EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME X

 

The Jewish Paradox

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume X--The Jewish Paradox

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume X--The Jewish Paradox

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part DD--The Jews

 

      139             Some Jewish Problems                                                                                    6

 

      140             The Edomites                                                                                                    12

 

      141             The Khazars                                                                                                      24

 

      142             More Edomite Definitions                                                                               30

 

 

Part EE--The Amalekites

 

      143             The Amalek-Edomites                                                                                     43

 

      144             Jewish Views on the Amalekites                                                                   56

 

      145             Coming Edomite Judgment I                                                                          69

 

      146             Coming Edomite Judgment II                                                                         81

 

 

Part FF--First Century CE Jews

 

      147             Jewish Sects in the First Century I                                                               90

 

      148             The Hillel Pharisee YESHUA                                                                      101

 

      149             Jewish Sects in the First Century II                                                           109

 

      150             Murderers of the Righteous                                                                         115

 

      151             The Kayin Presence                                                                                      131

 

      152             Amalek-Edomite Religion I                                                                           145

 

      153             Amalek-Edomite Religion II                                                                          155

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume ten of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 139--Some Jewish Problems

 

 

The Issue 

 

Previous chapters addressed the question of YESHUA’s great commission to the lost House of Yisrael, and seemingly, His complete by-passing of the Jews.  Therein, the question was raised on why YESHUA might could have by-passed the Jews.  For that assessment, the following chapters will offer some ideas. 

 

Some of the possible reasons on why He by-passed the Jews were briefly highlighted in the preceding chapter.  But they deserve further explanation.  One of the points made is that there could be some question about the genetic, racial and/or ethnic make-up of the Jews of Second Temple days which may have impacted upon YESHUA’s commission.  This and succeeding chapters will pursue that possibility. 

 

 

The Canaanites 

 

Many students of the Word and world history are aware of the fact that the line of Yehudah was one of the worse to illegally miscegenate with the nokri/nekar peoples (described earlier) of Canaan land in ancient days.  From the very beginnings of the line of Yehudah, one of his important sons was a man named Shelah, whose mother was a Canaanite woman named Shuah, as noted earlier (Gen 38:2, 5). 

 

On this mention of Shelah, there are some good Scriptural reasons to believe that it was mostly his line who lived in the immediate Jerusalem area and who provided much of the population (not all, but most) that eventually met their fate in the Babylonian conquest, as pointed out in the previous comments (Num 26:20; I Chron 4:21-23). 

 

If so, it seems plausible that many of the Yehudim descending from Yehudah's sons Zerach and Peretz (via Tamar) were probably not nokri/nekar racially at that time (Jubilees 41:1-2 indicates that Tamar was a Shemite descendant of Aram-- “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 234).

 

Many of the descendants of Tamar may have missed the Babylonian exile as they probably left the land voluntarily or went into Assyrian bondage with the deported House of Yisrael (I Chron 2:3).  Consequently, it might well be that some of the racially more acceptable Yehudim split off from most of the racially mixed Yehudim at a very early time. 

 

But with Shelah's ancestry, it perhaps was natural that in Canaan land, from the later kings on down, many of the Yehudim chose to illegally intermarry with the local nokri/nekar peoples (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35; Isa 3:8-9).  The previous remarks on Uriah and Bathsheba illustrated this point. 

 

Having brought up this matter of the Canaanites, it should be understood that this is a broad term which essentially was used in the Book in the context of referring to the racial descendants of Ham and Canaan, the fathers of a number of peoples--Sidon, Heth (the Hittites), the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites and the Hamathites (Gen 10:15-19). 

 

On entering the land of Canaan, YHWH commanded the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites, including men, women and children, as previously discussed (Deut 20:17).  But the Israelites, under Yehoshua and later, stupidly refused to obey The MOST HIGH and allowed some of them to remain alive in the land (Josh 9:3-18; Jud 1:27-36). 

 

Once some of the Canaanites were allowed to stay in the land, the Israelites began miscegenating with them, as the Scriptures conclusively establish.  While this reality took place, these interracial marriages were illegal, per The ELOHIM’s Word, as has been shown in previous chapters in this production. 

 

 

The Kenites 

 

Additionally, at a very early time, some aliens called Rechabites became linked to and genetically commingled with the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin (II Sam 4:2-9; 23:37;  II Kg 10:15, 23; Jer 35:2-19). 

 

The progenitor of this foreign line was a person named Rechab--whose lineage goes all the way back to a man named Hemath, a Kenite, mentioned earlier (I Chron 2:55).  The name of this progenitor Hemath is elsewhere more correctly spelled as Hamath or Hammath (per Young’s “Analytical Concordance”).  Thus, Hemath or Hamath seems to refer to the same individual. 

 

This name of Hamath is very close in spelling and sound to the Hamathites, mentioned above as one of the tribes of Canaan.  But Hamath was a Kenite, and if there is a tie to the Hamathites (Gen 10:18), it might be that there was some intermarriages between the Hamathites and the Kenites.  Thus, maybe Hamath descended from one of these crosses. 

 

The Kenites were one of the nations inhabiting the land at the time of Avraham (Gen 15:19).  Interestingly, there is also evidence available (to be shortly outlined) to suggest that these very people probably are of the bloodline of Cain (the Hebrew Kayin) and his father, previously discussed (Matt 23:33; Jo 8:44; I Jo 3:12). 

 

Based on Judges 1:16 and 4:11, some scholars have speculated that Jethro, Moshe’s father-in-law, was a Kenite.  The better view is that Jethro was an Midianite (Ex 3:1), though there may have been some connections between him and the Kenites (like in his ancestry or descendants or in his geographical inhabitancy in the Sinai, part of which was in the territory of the Kenites, as well as Ethiopia and Egypt). 

 

“Soncino Books of the Bible” (p. 161, Judges) notes that in Judges 1:16 the definite article is missing with the Keni which suggests that it was just one of the seven names of Jethro (the Kain tie to the Sinai was briefly cited in a prior chapter). 

 

This mention of the Kenites and/or Rechabites in Canaan is furthermore significant because, after the Babylonian exile, some of these precise individuals returned with the Jews to Jerusalem during the time of Nechemyah (Neh 3:14).  It appears that these Kenites were often identified as scribes over the years (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14). 

 

A previous chapter noted the problems in the transmission of old writings in the days when scrolls were hand copied.  Reference was made to some Hebrew scrolls found at Qumran which included a few texts in support of the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch and/or hybrid scrolls. 

 

A question must persist on how these texts came into being.  Without being dogmatic, it is likely that some non-Israelite scribes, like the just outlined Kenites, were employed in Second Temple days and made some mistakes or intentionally introduced some corruptions into the authorized Hebrew text.  For Jeremiah 8:8, “The Soncino Books of the Bible” allow a link in saying that “the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.” 

 

The Kenites could be the exact people involved in Yirmeyahu’s words.  Regardless of whether they did or did not alter some writings, one can perceive that they were evidently still around Jerusalem in YESHUA's day--especially in the context of their likely racial origins (Matt 23:33; Jo 8:44).  Moreover, it is certain that they did not vanish into history, but are still present in modern Jewry in some form here in 2003. 

 

 

The Kain Ties 

 

Perchance, the single most persuasive proof of this just suggested link between the Kenites and Cain lies in the fact that, in the Hebrew (to be shortly established), both Cain and the Kenites evidently have been called "Kain" (Num 24:21-22; Jud 4:11). 

 

Young's "Analytical Concordance" (p. 135, 562), in its commentary, recognizes this tie and opens the door to the likelihood that the Kenites must have been descendants of Ken or more likely Cain (Kain)--based on Numbers 24:22. 

 

Other Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries seem to link the Kenites to Kain as well (i.e. Strong’s).  This Kenite linkage to Kain is sufficient to make one suspect that the very word Kenite has a meaning of “belonging to Kain” or “sons of Kain,” as Dr Arnold Murray concluded years ago in an unpublished paper on “Kenite Genealogy.” 

 

The Word sees fit to outline several famous prophecies of the old seer Balaam in Numbers 24.  The KJV doesn’t render Number 24:22 correctly, but Jewish translations (like the one by Dr J. H. Hertz) give it as “Nevertheless Kain shall be wasted; How long? Asshur shall carry thee away captive” (“The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and the Haftorahs,” p. 680). 

 

In commenting upon this text, Samson Raphael Hirsch notes the Kain connection to the Kenites (in Num 24:21) and goes on to tie this whole presentation to Judges 4:11 which focuses on the Kenites (“The Pentateuch,” v. 5, p. 424).  The point is that the Kenites were descendants of Kain.  That’s why the Torah lists them together in Numbers 24. 

 

Before moving on, it would be useful to recognize that in the Scriptural outline of genealogies in Chronicles, the writer there saw fit to separate the lines of Caleb (mentioned earlier and to be elaborated upon later) and the Kenites in an interesting fashion from the Yehudim, following the exile (I Chron 2:18-55).  Possibly, their racial ancestry may have prompted this presentation. 

 

 

A Male Line of Descent 

 

While space is too limited in this study to examine this Kenite-Kain connection in any detail, it should be noted that based upon how the Scriptures record and recognize genealogical lines (according to the male seed line), it is very plausible that the Kenites were descendants of Kain, via a male table of descent (as suggested above by Arnold Murray). 

 

This remark on being the male seedline of Kain could be a surprise to readers since Christendom does not allow for a male thread back to Cain.  At a first glance, one may suppose that the flood destroyed the male line of Kain.  But alternatively, there could be at least two or more other situations, briefly suggested earlier, which would have preserved the Cain male line in a consistent fashion with the Word’s demands for truth. 

 

Of course, much speculation has persisted that Kain left female lines.  For example, Jewish tradition has it that Kain's female progeny, named Naamah (Gen 4:22), became the wife of Ham, the son of Noah.  And it might be possible that the Kenites come from this line--via the Hamathites, as mentioned above.  Nevertheless, a bloodline male descendant from Cain is revolutionary thinking. 

 

Perhaps much of the difficulty in believing what the Word plainly says on this issue of Kain arises because the world has come to believe that "all" so-called human beings descend from Adam (including Cain, the chaiyah and the behemah) and that the flood was a universal one which destroyed all male lines, except for the one through Seth to Noah and Noah's three sons. 

 

Naturally, these prevalent assumptions and presumptions emanating from the halls of Churchianity may or may not be correct at all, as indicated in previous chapters.  The fact that Christians teach their traditions as truth is certainly no proof that their beliefs are truth.  Everything has to be put to the test of the Word before it is conclusive. 

 

 

After The Exile 

 

Tragically, the reality of miscegenating and illegally mixing with the nokri/nekar aliens intensified when the Jewish returnees from Babylon married into the mongrel, nokri/nekar peoples of the land in such numbers and proportions that both Ezra and Nechemyah saw fit to write about this sin extensively, as has been broached previously herein (Ezra 9:1-15; 10:2-11; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29). 

 

Also, of course, the line of Yehudah did assimilate many aliens and foreigners in the time of Esther, which must not be ignored (Est 8:17).  It is patently obvious that many of these strangers becoming Jews in those days did so for fleshly non-religious purposes.  For many of them, the Word is clear that they either became Jews or they were in serious trouble in the secular world (Est 8:13, 17). 

 

 

The Racially Mixed Jews 

 

The racial mixture of the Jewish people is not even argued in modern, reputable, Jewish writings. 

 

For example, the “Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” (v. 10, p. 331) notes that “The Jews were probably derived from a Babylonian stock and must have been a mixture before they entered the land of Canaan.  There was a further admixture of Canaanites, Arabs, Hittites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Greeks and innumerable other peoples.” 

 

This same encyclopedia and same article goes on to dispute the existence of a Jewish race because of the admixtures and even when “excluding proselyte groups such as the Idumeans, Falashas, Yemenites, the Jews of China or the Khazars.” 

 

The previously mentioned Dr Alfred M. Lilienthal adds that “The Jews have mingled most.  Until the middle of the fifth century B. C. intermarriage was a normal phenomenon in Israelite life, and the ensuing Judaist proselytizing over the globe brought peoples of all races into the Jewish faith... The people who embraced Judaism (from Josephus’ time) were already mixed of many races and strains; and this diversification was rapidly growing” (“What Price Israel,” p. 216). 

 

In broaching the word “Jew,” evidently in the racial or religious context, the “Jewish Almanac” of 1980 (p. 3, as quoted in the Aug 1998 “America’s Promise Newsletter,” p 7) correctly observed that “Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.” 

