradox

 

For sure, the Edomites generally and the Amalekites particularly have to be the most evil people of all time.  Despite their evil, many modern Jewish scholars are acutely aware of the Edomite linkage to modern Jewry and Judaism.  Yet, in a strange paradox, these Amalekite workers of evil, intent on destroying Israel forever, became Jews over the years. 

 

Thus, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 6, p. 378) charges that the “Edomites became a section of the Jewish people,” and comments from "The Jewish Encyclopedia" (v. 5, p. 41 of the 1925 edition) recognize that "Edom is modern Jewry."  After posing as Jews for awhile, many of them have subsequently converted to Islam or Christianity. 

 

IX--THE CONCLUSION

 

Deuteronomy 25:17-19

 

Just before Yisrael was to enter the promise land, YHWH recalled the Amalek attack and oppression of Yisrael and told Yisrael to remember the Amalek incident (Deut 25:17-19).  This idea on remembrance was first stated at Exodus 17:14, discussed earlier.  Surely, this has to be of extreme importance since The ELOHIM brought the event up as a reminder to Yisrael twice and in the context that Amalek will be eventually judged. 

 

If the action of the king of Edom to refuse Yisrael passage involved some other Edomite tribe beyond just the Amalekites, one has to wonder why they were not singled out with the Amalekites in Deuteronomy 25 for condemnation for their oppression.  The fact that the Amalekites alone were singled out suggests that they were the only Edomite oppressors of Yisrael in the Exodus period. 

 

This context of Deuteronomy 25 in the Septuagint and numbers of other translations (like the KJV) are worded to suggest that Amalek did not fear The ELOHIM (Deut 25:18).  However, some Jewish translations to English probably have it right.  Yisrael did not fear The ELOHIM.  Thus, YHWH allowed Amalek to attack them. 

 

In other words, Yisrael had a moral lapse by forgetting both the Torah and commandments which precipitated the Amalek attack (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 39, Piska 3).  Therefore, if Yisrael would have properly feared The ELOHIM and correctly been obeying His laws, the Amalekite attack would have been prevented. 

 

Incidentally, future remarks herein will demonstrate that it has been Yisrael’s sins which has allowed the scourge of Amalek to come upon the House of Yisrael in the age end--just as the Amalek evil came upon the House of Yehudah in the first century CE.  In other words, YHWH turns Yisrael over to the Amalekites for punishment, as Yisrael progresses into sin and depravity. 

 

Dogs

 

Piska 3 not only recalls the allegory linking Amalek to a blood sucking dog, outlined in the above comments, but in a commentary on Exodus 17:7, this source (p. 40, 51) explains that Amalek was a dog sent by YHWH to bite Yisrael and a dog eager and greedy to get at Yisrael. 

 

“The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah” (p. 77) has been quoted earlier herein.  This work contains a host of ancient legends about Amalek from the Talmud and Midrash.  Two of them specifically address Amalek in the vein of being a dog.  For example, R. Levy said in the name of R. Simeon ben Halafta that Amalek was to be compared to a fly greedy to get at an open wound (a repeat of a similar story outlined above) and a dog panting to get at Yisrael (item number 17). 

 

A legend number 21 commented upon Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (on remembering the deeds of Amalek).  This one also quoted R. Levy, who said that like a highwayman, Amalek came upon Yisrael from the wayside.  In this connection, the parable is told of a king who had a vineyard, which he enclosed with a fence.  In it, he put a dog which was a vicious biter. 

 

The king said “If anyone comes and breaches the fence, the dog will bite him.”  Some days later, the king’s own son came and breached the fence and the dog bit him.  Later, when the king wished to remind the son about his sin in breaching the vineyard fence, he would ask him “Do you remember how the dog bit you?”  So, too, when the “Holy One” wished to remind Yisrael of her sin, he would refer to Deut 25:17-19. 

 

All of these remarks about the tie to dogs is interesting because YESHUA called the Edomite Syro-Phoenician woman a dog (Mk 7:26).  Also, it is important to note that the Apostle Shaul specifically tied dogs and evil workers to certain Jews, obviously Amalekites (Phil 3:2).  Too, the book of the Philippians addressing the Philadelphia Assembly has some perception about the evil Amalekites (Rev 3:9). 

 

Also, there is a link between allegorical dogs with nokri/nekar peoples who may not be allowed into the kingdom (Rev 22:15). The above comments from Piska 3 would also seem to be precise in linking the dog remark directly to the Amalekites.  Evidently, the ancient Jewish Israelites (to include YESHUA The MESSIAH, Himself) looked down upon the mongrel Edomites generally as dogs. 

 

It must be noted that even King David identified certain people in the vein of being dogs.  David’s most pungent remark was directed at a man named Nabal (whose name meant a fool, Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 682).  Nabal had offended David; and accordingly, David made plans to kill him and all of his men (I Sam 25:22), but later recanted. 

 

In David’s reference to Nabal and the males of his household (I Sam 25:22, 34), he identified them in the actual Hebrew text as those who “pisseth against the wall” (per the KJV), in the sense of being dogs which so act (Oct 2002 “Bible Review,” p. 20; “Soncino Books of the Bible,” Samuel, p. 153).  The fool Nabal was a descendant of Caleb (I Sam 25:2-3); and thus, with some evident Edomite genes. 

 

Matthew 7:6

 

The above presentation brings to mind YESHUA’s Words about casting kodesh things to dogs and priceless pearls to swine (Matt 7:6).  As outlined, the dogs and swine in that text appear to have symbolic meanings for certain humans/humanoids.  Hence, it would be well to now look carefully at the swine (Hebrew khazir) idea and especially as swine seem to specifically connect to the Khazars from several different aspects. 

 

The word Khazar seems to come from the Arabic where it is used to identify these Mongol-Turkic peoples, now posing as Jews.  Encyclopaedia Judaica  (v. 10, p. 944) notes that “there are traces of a different pronunciation in Hebrew” -- “kuzari.”  This may furthermore be significant since the etymology of the Hebrew word khazir (swine) has a basis in the Akkadian “huziru, huzirtu” (“Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,” v. IV, p. 292). 

 

Interestingly, khazir (swine) in the Hebrew seems to precisely come from the Arabic root “khazar” (the same word used to identify the Khazars), which means “to have small eyes” (“Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,” p. 254).  The attribute of small eyes often identifies people with Asian-Mongolian genes, as is true with the Khazars. 

 

As noted in prior comments above, the Khazars, per Yair Davidy, link to the Agathyrsi who could tie to the Akatzirs of the old Hun empire (in the sense of the Aq-Khazars or White Khazars).  Not only is the word Khazar close in sound to khazir; but in Greek, the Khazars were known as Chazaroi which is interesting since the Greek word choiros refers to a pig. 

 

Swine Are the Classic Enemies of Yisrael

 

Interestingly, Jewish mentality in Second Temple days typically compared Edom with a pig (“Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period,” p. 182).  This reference focuses upon Second Temple times when Edom truly was in Amalekite hands.  Obviously, this was the prevailing thinking in YESHUA’s day.  And importantly, it does have a Scriptural basis. 

 

As commented upon previously, the Tanakh seems to have a precise remark which suggests that symbolic swine (Hebrew khazir) were and are the classic enemies of Yisrael. 

 

In the Psalms (Ps 80:13), the khazir, who gnaw the grapes and tender shoots, are likened to the land of Yisrael being desolated by its enemies (The Psalms, “Soncino Books of the Bible,” p. 265).  This is a most fascinating observation when applied to the Khazar enemies of Yisrael. 

 

While not trying to be dogmatic over these similarities in sound, it is very plausible that the swine, which the Scriptures repeatedly condemn (Isa 65:4; 66:3-17; Matt 7:6; 8:30-32; Mk 5:11-16; Lu 8:32-33; 15:15-16), symbolically identify the evil Khazar Amalek-Edomites dedicated to the destruction of Yisrael. 