 

The short of this thinking was well stated by Gordon Keith Pearce, in his book on “Israel Identity,” when he concluded that “the physical characteristics which we Europeans regard as typically Jewish were features mainly derived from admixture with the considerable Khazar-Tartar, Armenian, Hittite and North African communities which adopted the Jewish faith and amalgamated with the Jews during both dispersions.” 

 

 

No Jewish Race! 

 

Clearly, in modern times, there is no “Jewish race,” per se, because the so-called Jews are a mixture of many races and kinds.  This reality is most interesting because huge numbers of both Christians and Jews suppose that there is a Jewish race. 

 

Supposedly, the early Nazi political movement was predicated upon the existence of a “Jewish” race.  Many Jews feel that this Nazi persecution was solely because of race. 

 

This study takes the position that the Nazi opposition to the Jews was essentially over religion.  Or otherwise, the Nazi authorities would have never legalized the Karaites (to be later described) and allowed them to exist, as evidently did happen.  Historically, in Christian lands, any Jew willing to convert to Christendom was good.  Christian hatred has always been primarily focused on the Jewish religion. 

 

The original draft of the famous Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, from Arthur James Balfour (Britain’s Foreign Minister) to Baron Lionel Rothschild (on establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine), was prepared with a reference to “the Jewish race.” 

 

But US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (a noted Zionist of his day) prevailed to have the reference recast as “the Jewish people” (per Alfred Lilienthal, in his book “The Zionist Connection,” p. 15, 782). 

 

Having just established that there is no Jewish race, per se, it is appropriate to recognize that there are at least two or more loose Jewish ethnic groups of sorts which are made up of the vast assortment of mixed races and peoples, as just outlined. 

 

These Jewish ethnic groupings are further subdivided along various religious and political lines and definitions.  They will be discussed in some detail in later chapters in this presentation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 140--The Edomites

 

 

The Esau Line 

 

One of the most extraordinary groups of people to constantly integrate and mix (actually attach themselves as parasites) with the peoples of Yisrael has been the Edomite descendants of Yakov Yisrael’s older brother Esau, meaning hairy (also known as Edom). 

 

Since Edom means red, is it not plausible that Esau was red headed and possibly of red complexion or with red freckles?  Clearly, he was born ruddy (Gen 25:25, “Soncino Chumash,” p. 141).  Through centuries of miscegenation, this red coloring may have changed in many of his modern day descendants (because of darkening genes).  But it could be a significant point of identification--at least, in the early years of his line. 

 

In mentioning this linkage of Edom-red to Esau and his brood, some questions may arise on how this phenomenon may have occurred in view of the earlier discussion on the likely production of the red headed and red complexioned Irish in the chapter on evolution.  Was there sufficient miscegenation in Yitzhak or Rebekah’s lineage to allow a strong red throwback in Esau?  Well, it is clearly possible. 

 

Among many believers, there is a strong supposition that both Yitzhak and Rebekah’s ancestry were pure Adamic, but that condition may not be totally true.  Also, questions might be raised about Esau’s paternity.  Was Yitzhak really his father?  Or was someone else involved--like with Kain and as perhaps allowed in Genesis 25:23? 

 

Finally, the Scriptural connection of Edom-red to the Esau line might be explained in the context that Esau miscegenated with certain non-Adamic peoples to produce the Edomite red (though the wording in Genesis 25:25 allows that he was described as being ruddy, as noted above).  Regardless, maybe Edom-red is to be associated with some of Esau’s descendants and not necessarily with him, per se. 

 

 

Esau's Struggle 

 

The exceptional tendency and enormous push by the Edomites over a 3,900-year period with a view of gaining the land, promises and blessings made to Avraham and Yitzhak are indeed interesting.  Time and space at this time will not allow a reasonable look at this subject, but a few remarks are called for (this subject will be further assessed in later chapters). 

 

It is important to recognize that from the earliest of the beginnings of the twins Esau (also known as Edom) and  Yakov (Jacob in the KJV), who was renamed Yisrael by YHWH, they struggled against each other during the pregnancy of their mother Rebekah (Gen 25:21-23).  Of course, in time, the first born Esau foolishly sold his birthright to his younger brother over a bowl of worthless soup (Gen 25:33). 

 

This stupidity and selfishness of the elder brother and the later cunning of Yakov (Gen 27:19-30) prompted Esau to develop a strong passionate hatred of his younger twin brother (Gen 27:41).  The book of Jasher recognized this enmity (anger and hatred--Jasher 29:9-10) by the descendants of Esau toward their relatives, the Israelites, and pointed out its “age lasting” persistence (Jasher 58:28). 

 

Even as late of the 6th century BCE, the prophet Yechezkel saw this continuing problem with the Edomites when he wrote of their perpetual hatred for the children of Yisrael (Ezek 35:5).  Obviously, this conflict was no minor thing; and it was not about to end quickly--at least, in the eyes of Esau and his lineage. 

 

Yakov’s sale of his soup to his brother Esau and Yakov’s later cunning and deception to take possession of Esau’s birthright and blessings has proven to be over history one of the most profoundly important events of all.  It will be discussed in some detail in subsequent chapters which focus upon the struggle between these two brothers and their descendants over thousands of years. 

 

 

Esau’s Sins 

 

Of Esau's apparent shortcomings, perhaps one of his worse sins was his illegal interracial marriages (which were fornication--Heb 12:16) with the daughters of Canaan (Gen 28:6; 36:2), Heth/Hittites (Gen 26:34; 27:46; 36:2), Ishmael, (Gen 28:9; 36:3), Hivites (Gen 36:2) and evidently Horites by him and/or his descendants (Gen 36:19-43). 

 

Certainly, he despised his own seed line (Gen 26:34-35), as well as his birthright (Gen 25:34), which goes to suggest another tragic feature of his personality.  In a commentary on Malachi 1:1-3, where YHWH indicates His hatred for Esau (per the KJV), the Jul-Sep 2001 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 4) asks about the why for this hatred? 

 

The answer may be that Esau displayed his personal selfishness toward his own children and descendants when he sold his birthright for a bowl of soup.  Effectively, he could have cared less about his own children and their future.  He was interested only in himself and his immediate self-gratification.  Like the Torah says-- he despised his own seed-line. 

 

Thus, there was over time several good reasons why Yisrael should have exercised some care and discretion to maintain a degree of separation or segregation from the Edomites (a state of "kodesh" --per the Hebrew).  Yet, the two peoples continued to find themselves physically thrust together--perhaps as perpetuated by Esau in his evil efforts to recover the lost birthright. 

 

 

A Continuing Problem 

 

Iyov mentioned that one of his friends was a man named Eliphaz, a Temanite (Job 2:11); and thus, a progeny of Esau (evidently Esau’s son Eliphaz).  By the time of the establishment of the unified kingdom under Shaul, there was a reference to the Edomite Doeg in the context of Yisrael (I Sam 21:7; 22:8-10, 18).  Certainly, Doeg was a very treacherous and evil man. 

 

From the earliest days of the nation of Yisrael, just after the Exodus, the Book reflects the probable isolated presence of some Kenezite descendants of Kenaz, like the previously mentioned Caleb and Othniel, with the tribe of Yehudah (Josh 14:6; Jud 3:9).  There are possibly two different groups of Kenizzite/Kenezite peoples who could be the relatives of Caleb and Othniel. 

 

This writer has looked carefully at this connection and has been unable to decide which Kenaz that these two famous brothers were related to.  In the first instance, there were some Kenizzite peoples who inhabited Canaan when Avraham first came there (Gen 15:19).  These people will be elaborated upon in later remarks herein. 

 

Otherwise, there was a subsequent Kenaz who was a son of Eliphaz, mentioned above, and grandson of Esau (Gen 36:11-15).  It’s hard to say whether Caleb and Othniel were from Esau or the earlier Kenizzite peoples. 

 

At the moment, the best option would seem to be for them to link to Esau because of the KJV spelling of Kenezite, although other translations spell the two names the same.  “The Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. 2, p. 82) has it that Caleb and Othniel were descendants of Kenaz the Edomite. 

 

In either case, their non-Israelite origin might have something to do with the separate presentation of Caleb’s genealogy in Chronicles (I Chron 2:18-54).  Otherwise, one would have to wonder why The ELOHIM chose to outline Caleb’s personal genealogy, as He did in His Word with its very limited presentation on the histories of non-Israelite peoples. 

 

Though these two brothers (Caleb and Othniel) were mentioned in the Scriptures as Kenezites, it is reasonable to believe that their particular line had crossed back with Israelites for several generations and may not have involved much of the adverse genes of Esau or whoever, as stipulated in the 3/10 generation exclusion rule, outlined earlier in this publication. 

 

 

The Amalekite Haman 

 

In later times, one of the more famous adversaries of truth was the well known Haman (who was mentioned in the Prologue), the son of Hammedatha and an Agagite.  He was at the pinnacle of power in the cabinet of King Ahasuerus of the Medes and Persians and in direct opposition to Mordicai and Esther (Est 3:1-5).  He wanted to destroy all the true Jewish Israelites in his day. 

 

As scholar Herbert Lockyer observes, the Agagite Haman was thus a descendant of the Amalekites from Esau (“All the Men of the Bible,” p. 155).  “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 31) suggests that the Amalekites descended from Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:10-16; I Chron 1:36).  In time, the Amalekites became one of the most formidable and worse enemies of all for Yisrael, as will shortly be shown.  

 

The Amalekites  have been mentioned in preceding comments and will be described in some detail in succeeding chapters.  But there is one important reality that the student of truth must remember in assessing the Amalekites (as well as the other tribes and segments of the Esau clan).  All Amalekites are Edomites, but all Edomites are not necessarily Amalekites. 

 

Likewise, all of the Phoenicians seemed to be Edomites (as will be shortly described below), but all Edomites were not Phoenicians. 

 

The point of this is that any reference to the Amalekites herein is a reference to some Edomites, but not necessarily all Edomites since the Edomite definition is something bigger than just the Amalekites.  A reference to the Edomites may be to the broader definition or any part or parcel of the clan. 

 

 

3,900 Years of Evil 

 

Therefore, it is sufficient to say that from the time of Esau's loss of the birthright on (Gen 25:33: 27:36, 41), from c1900 BCE to the early 21st century CE, his seed line has worked long, hard, diligently and patiently to try to recover the lost birthright, blessings and promises. 

 

The Edomites have typically labored in a clandestine, secret fashion to try to recover the lost birthright, blessings and promises 

 

But sometimes, they have worked more overtly and clearly as they did in the form of the Edomite Ottoman Turks--who conquered, controlled and ruled Palestine for centuries before they were finally crushed and expelled by the British and an Arab (Ishmaelite) army led by the famous Lawrence of Arabia in WWI. 

 

This situation with the Edomite Turks and the Ishmaelite Arabs is most interesting.  It demonstrates the incredible reality that once Yisrael entered the promise land and took possession of it from the Canaanites (following the Exodus), much of that land has usually been in the possession of either Israelites or other descendants of Avraham. 

 

Earlier Scriptural evidence was presented suggesting that even many or all of the occupying Romans were actually Israelites. 

 

If this land occupation phenomenon is true and holds for thousands of years, one must pause and take note of the British control of Palestine from December 1917 (with the General Allenby conquest) up to 1948 when the Jews took over.  Would the British occupation (mandate) be an exception to this strange correlation? 

 

 

The Phoenicians, Revisited 

 

And in fact, overt Esau efforts to control the land could well go back substantially further in time than the Ottomans all the way back to the Phoenicians of ancient OT days; who, various historians say, were, in reality, Edomites, as noted above (per Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," book xiii, chapter 9, verse 1 and other writings). 

 

If so, then the obvious Esau presence and influence in the land has been quite profound--spanning thousands of years. 

 

While there is no intent to get off on a tangent at this stage, it should be pointed out that some scholars have suggested that numbers of Phoenicians migrated West to Ireland and possibly some elsewhere in Britain and settled there at an early time (May-Jun 1998 “America’s Promise Newsletter,” p. 6). 

 

The February 1999 “Kingdom Digest” magazine had an article by J. S. Brooks on “The Hebrew-Celtic Connection” (p. 15-17) which described the Phoenician immigration to Ireland. 

 

As evidence of the extensive Phoenician link to the early Irish peoples, Brooks quotes a number of 18th century linguists who have reported the similarities between the Punic (Phoenician) language and the early Irish Celtic language.  Likely, the incoming Phoenicians amalgamated and mixed with peoples already there and/or other incoming immigrants to form the early Irish people, language and culture. 

 

This Phoenician presence probably accounts for the Catholic culture and religious beliefs and the dominant red heads and red complexions of many of the modern Irish.  While the Southern Irish are thought to be Celts, it must be pointed out that they are of the Gaelic branch, as opposed to other branches in other parts of Great Britain (Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 101).  