 

The Demon Factor

 

There is another important connection to swine which could be especially revealing in terms of the Khazar enemies of Yisrael.  One of the great teachings in the New Testament addresses one of the famous incidents in the life of YESHUA in New Testament times when He had an encounter with the men at the tombs in the land of Gergesenes (per the Lamsa translation, the two men involved were lunatics). 

 

Per the New Testament record, these men were supposed to be “possessed” by devils or demons (Matt 8:28-32; Mk 5:1-13).  The KJV relates that at the suggestion of the demons, The MESSIAH took action to cast the demons from the men to some nearby swine where the swine then plunged off of a cliff into the sea. 

 

While this was clearly an actual event that happened, as stated in the Matthew autograph, there could be some prophetic implications of the fact that the demons themselves suggested that they be expelled from the men to the swine.  Could this event in some way communicate that demons have a state of comfort or satisfaction with being with swine?  In other words, demons are right at home with swine (which symbolically represents the Khazar enemies of Yisrael).  Too, the destruction of the demon inspired swine may be reflective of the eventual fate of the Amalekite Khazars. 

 

Perhaps this background explains the incredible perception and wisdom of the Psalmist who declared that swine were symbolically the enemies of Yisrael (just cited at Ps 80:13).  This has to be one of the most profound and extraordinary descriptions which can be applied to the characteristics of the Amalekite enemies of Yisrael. 

 

The Amalek-Edomites have been the classic enemies of Yisrael from their very beginnings.  No ethnic or racial groups of people in the history of Adam have ever approached the enormous hatred and evil dispositions which the Amalekites have held for Yisrael.  Whereas the behemah humanoids can be evil, sorry, worthless and petty criminals, they are nothing but child’s play as compared to the Amalekites who are far more intelligent, crafty and wicked (than the primitive and backward behemah). 

 

Because of their incredible intellect and devotion to their genetic purpose in life (of being a destroying enemy of Yisrael), the Amalekites are a very formidable opponent and far more dangerous for Yisrael to have to contend with.  Thus, while dogs might be a broad term for all Edomites (and perhaps other nokri/nekar and Canaanites as well), the word swine may have a more limited meaning to just the Amalekite Khazars. 

 

Some Judgments on Evil Workers

 

A Commentary on Genesis (4Q252-254a), found in the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, has a few comments on the evil Amalekite descendants of Esau.  This reference notes that in the “Last Days, the remembrance of Amalek shall be blotted out from under heaven” (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 276). 

 

Also, some Jewish commentators have some significant remarks on the first Amalek assault upon Yisrael.  For example, on YHWH’s Words about YHWH blotting Amalek’s name out of remembrance (Ex 17:14), the “Soncino (Jewish) Chumash” says that at the will of The MOST HIGH, Yisrael had a duty to completely blot out the memory of Amalek (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” p. 433). 

 

In commenting upon Exodus 17:16 (discussed previously), “Maimonides The Commandments” (p. 202) notes the Jewish Mechilta position as being “Amalek having been the first to attack Israel with the sword, Scripture imposes upon us the obligation to accomplish his complete extermination.” 

 

Actually, there is some Scriptural support to perhaps have prompted these conclusions.  It seems to have its basis in Deuteronomy 25:19 where there is a command to Yisrael to blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven and to forget it not.  The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 1114) says that everything belonging to Amalek which is likely to recall his name, must be destroyed. 

 

Some translators render the last phrase as “forget him not” which might seem to present a conflict in the idea under discussion.  Samson Raphael Hirsch has it as “forget this not” (“The Pentateuch,” v. 5, p. 525).  There seems to be a similar call to remembrance about Edom in the Psalms (Ps 137:7). 

 

Manifestly, Yisrael was supposed to not forget Amalek and the blotting out command just given.  On this need to remember and forget not, Hirsch (p. 526) says to forget this not, when you yourself have to suffer under Amalek’s coarseness and power and to forget it not, so that you will remember Amalek from time to time. 

 

This interpretation could well be prophetic for Yisrael’s future.  Since the Israelites were commanded to totally blot out/exterminate Amalek, as argued by Maimonides, and if they failed to do it, then one day while suffering from the coarseness and power of Amalek, they should remember the command in Deut 25:19 and why they are suffering, per Hirsch. 