 

 

Two Celts 

 

In this context, it appears that there are probably two identifiable groups of Celts.  An article by Valerie Martlew on the “Lost Celts” in the Oct 1998 “New Beginnings” (p. 11-12) recognizes this duality.  She says that there are two main strains of Celts--those called “Celtiberians” and the later Celts, who were often known as “Cimmeroi, Sakae, Scythians, etc.” 

 

The Celtiberians colonized the shores of the Mediterranean at an early date (c1800 BCE) and established settlements in Spain, Portugal and even Great Britain (as just cited).  The writer of this present study would suggest that these early Celts probably were the Phoenician descendants of Esau.  Likely, they are still found in today’s Southern Ireland, as noted above. 

 

However, the later Celts, particularly the Cimmeroi (Cimmerian), were perhaps not of Phoenician stock, but were largely of Israelite heritage.  Their linkage to the early Edomite Phoenician Celts probably arises because of their close proximity in Canaan and later parallel or like emigrations from the Middle East to the West. 

 

The subsequent miscegenation and amalgamation, particularly by the Northern tribe of Dan with the Phoenicians (evidently in later Ireland), made the two peoples somewhat inseparable in Southern Ireland in the context of the Gaelic Celtic branch (probably with the Phoenician blood predominating). 

 

 

Early Phoenician Power over Yisrael 

 

But returning to the early Phoenician power over Yisrael in her kingdom days, it might be argued that it was generally limited.  The fact remains though that it did succeed for a time and were it not for the intervention of The ELOHIM, it could have persisted. 

 

The best illustration of this phenomenon surfaced when the House of Yisrael's King Achav foolishly married the Phoenician woman Jezebel.  Jezebel’s father Ethbaal was the king of Zidon or Sidon (I Kg 16:31) which was a part of Phoenicia (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 761-762). 

 

Please note that the Phoenician area of Western Canaan included the areas of Tyre (the great commercial center) and Sidon.  In this context, can one draw a parallel between this historical fact and the later, age ending, commercial empire established by Edomite descendants of Esau?  Future chapters on the super rich and the New World Order allow for this correlation. 

 

It goes without saying (or having to prove) that Jezebel was one of the most evil and diabolical women of not only Yisrael--but indeed, perhaps of all nations of all time.  She was extremely nasty and through her influence, much of the wicked Baal religion and thinking of the Phoenicians were introduced and expanded into the House of Yisrael. 

 

 

In Yehudah As Well 

 

Not only was this ostensible Edomite thinking dominant for a time in the Northern tribes, but it gained a foothold in the Southern House of Yehudah as well when Jezebel's daughter Athaliah (Atalyahu in the Hebrew) married Jehoram (Yehoram in the Hebrew), the future king of Yehudah (II Kg 8:18).  Yehoram only ruled eight years before dying.  But for those eight years, he was of the same bent and disposition as Jezebel (II Kg 8:18). 

 

With the demise of Yehoram, his son Ahaziah (Achazyah in the Hebrew), from Atalyahu, became king (II Kg 8:24).  Achazyah governed Yehudah for about one year before being killed.  He, likewise, followed suit in the same depraved path of his father Yehoram, his mother Atalyahu and his grandmother Jezebel (II Kg 8:26-27). 

 

By a strange set of circumstances, the evil Atalyahu seized the House of Yehudah throne with the death of her son Achazyah (II Kg 11:3).  She actually reigned over Yehudah for some six or seven years (II Kg 11:3-4) and tried her best to murder all of the members of the Judean royal family from David (II Kg 11:1).  Nevertheless, the later to be king, Joash (Yoash in the Hebrew), then an infant child, survived (II Kg 11:2). 

 

Significantly, this Jezebel family control over both Yisrael and Yehudah was curtailed by YHWH when He pronounced a curse on the line of Achav (II Kg 9:8) and raised up a new king in Yisrael named Jehu (Yehu in the Hebrew) to carry out a death sentence on all of Achav's male descendants in Samaria (II Kg 9:6; 10:1-11).  Yehu also slew Yehudah's King Achazyah (II Kg 9:27). 

 

Thus, the temporary Phoenician dominion over Yisrael and Yehudah was largely broken.  But tragically, the evil had already been done, mainly in the Northern Yisrael kingdom, with the outright promotion of Baal sun worship among the gullible Israelites (which has persisted to modern times with a subtle presence in Christendom). 

 

It is also important to note that during the reign of Yehudah’s King Ahaz, the Edomites attacked Yehudah and carried away Israelite captives (II Chron 28:17).  This assault seems to have included a land conquest, as the context notes (II Chron 28:13-19).  At this time, the king of Syria recovered Elath and some of the Edomites returned there (II Kg 16:6, per the Masoretic text in the “Soncino Books of the Bible”). 

 

Beyond these clear, open and almost undisputed Esau efforts to seize the land and promises outright, the Edomites have more often concentrated on sly, crafty, clever, discreet and covert methods of seizure, as they did in Second Temple days through the efforts of King Herod the Great and his family and associates (as cited in the Prologue).  This reality will now be conclusively established. 

 

 

Josephus 

 

The Jewish scholar Josephus, in his writings on the "Antiquities of the Jews," tells about the powerful and extensive presence of Edomites (Idumeans in Greek) in Palestine after the Babylonian exile and long after the Phoenicians ceased to be a power in the Middle East. 

 

Josephus' best known remarks about the existence and power structure of Idumeans, posing as Jews within the Palestinian Jewish community, concerns the evil and wicked King Herod (The Great) and his family who were undeniably racial Edomites (“Antiquities of the Jews,” book xiv, chapter 1, verse 3). 

 

The reality of this distinction (or mixing) prompted Josephus to later call Herod a "half Jew" (“Antiquities of the Jews,” book xiv, chapter 15, verse 2).  Antigonus, Herod’s enemy (“Antiquities of the Jews,” chapter 9, verse 1 footnote), did the same thing. 

 

Since Herod’s father and mother were reportedly both racial Edomites (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 315), it is unclear what a half Jew meant. 

 

 

What is a Half Jew 

 

Stephen E. Jones, in the “Foundation for Intercession” newsletter (issue #156, Jan 2002, p. 1), suggests that the half-Jew designation arose because Herod was actually half Idumean and half Judean--in that Herod’s father Antipater was “captured by Idumeans while he was still young and had been raised in Idumea.”  Jones then adds that this Antipater married Herod’s mother, “an Idumean girl.” 

 

The implication of Jones’ words are that Antipater, Herod’s father, was a Jew who was captured and raised by the Idumeans.  However, this allegation does not jive with the historical information which this writer can ascertain from various dictionary sources available to me. 

 

For example, the “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 42) says that Antipater, Herod’s father, was an Idumean by birth.  The “Oxford Companion to the Bible” (p. 281) indicates that Herod’s father Antipater was a son of an earlier Antipater who was made Governor of Idumea by the Hasmoneans. 

 

The source of this Antipater I is unclear; but surely, he was a genuine Edomite to justify his governorship (if he was not an Idumean, would the Hasmoneans have appointed him to be governor?).  Anyway, the point is that there is some uncertainty about the real meaning of the phrase “half Jew.” 

 

Perhaps the best explanation is that one of the parents of Herod the Great (Antipater II or his Idumean wife) was an alleged convert to Judaism (which suggests a religious twist to the term half Jew).  In any case, this exact situation involving the Idumeans could tie back in some way to the bramble bush, as will be discussed in a later chapter. 

 

 

Many Edomites Forcibly Converted to Judaism 

 

But the Herod family was only the tip of the Esau iceberg.  Because elsewhere, 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 (“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, if not all, 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). 

 

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, as elaborated upon in a previous chapter (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 Both Yehudah and Yisrael 

 

“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--as will be done in a later chapter. 

 

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, as discussed previously (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, as will be described in later comments.  

 

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, to be shortly described.  In other words, the person searching for the Edomites in history must look in several directions beyond just the Jews. 

 

 

Edomite Integration 

 

To appreciate where these Edomites came from in Palestine 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 (which later converted to Judaism in John Hyrcanus’ days) were then inhabited by Edomites and came to be known as Idumea.  It is also quite manifest that this Edomite presence extended far North, perhaps even to Jerusalem/Samaria. 

 

 

The Edomites and Samaritans 

 

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, as discussed in an earlier chapter.  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). 

 

As noted in a prior remark on this priest, 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 (as discussed in a former chapter).  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? 

 

 

Geography? 

 

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, to be described in later comments. 

 

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 (as was noted previously).  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. 

 

 

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, until the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE. 

 

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 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, 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 one more important group, to be described in the following chapter. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 141--The Khazars

 

 

More Edomites 

 

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. 

 

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” 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. 

 

A later chapter will establish that these Khazars historically have been known to be nomads and wanderers. 

 

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). 

 

 

More Khazar Realities 

 

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 (to be described in later chapters). 

 

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 noted earlier). 

 

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 (previously discussed) 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). 

 

Having formerly cited the Edomite color red and the modern Irish, 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 Revisited 

 

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 previously mentioned 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, broached earlier, and to be assessed in some detail in a later chapter herein. 

 

 

More on the Picts 

 

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). 

 

The previously quoted 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 to be discussed later, 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.  More evidence of this linkage will be outlined in succeeding chapters. 

 

 

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).” 

 

 

Other Peoples As Well

 

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. 

 

 

The Cossacks 

 

The mention of these early Khazars brings up another point outlined in an article on the “Cossacks:  ‘Back in the Saddle Again,’” in the Aug 1998 “Prophetic Observer” (p. 1-4) which tried to connect the Cossacks to the Khazars.  However, the Cossacks were Christians who were not only anti-Communists, but persons who had joined in with the Germans in WWII. 

 

It’s hard to fathom that the Cossacks could be racially from the Khazars.  But if so, it goes to establish that there was a spilt among the historic Khazars with some of them becoming Christians (Russian Orthodox) while the rest turned to Judaism. 

 

It might be that in any early amalgamation or contact of the Edomites in Eastern Europe, with the peoples of Togarma-Japheth, there was a fragmenting of the people into two groupings--one primarily of Togarma (Christians) and the other essentially of Esau’s lineage (Jewish). 

 

If such a division occurred, it seems certain that both groups eventually miscegenated with Mongoloids and other racial/ethnic groups. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 142--More Edomite Definitions

 

 

A Kenite--Edomite Link? 

 

The previous presentation on the Kenites now assumes a more relevant posture in terms of the Edomites because of Yisrael’s old enemy Balaam (from Exodus days) and his famous prophesy on them when he said that strong is their dwelling site and they (the Kenites) will place their nest (residence and place of power?) in the rock (Num 24:21). 

 

The Rock (Hebrew Sela, Greek Petra--located in the Seir mountain area) was to also become the home of a part of the Edomite peoples descending from Esau and at least one of his Canaanite wives, as noted previously (Gen 36:9; Jasper 29:20-23). 

 

Is it not totally plausible that a portion of the Kenites lived in Petra contemporaneously with a tribe or element of the Edomites since the two peoples apparently shared Petra (Num 24:18, 21)?  As will be later shown, the context of Numbers 24 clearly puts the Amalekites and Kenites together in the Seir area. 

 

Could these Amalek-Edomite and Kenite peoples have intermarried and become commingled in some fashion over the years?  If so, then the role of the Kenites may well prove to be most unusual, as will be further established herein.  Such an integration and amalgamation should not surprise anyone in view of the histories of the Edomites and Kenites. 

 

 

The Kenizzites 

 

Early on, in the post-flood environment of the Middle East, the Kenites were furthermore closely linked to the Kenizzite peoples, previously mentioned, who inhabited Canaan when Avraham first came there (Gen 15:19).  The origin of these early Kenizzites is unclear.  However, they may have been descendants of Cain in some fashion. 

 

“Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 563) says that the word Kenizzite means “belonging to Kenaz.”  There was a later Kenaz (the earlier outlined possible ancestor of Caleb and Othniel) who was a son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau; and thus, a half brother of Amalek (Gen 36:11-15). 

 

The question now arising--is it possible that this name Kenaz pops up in Esau’s descendants because of its prior association in Canaan with the Kenizzites.  Was there a previous Kenaz descendant of Kain or Ham and Canaan who had intermarried with the Edomites? 

 

Was this the situation which prompted the name Kenaz to be chosen by Eliphaz years later for his son?  Hence, Kenizzites likely intermarried with Esau or his son Eliphaz in some way to allow the surfacing of the name Kenaz in Esau’s line. 

 

In any case, the evidence is suggestive that the early Kenizzites were close neighbors of the early Kenites and surely involved with them to some extent, along with the Edomites (see Gen 15:19).  This relationship must have persisted through the years as descendants of the Kenites and Edomites were also eventually thrust together. 

 

 

Some More Thinking 

 

In a commentary on Deuteronomy 2:5, the “Soncino Chumash” (p. 996) focused on the lands given Esau for a possession.  This source suggests that The ELOHIM promised Avraham the territory of ten nations.  Seven were given to Yisrael and those of the Kenites, Kenizzites and Kadmonites were intended for Esau and Lot’s children. 

 

The Kadmonites were an early tribe linked to both the Kenites and Kenizzites (Gen 15:19).  If Soncino’s comments are correct, it would seem that the land which Esau and Lot’s children inherited once belonged to the Kenites, Kenizzites and Kadmonites. 

 

In other words, these peoples probably held some of those lands when Esau came in and took possession of them.  Surely, many of these peoples miscegenated and mixed, once they were integrated in the land. 

 

 

Kenites Separated? 

 

This linkage of the Kenites with the early Kenizzites and Kadmonites and apparently later with Eliphaz’s family must have continued for some time because in Shaul’s day the Kenites were associated with the Amalekite relatives of Kenaz.  

 

Shaul advised these Kenites to separate from the Amalekites and some did so at that time (I Sam 15:6).  Probably, this was the situation which prompted some of the Kenites to then attach themselves to Yehudah and Binyamin, as described herein in earlier comments. 

 

Dr J. H. Hertz, in “The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 56), suggests for Genesis 15:19 that both the Kenizzites and Kenites merged with the Israelites.  Thus, it may be that some of them were attached with Yisrael for some time.  Surely, some of them miscegenated and amalgamated with the Jews. 

 

But per Balaam’s far reaching prophecy (Num 24:18-25), mentioned previously, it appears that some of the Kenites possibly resumed connections in time with their Canaanite and Edomite friends and allies in the Seir mountains.  It would not be far fetched to allow that all of them intermarried over the years, simply because of being so close together.  And there is still one more group which needs to be assessed. 

 

 

The Horites 

 

This discussion on Seir being the historic home of the Edomites and Kenites brings up another interesting point deserving mention.  Another group of people inhabiting this area at a very early time have been called Horites (or Horims), evidently descending from a man named Hori (per “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 491, 856). 

 

Hori was perhaps the progenitor of Seir the Horite (Gen 36:20-21), whose name was attached to the mountain range in Edom where the Edomites and Kenites dwelt.  These Seir/Horite people are additionally important in this presentation because they also lived in the Seir mountains as contemporaries of Esau. 

 

Significantly, Esau might have married a Horite woman.  He certainly married a woman named Oholibamah, who was perhaps a mixed Hivite and Horite, as some scholars suggest (Gen 36:2-5, 19-21).  More will be said about Oholibamah in subsequent remarks. 

 

Just like it is quite logical that the Edomites in Seir intermarried and crossed with any Kenites present there, it is also manifest that the Edomites intermarried and crossed extensively with the Horites.  Actual cases will be shortly cited. 

 

 

Who Were the Horites? 

 

A question now arises over who these Horite people were in terms of the genealogies outlined in the Scriptures in the post-flood era.  It is important to note that they seem to arrive on the scene in the Word, apparently from obscurity. 

 

These Horites appear to have had no identified beginning or origin.  “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 297, 491, 808) says that they might have been related to the Emim and Rephaim, the race of giants. 

 

The “Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon” (p. 251) suggests that these Horites could have been a “Canaanitish people.”  The “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 336) says that Hori was a “cave-dweller or man of Khar.”  In terms of geography, there was a significant mountain named Hor on the border of Edom where Aaron was buried (Num 20:22-27). 

 

Comments to follow will allow that the Horites were synonymous with or at least connected to the Hivites.  Though it will remain a very complicated issue as to who these Horites were in respect to this study, one can legitimately raise some questions and wonder if they could be descendants of Kain in some fashion or perhaps even connect somehow to the previously mentioned Kenites or Kenizzites. 

 

While this writer could not clearly establish the origin of these Horite peoples, it is interesting to note that the book of Jasher addresses them briefly.  Jasher (p. vi) says that Seir was the son of Hur, the son of Hivi and the son of Canaan and that Hur was the founder of the Horites.  Hence, maybe Hur and Hori were the same person--who was a son of Hivi, the Canaanite. 

 

Whomever these Horite peoples were, in respect to genealogy, they were most important because they manifestly did intermarry with the Esau line in several ways--probably in the land area around the Seir mountains. 

 

Consequently, it would seem that Esau and his Canaanite wives dwelt in this Seir area contemporaneously with the Kenites and Horites (whomever they were).  Surely, it’s not hard to put two and two together and figure out that this whole mass of people must have integrated and amalgamated in the Petra area. 

 

 

Esau’s Descendants, Revisited 

 

The point has been made in previous comments that Esau had several children and that the student of truth must be careful about concluding that all of them converted to Judaism.  In other words, all Edomites are not presently a part of the Jewish people. 

 

Esau evidently married at least three (or more) women.  He married first Mahalath (or Bashemath, because she burned spices to idols--Jewish Chumash, p. 215), daughter of Ishmael (Gen 28:9; 36:3); and later Adah, a Hittite, and Oholibamah (Aholibamah in the KJV), who possibly was a mixed Hivite-Horite of some sort (Gen 36:2). 

 

Esau’s first born son was Eliphaz, birthed by Adah (Jasher 29:17).  Bashemath or Basemath produced Reuel and Oholibamah may have given him Jeush, Jaalam and possibly Korah.  Upon leaving Canaan, Esau moved his family initially to the Seir Mountains territory where the Horites dwelt, as noted above.  He took possession of it and nearby lands. 

 

This land area that Esau seized became the ancestral home of the Edomites.  From a geographical perspective, it was known as Edom.  Once Esau and his brood arrived there, the word Edom often became attached to this land as a place name. 

 

Hence, Scriptural references to Edom can be to the geographical land area or to the people (either collectively or by specific tribes) who once lived there.  This condition necessitates some careful study and research whenever the word Edom comes up to be sure of an interpretation of precisely who is involved. 

 

This original Edom territory was essentially the Dead Sea-Elat Rift area.  It existed primarily on the East side of the Rift to include an area to the South of Moab.  However, it did extend somewhat West of the Rift from time to time, evidently in the context that the Edomites were nomadic and wandering desert peoples who claimed and migrated over a vast area.   

 

On arrival and conquest or inhabitation of this Southern territory, Esau apparently killed some of the Horites, Kenites, Kenizzites and Kadmonites and/or forced some of them out and/or more likely amalgamated with most of them. 

 

In Seir, Eliphaz evidently had Amalek first (according to traditional Jewish knowledge) by his concubine Timna, a Horite.  Later, he had Amalek’s brothers--Teman, Omar, Zepho (Zephi), Kenaz, Gatam, Timna and possibly Korah--by his wives or whores (Gen 36:11-16; I Chron 1:36, 51). 

 

As allowed in prior comments, some of the children or grandchildren of Esau obviously migrated elsewhere in the early years and miscegenated with various other peoples. 

 

The Genesis presentation on the genealogy of Esau offers a couple of remarks which allow that the various sons and/or grandsons were to have their own land areas with their own place names (Gen 36:40-43)--just as the sons of Ishmael and Yakov all were to eventually produce their own separate nations. 

 

Seemingly, the sons of Bashemath and possibly Oholibamah must have moved on at a very early time because they never seemed to be associated with old Edom in the South.  It is not hard to speculate where these children of Esau relocated, as will shortly be shown. 

 

 

More on Eliphaz 

 

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, as will be shortly discussed below). 

 

 

Early Movements 

 

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 above, 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 has to be Phoenicia because Josephus said that they were Edomites, as elsewhere described.   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.  It will be shortly addressed. 

 

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.

 

Today, some of these Edomite people seem to have become advocates of the Shiite Moslem faith, as opposed to the Sunni faith, which is so prevalent among the Arab Muslims (although it is possible that most of the Shiite Muslims are more racially connected to the sons of Keturah than any other peoples in ancient history). 

 

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 surely some of the modern Iranians are Edomites, there may be another explanation for these people. 

 

Certainly, the ancient Persians were not Edomites.  While the racial ancestry of the ancient Persians may be a subject of dispute, some evidence exists which might allow some of them to have been Israelites of the lost tribes--particularly in the context of Cyrus and the prophetic role that he played in freeing the Jews. 

 

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.  Thus, it is no wonder that some Israelites would assimilate with them. 

 

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. 

 

 

Timna and Phoenicia? 

 

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). 

 

The probable Basque tie to Hamites was discussed earlier.  “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. 

 

 

The Phoenician Link in Britain, Revisited  

 

Many of the Phoenicians eventually settled in Ireland, as mentioned before, 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.

 

As previously noted, some 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, discussed earlier. 

 

The later Celts, who came out of the Middle East, were known as Cimmerians in history (discussed earlier).  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. 

 

As noted in a previous chapter, it is interesting that the Celtic peoples of the British Isles and France carry a significant RH negative factor 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 genes.  Of course, the Phoenician Edomites already had strong Canaanite genes in their ancestry which could have powerfully influenced their lineage. 

 

 

Zepho and Cyprus? 

 

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 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). 

 

 

Turkey

 

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, as noted earlier and to be commented upon further in a later chapter). 

 

 

The Teman Connection 

 

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. 

 

 

The Other Sons of Eliphaz 

 

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, as described in a former chapter herein.  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, mentioned earlier 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 in later chapters. 

 

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) are actually very much linked to Satanism/Luciferianism (as will be later established).  In this sense, their linkages to Judaism and Christianity and the Muslim and Samaritan faiths mean little or nothing. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

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, as will be discussed in later commentary herein). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 143--The Amalek-Edomites

 

 

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 described so far. 

 

Per Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24:20), elsewhere elaborated upon herein, 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 Khazar people, discussed in preceding chapters. 

 

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 Later Amalek Lands 

 

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 (discussed earlier) 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?  This option will be addressed in later chapters. 

 

 

The Southern Edomites 

 

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 the vacuum of people in Southern Judea, mentioned earlier. 

 

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. 

 

Evidently, from there, they quickly started moving North into Southern Judea.  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. 

 

 

The Division of Edom  

 

This division of Idumea into upper and lower parts necessitates a revisit to the previous 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 Simon as “bar Giora” (meaning a proselyte, as will be described in a later chapter).

 

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).  These NT references will be covered in a later chapter. 

 

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 outlined in the former chapters, some Edomites can easily bounce around from religion to religion.  But in their hearts, they always remain devoted to Satan (as will be later proven herein). 

 

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.  This option will be addressed in a subsequent chapter. 

 

 

Vanishing Edomites? 

 

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 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. 

 

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.  They will be further discussed in a later chapter herein. 

 

 

The Seir Mountains Tie, Revisited 

 

The Khazar link to the Seir Mountains was outlined in a former chapter 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. 

 

As outlined earlier, 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." 

 

 

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 (to be later discussed), 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, as discussed previously herein 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,” to be shortly described, 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. 

 

 

Interchangeable Words 

 

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, as outlined previously (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, to be later assessed.  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.  This Phoenician action will be broached in later chapters. 

 

 

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 surely 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, discussed previously. 

 

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). 

 

While 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 

 

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; Deut 25:17-19; I Sam 15:3).  Evidently, YHWH knew that the Israelites would fail 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. 

 

Thus, the Edomites West of the Rift and to the South of the returning Jews were most assuredly Amalekites.  Certainly, they were racially part Canaanite from Esau’s Hittite wife Adah.  It is this group of Amalek-Edomites (with the Hittite linkage) who seem to have largely integrated and assimilated with the Jewish Israelites through the work of John Hyrcanus in Second Temple days. 

 

 

They Moved On 

 

At some point in time--whether as early as Shaul and David’s time, First Temple days, the exile period of 550-500 BCE when the Edomites started abandoning old Edom, during the later years when the Persians forced the Edomites to give up some of their stolen lands, when the Maccabees attacked them, when John Hyrcanus moved against them or during the Roman War of 66-70 CE--some part of the Amalekites evidently left the Southern area of Palestine to become nomads and wanderers. 

 

As noted in the above discussion on the fall of Jerusalem, it would seem that the best estimate is that any surviving Edomites in the old Lower Southern part of Idumea, who had not previously converted to Judaism, probably escaped North around 70 CE, initially to Asia Minor and/or Middle Asia and then later on further North to settle in the Transcaucasia area. 