 

Going on, the Maimonides source (p. 203) reports that “In Jewish tradition the spirit of Amalek is the antithesis of and greatest hindrance to the manifestation of the reign of God in the world.  When will the name of these (Amalekites) be blotted out?  When idolatry is eradicated together with its worshippers and God is recognized throughout the world as the One, and His kingdom established for all eternity.” 

 

The Wonders of Purim

 

Religious Jews have correctly felt so strong about the nefarious deeds of the Amalekites and to remember and recall the great evil of these diabolically wicked people, as was YHWH’s command (Ex 17:14; Deut 25:17-19), that they have adopted the practice of annually reading the Scriptural story of Amalek on the Sabbath preceding Purim (“Maimonides The Commandments,” p. 203). 

 

This annual exercise is pregnant with deep meaning and particularly so in the context of the very evil and crafty Haman, the son of Hammedatha, and an Agagite (Est 3:1).  It must be pointed out, this diabolical Haman was an evil Amalekite.  He was the arch enemy of the good, Israelite Jew Mordecai. 

 

Were it not for the faith of Mordecai and Esther and the wonderful intervention by The SOVEREIGN YHWH, the Amalekite Haman would have completely destroyed the totality of the true, Jewish Israelites then in dispersion and bondage.  If Haman would have succeeded, the then true remnant of the Scriptural, Hebrew religion and culture would have been obliterated. 

 

With YHWH’s intervention, it was the Amalekite Haman, his ten Amalekite sons and probably 500 and/or 300 Amalekite followers who were destroyed and not the true Jews (Est 7:10; 9:5-15).  Though this writer does not have the particulars on the prophetic significance of these 10, 300 and 500 numbers, they must be relevant.  Some students of the Word have described the 300 Amalekites as the persons who economically rule Europe.  So maybe, there is a tie. 

 

It is because of the profound significance of this event with Haman that the Jews have come to keep the marvelous festival of Purim (Est 9:1-32; 10:1-3) and to focus upon the deeds of Amalek, as commanded by Moshe (Ex 17:14; Deut 25:17-19).  What a shame it has been that the House of Yisrael Israelites have never understood and/or grasped the incredible significance and profound importance of the wonderful festival of Purim. 

 

In Second Temple days (like those of John Hyrcanus), the Jewish Israelites chose to ignore most of Deuteronomy 25:19 in dealing with the Amalek-Edomites to the South of Jerusalem.  But they did remember the last few words about not forgetting.  Hence, they read the Amalek story annually near Purim, as noted above. 

 

Incidentally, The MOST HIGH was very serious in His command to Yisrael to destroy Amalek (in Deut 25:17-19).  He was so strong on this command that when OT Shaul failed to accomplish the task in his Amalekite war, YHWH took the kingdom away from him and gave it to David (I Sam 28:18).  Yes, Shaul lost the kingdom and the right to rule Yisrael because he failed to destroy the Amalekites, as he was commanded. 

 

More on Remembering

 

The previously cited “Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah” (p. 77-78) offers one more profound piece of wisdom from the Talmud--on the role of Amalek (beyond those cited earlier from this source--linking Amalek to flies and dogs).  An item 22 tells the story of a child, who had misbehaved and was beaten with a strap.  Whenever people wanted to intimidate the child, they would remind him of the beating with the strap.  Even so, Amalek, Israel’s painful strap, was to serve as a reminder and a warning. 

 

“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana”

 

One of the great Jewish works is “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” which focused upon the early Midrashim taught on special Sabbaths and festive occasions in early Palestinian synagogues (covering the time of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly).  Piska 3 in this wonderful presentation addresses the role of Amalek. 

 

This perceptive and penetrating Piska (ibid, p. 37-56) had some extraordinary descriptions to attach to Esau and his grandson Amalek.  This source (ibid, p. 44, interpreting Ps 58:3 and Amos 1:11) quotes R. Berechiah as saying that at Esau’s birth, his fist was stretched out against his brother and he ruptured his mother’s womb; and that Esau was described at age 15 of already having been guilty of rape, murder and theft (ibid, p. 37, 43).  In fact, it seems that not only was Esau a thief, but according to R. Zakkai, he was an intimate of thieves, per Obadiah 1:5 (ibid, p. 43-44). 