 

As will be covered in later chapters, one of the prime attributes of Esau and his line has been to lie and deceive.  Naturally, these Amalekites were masters at deception.  So perhaps that is why they changed their national name from Amalekites to Khazars. 

 

Based on the historical records of the Khazars themselves, they came from Seir.  Manifestly, they would have to be Edomites from Eliphaz.  Certainly, the Khazars physically have the Hittite noses and some of the other physical statures of the early Hittites, described in previous comments. 

 

 

More Proof 

 

Another most interesting piece of evidence surfaced in the June 27, 1998, “Jerusalem Post,” which also goes a long way in identifying the Khazars of Europe with the Amalekites. 

 

In the “News in Brief” section of the Jerusalem Post, the point was made that the absence of a certain blood factor in Jews of Iraqi and Ashkenazi origin shows a close genetic connection between these two communities and testifies to the fact that all Diaspora Jewish communities originate from Babylonian Jewry after the exile. 

 

The writer of this study accepts the above news report on the alleged connection between the two classes of Jews based upon this blood factor determination.  However, this acceptance is no reason to justify the conclusion that the two communities both came from “Babylonian Jewry” after the exile. 

 

Admittedly, the two communities are probably related--after all, Yisrael and Esau were related. 

 

Moreover, the “Charlotte Observer” of May 10, 2000, had a story that DNA research now indicates that there is a linkage between modern Jews and Palestinians (May 2000 “End Time News,” p. 4). 

 

Again, this is to be expected; because historically, Sephardi Jews (with an Israelite-Canaanite-Kenite blend), Ashkenazi Jews (with a mostly Edomite-Canaanite-Kenite blend) and Arabs (with an Ishmaelite-Canaanite blend) do have much in common in ancestry.  No wonder they have genetic ties.  They should have! 

 

 

And More 

 

On the just mentioned Babylon-Diaspora linkage, it’s just that the evidence doesn’t establish the Ashkenazi and Sephardi connection within Jewry in Iraq after the exile.  The evidence presented herein is that recognized world Jewry after the exile eventually included a sizable and/or likely majority portion or presence of Amalek-Edomites from the assimilation in Palestine. 

 

With the approaching Roman Army, the siege and the problems over the Roman War of 66-70 CE, many Jews fled Palestine.  Maybe some of them fled to the established Jewish community in Babylon (modern Iraq) to possibly form some numbers and where they were able to maintain a residence and status for the next 19 centuries. 

 

Obviously, there could have been a significant presence of Amalek-Edomites thereafter posing as Jews and living in Iraq.  The blood tests and samples drawn for the blood study in question in modern times would have included this Amalekite population. 

 

The Khazars, which form the bulk of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, are already adequately identified as being essentially Edomites from Seir.  This blood test phenomenon could go on to suggest that the Khazars are actually Amalekites (along with some part of Palestinian Jewry), as postulated in this study. 

 

There is one more important conclusion from both of these reports on genes.  It means that besides having a strong recognition within the Ashkenazi community, Amalekites also have some presence among Sephardi Jews and Palestinian Arabs.  Thus, many or most Ashkenazi Jews are Amalekites and even “some” Sephardi Jews and Arabs are likewise Amalekites. 

 

 

Yet, Distinctive Ashkenazi Amalekites 

 

Despite these connections between Ashkenazi Jews and certain Sephardi Jews and/or Palestinian Arabs, there is another fact of genetics which is especially relevant in this discussion.  The Jun 16, 2003, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 32-33) had a story on “Mining the Gene Pool” by Fred Silverman which discussed some of the diseases peculiar to Ashkenazi Jews--like Tay-Sachs and Usher Syndrome, as cited earlier. 

 

The essence of Silverman’s article was a focus upon the presence of a genetic mutation that is unique to Ashkenazi Jews.  Evidently, it manifests itself in the presence of genetic problems among the Ashkenazi which contribute to their propensity for certain genetic diseases. 

 

Anyway, the point of this story is that Ashkenazi Jews do have a distinctive gene pool which is categorically different from Sephardi Jews and apparently Palestinian Arabs.  So studies can be made all day long suggesting some ties between the three communities--as indeed there should be some linkage based on the simple fact that the three peoples carry some common ancestors (i.e. Avraham, Yitzhak, etc). 

 

However, in all cases, one must recall that actual Amalekites are identified by their acts of evil. 

 

The Amalek-Edomite character attributes will be covered in some detail in later chapters.  This coverage will establish that the Khazars would clearly have to be Amalekites.  Amalekite character problems have included their propensity for sodomy; sneaky and clandestine assaults on Israelites; lying; cheating; lack of religious morals, character and integrity; being pushy and forward; etc. 

 

 

R. Hakohen

 

The “Foundation for Intercession” newsletter (issue 156, Jan 2002, p. 3) quoted Non-Zionist “Rabbi” Israel Meir Hakohen who said:  “In my opinion it is clear that the Zionists are from the offspring of Amalek.”  It is unclear exactly who this man is and when and under what circumstances he uttered those words.  Nevertheless, the remark is germane to the present discussion. 

 

As demonstrated elsewhere in this study, much of the Zionist movement involved Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe from 1869 until after Jewish statehood in 1948 when numbers of Sephardim begin coming to Palestine.  Certainly, many of these Zionist Ashkenazi Jews were Amalekites. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 144--Jewish Views on the Amalekites

 

 

The Amalekites, Revisited 

 

Certainly, Yisrael’s greatest enemy of all has been the Amalekite descendants of Esau, mentioned earlier, as being prime candidates for the Khazars that came out of the Seir mountains to migrate into Western Asia and Eastern Europe.  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, Revisited 

 

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 herein). 

 

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). 

 

 

More on the Amalekite Attacks 

 

“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). 

 

As noted earlier, 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 as elsewhere established, 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. 

 

 

Kadesh 

 

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 Better View 

 

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. 

 

 

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, to be shortly elaborated upon, 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, as discussed previously (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).  A later chapter will note the link that the Philippians had with the Philadelphia Assembly which had some perception about the evil Amalekites (Rev 3:9). 

 

A prior chapter herein discussed the 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. 

 

A previous chapter 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, Revisited 

 

A former chapter also discussed 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 chapters, 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 connextion to swine which could be especially revealing in terms of the Khazar enemies of Yisrael. 

 

A previous chapter herein addressed 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 someway 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. 

 

 

The Enemies of Yisrael 

 

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 previously mentioned 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. 

 

 

From Qumran 

 

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). 

 

 

More Judgments 

 

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).  As commented upon previously, 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.  Later chapters will describe 300 Amalekites who economically ruled 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” 

 

Previous chapters discussed the great Jewish work of “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, to be later described (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)--also to be elaborated upon in a later chapter. 

 

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. 

 

 

More From Piska Three 

 

Piska three is 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. 

 

 

Modern Views on the Palestinians 

 

In the last 54 years, probably the greatest foe of Israelis in the state of Israel has been the Palestinian Arabs whom have been under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War of 1967. 

 

These people have brought great hurt upon the Israelis (but from their point of view, the Israelis have brought much hurt upon them, and especially in the sense that they have been a conquered and occupied nation or people). 

 

In a ministry letter of April 2002, Monte Judah of the Lion and Lamb Ministries of Norman, Oklahoma charged that the Jews in Israel are dealing with “ancient Amalek” in the context of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians.  Actually, this same feeling has been surfacing in any number of Jewish publications--linking the Palestinians to the ancient Amalekites. 

 

While there is surely some genetic presence of the Amalekite genes in the contemporary Palestinians (as noted in the Prologue), those people are not the real Amalekites.  The Palestinians are Ismaelite Arabs, essentially, with much miscegenation with others (like the ancient Canaanites, the behemah, the chaiyah, the Philistines, the Phonecians, the Amalekites and on and on). 

 

Manifestly, they are a mixed race, like many of the modern Jews.  So it is probably unfair to try to connect them explicitly to the Amalekites. 

 

Actually, the Amalekites make up many of the modern Ashkenazi Jewish definitions, as elsewhere commented upon herein.  So it might not be totally correct to try to link the Palestinians exclusively to the Amalekites, as Judah has done (although it is probable that the Palestinians do have some significant presence of Amalekite genes). 

 

Possibly, because of this attempt to link the Palestinians to ancient Amalek, some modern Israelis have proposed the genocidal liquidation of the Palestinians.  The well respected and intelligent Reb Ovadia Yosef (spiritual leader of the Shas party in Israel) is one of such persons, as will be discussed in a subsequent chapter herein. 

 

While it is unclear how far the Israeli state will go in attempting to kill all of the Palestinians, one thing can be said for sure.  When YESHUA comes, He will deal with them--just as He will deal with the Israelis, the Europeans, the Asians and so forth.  The future of the Palestinian Arabs in old Canaan is clearly limited.  This prospect will be discussed in future chapters herein on prophecy. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 145--Coming Edomite Judgment I

 

 

Early Edomite Oppression 

 

In returning to the overall Edomite problem facing the Israelites, the prophet Yoel had an interesting condemnation for Tyre, Zidon and the coastal area of Yisrael, all of which were a part of the old Phoenician kingdom, as noted earlier (Joel 3:4-8). 

 

The gist of this complaint against these apparent Edomites is that they had helped plunder Jerusalem and carried off its wealth and Jewish people as slaves.  It is unclear exactly when this Edomite oppression against Yehudah took place.  But it certainly happened long before Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. 

 

The “Soncino Books of the Bible’s” commentary on Joel (p. 75) allows that this conquest and plunder probably occurred when some of the coastal people invaded Yehudah during the reign of Yehoram (II Chron 21:16-22:1). 

 

But this reference in Yoel could also relate in some way to Amos 1 which would seem to be directed at the House of Yisrael, rather than Jerusalem and Yehudah.  Amos 1:6 indicts Gaza for delivering up a whole captivity (Soncino says “the complete carrying off of a population,” p. 85) possibly to Edom. 

 

At a first reading, this would seem to say that Gaza (the Philistines) enslaved a whole Israelite population and sold them to Edomites.  Amos 1:9 goes on to condemn Tyre for delivering up a whole population to Edom. 

 

Soncino (p. 86) says that the Tyre crime is the same as that of Gaza.  Verses 9 and 10 mention the evil of a brother upon a brother (obviously, Esau upon Yakov and especially in that the Edomites pursued Yisrael with the sword, as Amos 1:11 outlines).  This last reference could have in mind the Amalek attack on Yisrael during the Exodus or something larger in scope. 

 

 

Yair Davidy, Revisited

 

In “Lost Israelite Identity” (p. 216-217), Yair Davidy ties Amos 1 to Hosea 9, Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 23 and suggests that the Edomite Phoenicians accompanied, joined in and helped the Assyrians transport and resettle Israelites out of Canaan (perhaps some to the West in Phoenician ships). 

 

The point of these several prophecies is one of doom on the Edomites for having played a role in the captivity and enslavement of the Northern House of Yisrael (probably to the Assyrians).  But also, both Gaza and Tyre could bear guilt for selling captive Israelites to other Edomite tribes. 

 

 

The Amalekites, Revisited 

 

The previous chapters focused on the enormous evil and wickedness of the Amalekites in their oppression of Yisrael over the centuries.  Some remarks were presented on II Chronicles 28:17, which described an Edomite attack on Yehudah in the days of Ahaz (that perhaps involved Southern Amalekites). 

 

But the point was made that concurrently with the periodic Amalekite attacks on Yisrael, the Edomite Phoenicians in Tyre and Sidon were also attacking Israelite peoples from time to time.  The above discussion outlines some of this provocation. 

 

Otherwise, there is an interesting remark in Judges 10:12 which seems to tie both of these Edomites peoples together in their attacks upon Yisrael.  The Sidonians, Amalekites and Maonites were identified as oppressors of Yisrael.  Young’s “Analytical Concordance” (p. 645, 653) links these Maonites to the Mehunim who were an Arab tribe living near Petra (II Chron 26:7). 

 

Since it is questionable about whether the Mehunim could have been attacking Yisrael at the time of the Judges, it should be noted that the Septuagint identifies the Midian peoples as Israelite enemies, along with the Amalekites and Sidonians.  In any event, the Edomites in both the North and South were jointly involved in Israelite oppression. 

 

 

More Edomite Trouble For Yehudah 

 

Yirmeyahu wrote the book of Lamentations, essentially as a sad memorial of the calamity that fell upon Yehudah during the Babylonian conquests of the 6th century BCE.  Significantly, he worked in one little reference linking the Edomites to Jerusalem’s fall which is most revealing. 

 

As the prophet saw it, the House of Yehudah had just received her just recompense at the hands of the Babylonians; and in time, Edom would also receive her just punishment (Lam 4:21-22).  This is a most revealing little text that few people have understood.  For an explanation, it seems necessary to turn to the Apocrypha. 

 

The evidence is that the Edomites were the very people who burned and destroyed the First Temple (I Esdras 4:44-46; Enoch 89:66). 

 

The Scriptures seem to allude to this event and perhaps even allow that the Edomites had some role to play in the destruction of Jerusalem (Ps 137:7; Oba 1:10-16).  As noted in earlier comments, the historic Jewish position is that the Amalekites were the precise Edomites who carried out this deed. 

 

The position of history has been that it was the Chaldeans who burned and destroyed Shlomo’s Temple and Jerusalem.  But as noted in the Scriptures and the Apocrypha, it was actually Edomites who burned the Temple and possibly parts of Jerusalem as well, evidently as the Babylonians were ravaging the rest of the Judean territory. 

 

It appears that the Chaldean army had some Amalekite carpetbaggers or plunderers (actually parasites) accompanying it in its attack on the Jews and Jerusalem.  In terms of background, the Southern Amalek-Edomites had refused to join in the Egyptian alliance against Babylon.  Hence, they became friends and allies of Nebuchadnezzar (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” p. 98, the Five Megilloth). 

 

Because they were friends, the Babylonians may have allowed some Amalek-Edomites to accompany their army for plunder.  It might be that these parasite Edomites were so hateful and revengeful toward the Israelite Jews and The ELOHIM’s religion in Jerusalem that they carried out their revenge by burning the First Temple and some part of Jerusalem. 

 

 

Evil 

 

Were it not for these Edomites, it is possible that the conquering Babylonian army would not have destroyed the First Temple. 

 

Since the deceitful Edomites were somehow linked in as parasites with the Babylonians, it is highly plausible that they specifically chose to attach themselves to the Chaldeans to see what all they could steal and plunder in the conquest of Yehudah and Jerusalem. 

 

While the Chaldeans get the credit for stealing the treasures and vessels of value at the Temple, it is not unreasonable to allow that these parasite Edomites may have stolen some of the property and things of value at the Temple as well.  Whatever the Chaldeans failed to appropriate, one can be sure that the carpetbagger Edomites would have stolen. 

 

Yair Davidy mentions the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew prophets as being that the Edomites were agents in the Israelite deportations at the hands of both Assyria and Babylon (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 60).  The point is that the evil Amalek-Edomites have historically been conspiratorial agents working with others to hurt, oppress and destroy Yisrael. 

 

 

Same Tactics for Centuries 

 

In later chapters on the super rich Amalek-Edomite bankers, this same phenomenon will be shown, as these modern bankers use the various armies of the world to inflict punishment and hurt on various nations of the globe.  Whenever a particular nation is crushed militarily, it allows the super rich Amalek-Edomite bankers to rush in to exploit and plunder the wealth of the defeated nation. 

 

In the American Civil War, General U.S. Grant lamented about how some of these same people followed his army into the US Southern states--as carpetbaggers to plunder, steal and exploit whatever property they could.  Grant was very critical of these wicked (Amalekite) Jews and left written records to state his displeasure over their wickedness. 

 

In General Order No. 11, dated Dec 17, 1862, he expelled Jews from his command and area of operations by describing them “as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department” (Dec 22, 2000, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 23).  This order expelled all Jews (correctly Amalekites, ed) from the Cumberland area of Tennessee and Kentucky. 

 

Furthermore, Grant forbade those people from going South and even issued orders for train conductors to not allow them to get on board trains (Jan-Mar 2001 “Petah Tikvah,” p. 14). 

 

Apparently, these Amalekite parasites followed his army around to steal and plunder (just as they did when they followed the Babylonian army into defeated Jerusalem in c554 BCE, as noted above).  Later, the supposedly loving and kind Abraham Lincoln revoked Grant’s orders. 

 

 

More Edomite Oppression 

 

The prophet Yechezkel was even more explicit on the Edomite future when he said that because Edom had acted revengefully against the House of Yehudah and offended in taking vengeance upon them, YHWH will, in time, cut both man (Hebrew Adam) and beast (Hebrew behemah) off from Edom (Ezek 25:12-13). 

 

Does this mean that the Edomites are some mixture of Adam and the behemah?  The answer to this question seems to be a positive yes (per Jer 25:20-21; 31:27).  After all, Esau married into the lines of various fallen peoples and particularly those of the Canaanites (which included both the lines of Kain and the behemah, as elsewhere established herein). 

 

While there are any number of illustrations which demonstrate how deceitful, evil and oppressive the Edomites have historically been toward Yehudah, the Apocrypha offers some of the most fascinating examples.  These reports concern Edomite oppression against true Jews. 

 

The previously mentioned Jewish aphorist, sage, and scribe named Ben Sira, Shimon Yeshua, wrote the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) in c190 BCE, probably in Palestine.  Ben Sira listed the Edomites among the peoples his soul abhorred (Ben Sira 50:25-26; p 378, v. 6, “Encyclopaedia Judaica”). 

 

Numerous Apocrypha works compare Edom to a black boar (I Enoch 89:12, 42-43, 49, 66; Jubilees 37:20-24; and v. 6, p. 379 “Encyclopaedia Judaica”). 

 

This connection of swine to the Amalekites has been discussed in former comments herein.  The comparison of certain Edomites (specifically the Amalekites) to pigs (which is one of the most dirty, unclean and defiled animals in existence) shows the incredible animosity which true Jews held toward the Amalek-Edomites. 

 

One important incident is recorded in the Apocrypha, just about the time of the Maccabees’ fight with the Greeks (when the Southern Palestine Edomites again joined in with an invading army attacking Israelites, as they had done so earlier with the Babylonians). 

 

 

The Greek Tie 

 

In this instance, the wicked Amalekites sided with the Seleucids against the Jewish Israelites (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 6, p. 378).  Hence, they probably had some role in the desecration of the Temple at the hands of the Seleucids, although it is not clear what role. 

 

But with the recovery of the Temple and the rededication of the altar and true worship on Moriah (at Hanukkah), true Jews were able to subdue the Edomites. 

 

Judas Maccabees made war on them in Idumea because they had hemmed the Jews in and he remembered how the Baeanites (certain Amalekites?) had set traps and road blocks to ambush the Jewish Israelites (I Macc 5:3-4).  Judas also fought them at Hebron (I Macc 5:65). 

 

In late Second Temple days, Josephus mentioned the role that the Edomites played in promoting and agitating the war with Rome which spelled out the next destruction of the Temple and the then end of the Jewish presence in Palestine.  This evil work by the Edomites is discussed in other chapters herein and particularly in the context of their linkage with the Zealots. 

 

Just as the Amalekites seem to have been the people who destroyed the First Temple in earlier days, the same thing seems to have some merit in terms of the Jewish-Roman war. 

 

While the Romans, under Titus, get credit for destroying the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Aug 2001 “End Time News” (p. 4) offered some evidence that the Amalekites themselves also were involved. 

 

This source quoted Second Baruch 6:3-7 and a Hebrew version of Josephus (“Josippon,” as quoted in “Mimekor Israel”), both of which suggested that the area of the inner Temple was set on fire by Jews, themselves, just before the end.  Since the Amalekites controlled the Temple at the end, it would seem that they set at least one or more of the fires which ultimately destroyed the Temple. 

 

 

Dead Sea Scrolls, Revisited 

 

Significantly, some scraps of skin were found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls which reflected a writing with the names of eight false prophets in Yisrael (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 323-324).  The first seven were traditional Scriptural adversaries like Balaam, the old prophet from Bethel, the three prophets opposing Jeremiah, Hananiah, and Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah. 

 

The eighth name on the list was not very legible, but scholars Alexander Rofe and Elisha Qimron concluded that it was John, son of Simon--who would have to be John Hyrcanus who had an ancient reputation for prophecy ( “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 324).  The question must come up over why the Qumran people would have such strong feelings against Hyrcanus. 

 

Could those feelings have something to do with Hyrcanus’ work to improperly and rebelliously convert the Amalek-Edomites to Judaism in defiance of Scriptural laws, as previously cited?  On the surface, it would seem that the Essenes had great insight into the genealogy of the Edomites posing as Jews in the Jerusalem area.  They would have known the truth about the Amalekites posing as Jews. 

 

In a Commentary on Genesis (36:12), as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, one finds a curse on the Amalekites--affirming that remembrance of them will be blotted out in the last days (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 276). 

 

Later comments herein will also demonstrate the extreme opposition which the apparent Essenes at Qumran had against the Edomites and the Edomite power structure in Jerusalem because of their possible illegal conversion (by Hyrcanus) to Judaism. 

 

 

Link to Nimrod 

 

When Esau is first introduced in the Scriptural narrative (Gen 25:25-27), the Book says that Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Yakov was a plain man, dwelling in tents. 

 

Here, the book of Jasher (28:19-20) notes that Esau was a “designing and deceitful man, one who hunted after the hearts of men and inveigled them” (a footnote in Jasher notes that the Hebrew literally says that Esau stole their minds; a beautiful figure in the original to express deceit, falsehood and fraud). 

 

For this passage in Genesis 25, the “Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel” (p. 241) say that “Esau was a man of idleness to catch birds and beasts, a man going forth into the field to kill lives, as Nimrod had killed, and Hanok his son.  But Jakob was a man peaceful in his works, a minister of the instruction-house of Eber, seeking instructions before the Lord.” 

 

This linkage of Esau to Nimrod is interesting for many reasons.  Nimrod (meaning “rebellion”) seems to have been the first beast man after the flood (Gen 10:9-10).  Supposedly, his garments represented a wicked rulership.  Esau’s connection to Nimrod may have started in Jewish tradition when Esau tried to obtain these garments for his own evil use (Jasher 27:10). 

 

In an article on “Who Is Esau or Edom in Bible Prophecy?,” William F. Dankenbring writes that Esau patterned himself after Nimrod (Mar 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 35).  Dankenbring also relates from the book of Jasher that Esau fought a desperate fight with Nimrod and two of his aides. 

 

Per the Jasher view, Esau killed Nimrod and his two assistants and stole the valuable garments.  On reaching his homeland, Esau was allegedly weary and exhausted.  In this weakened condition, he came from the field and he was faint (Gen 25:29).  Supposedly, he was ravenously hungry and besought Yakov for food and gave up his birthright to get some soup. 

 

 

More on Esau 

 

Piska three (previously cited) makes the point that Avraham died early so that he would not be offended in his old age with the evil of his grandson Esau.  Also, this record notes that Yitzhak’s eyes became dim in his old age so that he could not see (Gen 27:1).  The reason for this blindness was so that he would not have to behold his wicked son Esau (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 44). 

 

Another ancient legend focuses on Genesis 27:1, by quoting R. Eleazar ben Azariah, who taught that Yitzhak’s eyes were dimmed from seeing the evil deeds of Esau (“The Book of Legends,” p. 43).  When Yitzhak would go into the market place, he would hear people say “This is that scoundrel’s father.” 

 

The HIGHEST then said, per this legend, that He would dim Yitzhak’s eyes so that he would stay home (and not have to hear the charges). 

 

Elsewhere, the Scriptures indicate that Yitzhak trembled very exceedingly when Esau came to him to receive the blessing which had earlier been bestowed upon Yakov (Gen 27:33).  In “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” (p. 454), R. Eleazer ben Pedat asked why?  The answer was because Yitzhak had a vision of the Day of Judgment that was awaiting Esau. 

 

 

A Jewish Paradox 

 

The Targums, quoted several times earlier, were a fascinating and extremely revealing work of Second Temple Judaism made as interpretations or paraphrases of the Hebrew Tanakh into Aramaic, the spoken vernacular of a part of the Jewish community and particularly those Jews still in exile in the East. 

 

“The Targum to the Five Megilloth” (p. v) dates some of them to the time of Ezra, although many of them were obviously composed in later years, but still generally long before the first century CE and the time of The MESSIAH.  “The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum,” translated by J. W. Etheridge, has similar findings. 

 

Etheridge (p. 6) reports that Jonathan Ben Uzziel was thought to be a scholar of Hillel (to also be discussed in later chapters).  So it is obvious that his contribution was in the later Second Temple period--perhaps around the late first century BCE or the start of the first century CE. 

 

In any case, the Targums are quite ancient and do reveal Jewish thinking during Second Temple days. 

 

These interpretations or explanations were given to the people in Aramaic in the synagogues after a particular Scripture was first read in Hebrew.  It is important to note that there is also Scriptural evidence taking them back to the times of Ezra, based upon Nehemiah 8:8 where the law was read and then the people were given the sense and made to understand. 