 

In a commentary on Deuteronomy 25:17 and the command to Yisrael to remember the deeds of Amalek, Piska 3 (ibid, p. 37, 41) says that Amalek was Esau’s most sinful descendant, that none of the wicked in Yisrael are as incorrigibly wicked as Amalek, that only Amalek is totally evil, and that the Amalekites are the utterly wicked descendants of Esau. 

 

“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” (p. 500) gives this definition for Amalek:  “a people totally evil--hence the symbol of evil.”  This conclusion is extraordinary and would not ever mesh with the thinking of modern Christians or Jews. 

 

Because the Amalekites were so evil, no proselytes within Judaism were ever to be accepted from them (ibid, p. 38).  In dealing with specifics, this source claims that Amalek cut the circumcised organ of generation from live Israelites and taunted The ELOHIM with them. 

 

Reportedly, Amalek tore up Torah scrolls, resorted to obscene forms of blasphemy, and cut away the Sanctuary to its very foundations (ibid, p. 37).  He gained access to Israel’s genealogical records in Egypt and used the information in them to lure Israelites from their camp, so that he could kill them and pollute them by pederasty (ibid, p. 38). 

 

This Piska (ibid, p. 38) also says that upon entering the land of Canaan, Yisrael was commanded to destroy Amalek and blot out all remembrances to him; that while Amalek endures, it is as though a person were hiding The MOST HIGH’s face--The ELOHIM’s name is not complete, His throne is not whole; and only when Amalek’s seed perishes from earth will YHWH’s name be complete and His throne whole. 

 

Piska three is also pregnant with numerous references to the coming time when the Amalekites will be exterminated.  This source has an excellent interpretation of Psalms 109 in which David focused upon his Amalekite enemies.  Piska 3 (ibid, p. 46) suggests that Amalek’s iniquities are continually before YHWH and that He will cut off the name of Amalek and his brood from the earth (Ps 109:15). 

 

In terms of Amalek, this report (ibid, p. 47) goes on to suggest that The ELOHIM knew that his wickedness was to be absolute and enduring and would never be tempered with repentance.  Hence, vengeance, both “divine and human,” is just and proper.  Because YESHUA called the Edomites dogs (Mk 7:27-28), it is now clear why these dogs will not be allowed into His millennial kingdom (Rev 22:15). 

 

Space in this work at hand is too limited to properly address the ancient Jewish feelings toward the Edomites, in general, and the Amalekites, in particular.  Any person wishing to read the thinking of the ancient Jewish sages and their coverage of them in the synagogues of YESHUA’s day should definitely read and study Piska 3 where there are 22 pages of data on the evils of the Amalekites. 

 

The Bottom Line

 

The “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 30), in an article on Amalek, gives this summary of him and his descendants in the vein of Jewish thinking.  This source says that he is the “blood enemy of Israel (Exod. 17:8-16), symbolizing implacable foes through all time.  He is described as the irreconcilable enemy, ancestor of all later enemies, and is often identified with Rome.” 

 

In Rabbinic literature, Amalek is the irreconcilable enemy (of Yisrael) and it is forbidden to show mercy foolishly to one wholly dedicated to the destruction of Yisrael (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 2, p. 791). 

 

In looking at these definitions, one is immediately struck with its focus on genes and genetics (which is at total and complete odds to what modern peoples believe about race and genes).  Almost no one today would say that a person can be genetically evil.  Yet, this is the essence of Jewish thinking.  Truly, the issue is in the blood.  No wonder Amalek is the all time enemy of Yisrael for all of history. 

 

Finally, from “The Book of Legends” (p. 78), there is an ultimate victory here though, which is manifested in an item 24.  The ancient sages said that throughout all generations, there obtains the rule that the scourge with which Yisrael is smitten will in the end itself be smitten.  All mankind should learn from Amalek, who came to harm Yisrael.  He will be erased from life in the world to come.