 

The Targums, of course, focus on the many different Scriptural passages dealing with Esau, Edom, Amalek, etc.  While space has not allowed much of a presentation of the Targums’ words on these subjects, a few more remarks will be outlined to allow some perspective on ancient Jewish beliefs. 

 

Actually, the evil of Esau is covered in a host of references in the Targums. 

 

These pungent comments prompted Etheridge to write, in his introduction (p. 13), that in regards to the texts in Genesis (referring to Esau and Laban), the reader “will be either amused or indignant at the bad animus which ancient Judaism entertained towards those personages; a base, calumnious spirit, which hesitates not to express itself in bare faced lies.” 

 

 

The Christian View 

 

Since J. W. Etheridge was an apparent Christian and writing from the Christian perspective, it is manifest that he would call the ancient Jews bare faced liars when they wrote words of criticism and condemnation against Esau and his Edomite descendants.  After all, Christians in general have always loved Edomites. 

 

Hence, Christian Etheridge would call such remarks slanderous--because, according to Christian theology, there is no appreciation or understanding at all about race and the impact of racial genes on people like the Edomites.  Christian Etheridge simply never understood the problem.  But the ancient Jews did understand the truth about Esau and his descendants. 

 

Going on, Etheridge (p. 13) notes that “This feeling, it gives me great pleasure to remark, does not appear to be approved by the modern Jews.”  While Etheridge missed the point on the ancient Jews, he certainly had it right on the modern Jews and their current attitude toward the Edomites. 

 

The translator Etheridge (p. 14) went on to report some views from a modern Jewish commentator which actually said for Genesis 33:4-11 that “the character of Esau appears in its most beautiful light.  He is throughout the full and genuine man of nature; his heart overflows with a true and impulsive kindness; he spreads a genial glow over the scene:  the truthful simplicity of his mind stands out in pleasing relief...” 

 

The points made by J. W. Etheridge seem to present quite a paradox.  Early Second Temple Jews surely held Esau in the greatest of contempt.  In fact, some might argue that there was real hatred present.  Contrariwise, modern Jews have reversed themselves 180 degrees to now speak well of Esau and some (like Christians) even propose love, respect and appreciation for Esau. 

 

Apparent Christian J. W. Etheridge never understood the reason why Jewish people would completely reverse themselves on the character and role of Esau.  This presentation at hand demonstrates the reason. 

 

 

Another Christian View 

 

Some years ago, a man named G. R. S. Mead wrote a book on “Simon Magus” which has been quoted earlier herein, and which will be commented upon more fully in later chapters on Christian history.  One of the things which Mead identified in his work (p. 90) was that he was a Christian and that he wrote in that context. 

 

In any case, he described the famous Simon Magus of Acts 8:9-24 in some detail.  Then, in some of his final remarks on Magus, he offered a most fascinating observation which closely parallels the thinking of Christian J. W. Etheridge in his translation of the Targums. 

 

Christian Mead said that he could understand the righteous indignation of the apostles over Simon’s attempts to buy the spiritual powers of The RUACH HA KODESH with money.  But in going on, Mead (p. 90) added that he could not “understand their cursing a brother-man” (as the apostles had cursed the evil Simon). 

 

Thereupon, Christian Mead said that his view on this matter is a true one.  He added that the actions of the apostles (in cursing Simon) could not find favor with those (other) persons (like himself) who believe in the brotherhood of man.  In fact, Mead seems to raise a question that the actions of the apostles, vis-à-vis Simon, were evil and could be of the Devil, rather than of the “Master of Christendom.” 

 

The thing about poor Mead is that he simply never understood the issue of race which is paramount in the Word.  He was a Christian totally dedicated to the brotherhood of all men (which is Christian theology).  Like Etheridge, he simply didn’t know what he was talking about. 

 

A later chapter will present evidence which is persuasive that Simon Magus was an evil Amalek-Edomite who was pretending to be a Jew.  Though Philip and his colleagues did not recognize him for one initially, there is every reason to believe that when he tried to buy the gift with money that his true colors came out.  Surely, the apostles recognized him as an evil Amalekite and proceeded to condemn him. 

 

 

The Cause 

 

When the early Jewish views were expressed about Esau, the ancient Jews, by and large, had not yet assimilated the Edomites (which started happening in late Second Temple days and still later with the integration of the Khazars in more modern times). 

 

Not being prejudiced on Esau (from these later racial changes in the Jewish community), the ancient Jews better understood how evil and wretched the Edomites really were. 

 

Being closer to the problem and certainly understanding far more about the Edomites than most later people (including Christians) would ever be able to grasp, the ancient Jewish people were largely honest and forthright in their assessment of Esau and his descendants. 

 

But with the years of Edomite assimilation, and with the seizure of Edomite power over the Jewish people, attitudes were to change.  Now, many Jews would not dare be able to speak harsh words about the Edomites, in contrast to ancient Jews.  Incidentally, this same process has been underway in modern America for some time now. 

 

Two hundred years ago, people like Benjamin Franklin and others did speak critical words about apparent Edomites with little concern over political correctness (Franklin said that if Jews were not excluded from the US that within 200 years they would be rubbing their hands in their counting houses while Americans are in the fields working to feed them-- “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 409-410). 

 

But with the arrival of FDR and the conclusion of WWII, the matter of free speech has changed dramatically in the United States. 

 

As mentioned in the above commentary, General U.S. Grant also had some choice remarks about the evil Jews (evident Amalekites) who followed his army around as well.  No general in today’s modern US Army would dare write the words which Grant wrote over a hundred years ago.  To avoid being politically incorrect, modern Americans now panic and run in fear of the Amalek-Edomites. 

 

Naturally, uninformed, mesmerized, modern Christians and their false concepts about truth (to be later proven) would not dare speak evil of Edomites or anyone else.  Seemingly, the current crop of Christian Americans are perhaps the most gullible and uninformed of all people of all history and far worse than the ancient Jews who did have some perception about the Amalekites. 

 

 

Amalekite Murders 

 

Jewish writer Arthur Koestler, who wrote “The Thirteenth Tribe,” and his wife were both mysteriously murdered in London shortly after he produced his powerful work exposing the Khazars as being non-Jews.  Rumors have it that Israeli agents (the Mossad) murdered him for daring to write on the Khazar subject.  This could be another reason for modern Jewish silence. 

 

The point in mentioning the murder of Koestler and his family is that anytime a person, writer or whomever publicly speaks or writes against the Amalek-Edomite power structure, he or she runs a great risk of being murdered by the Amalekites.  There is no dispute that the Mossad has assassination teams scattered over various parts of the world, ready to murder whomsoever has crossed the Amalek-Edomite power structure. 

 

People like Jack Bernstein (a Jewish writer) and Richard Butler (leader of the Aryan Nations group), both discussed elsewhere herein, must be very careful of how they conduct their lives because they could easily end up dead.  The Mossad is tough to deal with and generally the US and White British Commonwealth governments are on their side (meaning that Mossad murders can be called suicides or natural deaths). 

 

Obviously, the very publication and distribution of this study at hand puts the writer and any distributors/promoters of it at great risk.  And there is simply no reason to speculate that the police and federal government will protect anyone.  Tragically, most of the US government structure is extremely controlled by Amalekite Jews, and no one in authority will cross them (as will be proven in later chapters). 

 

 

Some More Clarifications 

 

Beyond the persistent Christian and Jewish confusion on the Edomites, it is also true that the Scriptures are not always immediately clear in references to Edom or Edomites, as discussed previously.  Some concentrated study is often required to address some of the Scriptural references, as noted so far herein. 

 

As the Word indicates, Esau left old Canaan for Seir when Yakov arrived back from Padan Aram in the East (Gen 33:16; 36:6-8).  The precise reason for this move was that Yakov possessed the birthright of the land of Canaan.  It was his land and Esau understood that he should correctly move on (c 1747 BCE). 

 

Evidently, Esau then took possession of Seir.  This area became the ancestral home of the collective Edomites.  But most Edomites moved on when Seir passed to Eliphaz and then to Amalek.  By the time of the Exodus (c1464 BCE), the evidence presented herein suggests that only Amalek remained in the South.  The other Edomite families had left. 

 

It appears that all Scriptural or later Jewish references to the Edomites in the South, after the Exodus, were references to the Amalek-Edomites.  While these Edomites were clearly identified as Amalekites in the earlier writings, they eventually came to be called only Edomites (Idumeans), which has allowed some confusion. 

 

 

Jewish Conversions Involved Amalekites 

 

The evidence is overwhelming that the primary Edomite conversions to Judaism involved the Amalek-Edomites.  Apparently, it is only the Amalek-Edomites who are totally evil.  Possibly, the other Edomites might not necessarily fit into that category. 

 

Piska 3 suggests that in dealing with Esau’s brood, Yisrael must be aware that “some” among them can be occasionally kind, but only Amalek is totally evil (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 37).  Thus, while the Edomites generally are bad, only the Amalekites are thoroughly evil.  Some of the others “can be” occasionally kind. 

 

Scripturally, there are a large number of prophetic references to Edom or Edomites.  Some of these to Edom can be precisely recognized as being geographical prophecies dealing only with the land area of old Edom and not necessarily to the Edomite people.  But some can be to people. 

 

On the surface, prophecies to the people of Edom or the Edomites may address all of the Edomites collectively.  But it must be allowed that the Amalek-Edomites alone could be under consideration.  Consequently, the believer reading these prophetic references must be very cautious and careful about making any rapid conclusions without sufficient study. 

 

While most of the citizens of the modern House of Yisrael can never begin to grasp it, but the truth is that Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, described in earlier comments, was a type or example of a still future, coming destruction of the House of Yisrael in the age-end (Ezek 4:3)--as well as being prophetic to Yehudah during her later conquest by Rome c70 CE. 

 

Clearly, the Amalek-Edomites that were involved against Yehudah in those days are today in positions of oppression against the House of Yisrael nations.  The point of Yirmeyahu’s comments (Lam 4:21, discussed earlier) is that these Edomites will, in time, be judged by YHWH for their diabolical evil conduct toward “both” the Houses of Yehudah and Yisrael.  Edom will get her just reward and dues. 

 

 

The Targums, Revisited   

 

To appreciate this prophecy, one can focus on “The Targum to the Five Megilloth,” which has some relevant words on this text in saying that punishment is ready to come to the daughter of Edom “and the Persians shall lay thee waste” (Lam 4:21).  Reasons for the inclusion of the House of Yisrael in this prediction will be revealed in comments to follow below and in subsequent chapters herein. 

 

Going on, this Targum notes that the congregation of Zion shall be set free by the hands of King Messiah and “Elias the high priest” and that the Persians shall come and straiten and lay waste the daughter of Edom because her sins were manifest before YHWH (Lam 4:22). 

 

There are several features of this message which are important to grasp.  First, it should be noted that this record is prophetic to both the House of Yehudah and the House of Yisrael.  Clearly, the Edomites have inflicted enormous hurt and punishment upon both houses.  Thus, the evil Edomites will be punished for both of their actions. 

 

Next, the Congregation of Zion wording likely addresses the “very elect” category of persons living in the age end, cited earlier, and to be described in later chapters. 

 

Per the Targum, King MESSIAH and the Prophet Eliyahu will set them free.  And importantly, the Targum actually suggests twice that YHWH will use the age ending Persians as His instrument to inflict eventual punishment on the Edomites. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 146--Coming Edomite Judgment II

 

 

The Assyrian’s Role 

 

Before moving on, it would be well to recall previous suggestions offered herein that the Khazars that came from the Seir mountains must be descendants of Amalek, grandson of Esau and his Hittite wife Adah.  The earlier comments, on the great evil and hatred which the Amalekites have had for Yisrael, certainly would allow for such a conclusion. 

 

But there is more on this from Balaam’s series of proverbs for various peoples (though Balaam was a very evil man, he was a prophet of YHWH and his prophecies are valid).  As noted previously, the old seer noted that Amalek was the first of the nations to attack Yisrael and that their latter end would come with perpetual destruction (Num 24:20). 

 

In a commentary on this prophecy, Dr J. H. Hertz ties these Amalekites to the Kenites (in Num 24:21) and suggests that they dwelt together in Petra, as visible from the Moabite hills (“The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 680).  This predicted destruction would certainly tie in with similar projections of Amalek’s end, as seen by the OT prophets and the Essenes, to be later discussed. 

 

It is also important to note that the next verse (Num 24:22) focuses on the people of Kain and their ultimate destruction at the hands of the Assyrians.  The KJV doesn’t translate this verse correctly, but Jewish translations do so, as pointed out in earlier comments on the Kenites. 

 

The point of this is that Balaam focused on Amalek (descending from Kain, via his Hittite grandmother), the Kenites and then Kain one after another in a three prong presentation.  Balaam put them all together in Seir and predicted their ultimate demise for some obvious reasons. 

 

Actually, this presentation in Numbers 24 follows the usual Hebrew method of making a statement and then following up to repeat the communication, but by using different words and expressions.  The reason for this unique outline seems to be that racially all three peoples tie together, as concluded in this production. 

 

Samson Raphael Hirsch sees the obvious Kenite link to Kain in these texts and makes that point, as elsewhere discussed herein (“The Pentateuch,” v. 5, p. 424).  But the essence of this Balaam forecast for Kain is that he faces ultimate destruction by Asshur. 

 

 

The Coming Alliance 

 

Incidentally, this mention of Asshur can also have some significance to the age ending beast man who is called “the Assyrian” a number of times in prophecy.  While it might be correct to attribute this demise of the evil Kain peoples to the Assyrians in the age end, it must be allowed that the reference could be to the Assyrian in the context of the age end beast man. 

 

In any case, the Kain peoples will face destruction evidently before YESHUA returns at the start of the millennium.  In view of the host of prophecies that describe this eventuality, it is on the horizon right now.  Consequently, the people who understand these evil Edomites and children of Kain need to have patience and allow The ELOHIM to impose His punishment on them. 

 

If the prophetic Persians are the modern Iranians and if they are in a coming alliance with Russia (modern Assyrians) and much of the rest of the Islamic world in the age end, this possibility must not be overlooked. 

 

It is reasonable that The ELOHIM will indeed use the Persians and Assyrians to accomplish His concluding judgment on the wicked Amalek-Edomites and descendants of Kain for the hurt that they have imposed on both Yehudah and Yisrael. 

 

There are several forces at work right now in the world to possibly bring about the fulfillment of this prophecy and from the perspective of its presentation in the Targums.  Future chapters, herein, and Appendices D and E will address this alliance and its role in the termination of this age. 

 

 

Edomites in the Age End 

 

A Psalm of Asaph (Ps 83) addresses the age end peoples who will join together in a confederation to destroy Yisrael from being a nation or people, so that the name of Yisrael may no more be remembered (Ps 83:4).  This alliance seems to include most all of Yisrael’s old enemies, as described in the Tanakh. 

 

Significantly, the Word reflects Edom in this conspiracy along with Ammon and Amalek (Ps 83:6-7).  The “Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. x, p. 272-273) describe Ammon and Amalek as “Israel’s inveterate foes.”  Otherwise, a number of important former powers in the Middle East are included, such as Philistia, Assyria, Tyre, Moab and the Ishmaelites. 

 

A future chapter, herein, will address this age ending confederation in the context of its prophetic aspects.  Suffice to say, Edom collectively and Amalek particularly will be involved with others in a common goal of destroying Yisrael in the age end.  The point is that the Edomite hatred of Yisrael has been quite profound and extensive over thousands of years. 

 

The essence of these remarks is that the wicked Edomites and particularly the Amalekites have spent ages in carrying out their oppressive actions against true Jews and Israelites.  YHWH will remember the many evil acts of these deceitful Edomites.  He will take vengeance on them in His due time. 

 

In one of the most pregnant and far reaching prophecies of all time, The EVERLIVING ONE calls these wicked Edomites "The people against whom YHWH has indignation for ever" (Mal 1:4).  When the right time arrives, The ELOHIM will execute judgment against these depraved people. 

 

 

Ovadyah 

 

Over in the small book of Obadiah, which is essentially devoted to the eventual doom of Edom, The MOST HIGH has seen fit to communicate both the evil of Edom and her eventual doom.  The prophet began his call, concerning Edom, with a proclamation to the nations to rise up in battle against Edom (Oba 1:1). 

 

In time, there is little doubt but that several nations eventually will oppose Edom in some form in the age end.  This option will be discussed in subsequent remarks herein. 

 

Next, one also finds a terse little statement saying that though Edom be small, she shall "be despised exceedingly" (Oba 1:2).  Previous comments have focused on this amazing little book with evidence suggesting that Ovadyah was perhaps addressing Amalek-Edomites in this prophecy. 

 

Continuing on, this same Ovadyah reported that Edom would mount on high as an eagle and set her nest among the stars and then, in the day of YHWH, The MOST HIGH will bring Edom down (Oba 1:4). 

 

Ovadyah likewise foresaw that the wise and mighty men of Edom would be cut off and destroyed (Oba 1:8-9), possibly as a result of her national allies and friends deceiving her and setting a snare for her, depending on how this text is to be interpreted (Oba 1:7).  The Psalmist seems to have seen a similar end for the Edomites in the day of Jerusalem (Ps 137:7). 

 

 

The Stars 

 

In attempting to identify these Edomites of Ovadyah, who eventually will be cut off and destroyed, as The ELOHIM declares, one might direct some attention to where they physically maintain their "nest" or base of operations and domicile.  Indisputably, Ovadyah indicates, as just observed, that their nest will be set on high among the stars (Oba 1:4). 

 

The next question one might have here could perhaps be "who" are the stars?  Well assuredly, the prophet is not talking about literal real stars up in the heavens.  Consequently, the issue here must concern stars from a symbolic point of view.  This opens up two possibilities. 

 

First, the heavenly "messengers," which most humans call "angels," are cloudlessly alluded to as stars in the Book (Isa 14:13; Rev 1:20).  But otherwise, the Scriptures also tell us that symbolically the twelve tribes of Yisrael are "stars" (Gen 37:9-10; Rev 12:1). 

 

The conclusion that one must come to in attempting an interpretation of Ovadyah's message is that the Edomites, under consideration, have placed their nests (their residences and places of power and operations) among the twelve tribes of Yisrael.  Would this reality relate in some way to the Yehudim who have had a strong Edomite linkage for 2,100 years? 

 

In fact, it is rather interesting and obviously relevant here to recall the perceptive comments made by "Encyclopaedia Judaica" in linking the Edomites to the Jews, as discussed previously.  Judaica (v. 6, p. 378) actually charged that with the conquest of Edom by John Hyrcanus, the “Edomites became a section of the Jewish people.” 

 

"The Jewish Encyclopedia" (v. 5, p. 41 of the 1925 edition) also candidly admits that "Edom is modern Jewry."  With such frank admissions from recognized Jewish sources, why would anyone want to argue the question?  Certainly, at a first glance, it would seem that locating these Edomites should not be much of a problem.  But there are some other facts to consider here as will be broached in later comments. 

 

 

More From Ovadyah 

 

A final aspect of Ovadyah's word is that these Edomites will not only have their nests solidly among one of the tribes of Yisrael (like Yehudah), but there appears to be good reasons to believe that these Edomites will be (on high as an eagle) in virtual control and authority over all twelve tribes of Yisrael (Oba 1:3-4). 

 

Thus, if the person interested in truth can identify twelve national entities in the world today (in 2003) which are completely under the grip, power and control of alien Amalek masters (like the US and Britain), then one might can have some perspective or a good clue on which modern peoples constitute the "lost" tribes of Yisrael. 

 

When this reality is tied back in tandem to the persons who have generally accepted the Good News, it reduces the global possibilities of identifying the House of Yisrael to a very limited field of candidates.  By also addressing several other prophecies, as described elsewhere in this study, one can pretty well settle in on precisely "who" were and are to be the recipients of the Good News (as was done in prior chapters). 

 

 

Dominion 

 

Incidentally, on this line of thought on control, it would be well to recall that the chosen Yakov/Yisrael, though the younger brother, was projected from the beginning to have dominion over his elder brother Esau (Gen 25:23). 

 

Of course, this is essentially what has happened over much of the ensuing centuries since c1900 BCE.  Generally, Yisrael has been more dominant and powerful.  Yet, per YHWH's Word, this situation was destined to eventually change. 

 

Moshe saw this coming transition when he wrote that, in time, the children of Esau would break Yakov's yoke from their neck and gain temporary dominion (Gen 27:40).  Significantly, this very condition has happened in the House of Yisrael nations in the last two hundred years, as is evident from a responsible review of history. 

 

The author of the book of Jubilees also had some similar perception.  Whomever this person was, he interpreted Moshe’s words as saying that Esau would serve Yakov.  But in the age end, Esau would become great and break Yakov’s yoke off of his neck, and then go on to sin unto death; and Esau’s seed will be rooted out from under heaven (Jubilees 26:34). 

 

The Apocrypha also had some like projections in forecasting that Yakov’s hand held Esau’s heel from the beginning and that Esau is the end of this age and Yakov is the beginning of the one that follows (II Esdras 6:7-10). 

 

Piska 5.14 is interesting and should be cited here.  Late Second Temple Judaism or immediately later held that Esau was large like the sun in rule while Yakov was small like the moon.  Thus, Esau then ruled over Yehudah, but in the world to come, Yakov would rule (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 116). 

 

 

Esau and Rome 

 

In late Second Temple days, the House of Yehudah was certainly ruled by the Amalek-Edomite Herods who were functioning under Roman authority and as Roman lackeys.  Some of the “rabbis” of those days linked Esau to the Romans. 

 

While Rome was probably founded by House of Yisrael people and had a substantial Israelite population in Apostolic days, as noted in previous comments, is it possible that there was an Amalek-Edomite money power in Rome in the first century CE? 

 

Is it possible that the Roman Senate and even the Caesar to some extent was subservient to this Edomite money power--surely functioning in Rome at that time (or perhaps the one at the Jerusalem Temple, to be later described)?  Is that how the Amalek-Edomite Herod gained his power over Judea?  Is that why Second Temple Judaism so frequently linked Esau to Rome? 

 

If Rome was founded by Israelites of the lost tribes and if it historically consisted of Israelites, then it is highly plausible that Amalek-Edomites had moved into Rome and had taken over there--just as they clandestinely came into the modern House of Yisrael nations and have taken control of Yisrael in the age end. 

 

 

The Age End Crisis for Yisrael 

 

The several prophecies discussed so far on the future punishment and judgment coming on Edom (Num 24:20; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 25:12-13; Oba 1:2-7) mention the reason for the judgment as being for the Edomite evil toward both the House of Yehudah and the House of Yisrael, as outlined in the preceding presentation. 

 

Historical records cited in the previous comments establish the great evil which the Edomites have imposed on the House of Yehudah.  But the reality of the coming judgment on the Edomites also includes, as a cause, the role that the Edomites will play in the final punishment and judgment coming upon the House of Yisrael (Ezek 4-7). 

 

The point of this is that the wicked Edomites will have a major role of evil and wickedness to play in the age end on the demise of the House of Yisrael nations. 

 

Since the Edomites have great power and authority over the gullible House of Yisrael people (the goyim), it’s not hard to understand that the Edomites will be a leading contributor to the fall of the House of Yisrael to the Assyrians, Persians and others, mentioned above and to be later described. 

 

In effect, the available evidence is overwhelming that the age end crisis on the House of Yisrael will be the great typical fulfillment of the ones which came upon the House of Yehudah at the hands of Babylon, the Greek Syrians and Rome.  In these earlier cases, the Edomites were a primary cause leading to the punishment on Yehudah and they will repeat this scenario in the age end for Yisrael. 

 

This is a profoundly important concept to grasp and comprehend.  Wicked Edomites will bring on YHWH’s judgment on the House of Yisrael.  Why will YHWH allow this evil?  The answer is for the same reason that He allowed the Amalekites to attack Yisrael during the Exodus and for the exact same reason He allowed the Edomites to oppress the House of Yehudah on so many occasions. 

 

In all of these cases, the real reason why YHWH allows this judgment to come on His people is because of the evil and wickedness of His people.  Thus, the coming Edomite precipitated trouble for Yisrael can be actually laid at the doorsteps of the people of Yisrael and not to the evil Edomites.  More will be said about this judgment in later chapters and Appendices D and E. 

 

 

Amos 6:14 

 

Before moving on, it would be well to pause here momentarily and take note of an amazing prophecy by Amos when he projected a future time of punishment on the House of Yisrael “from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of the Arabah” (Amos 6:14). 

 

At a first glance, most scholars see this as involving a territorial subject.  But there could be something far more profound here--since this prophecy’s ultimate fulfillment probably addresses the House of Yisrael, after Yisrael had left Canaan land. 

 

Question, could this reference here to Hamath (a descendant of Cain, as discussed earlier) really be in the context of punishment on Yisrael “when” they have allowed Hamath’s descendants into a position of dominion over themselves? 

 

If the Kenite relatives and/or descendants of Hamath are linked to the Edomites, as is plainly suggested in the Book, then it is plain to see how these people, in a moment of history, entered into the House of Yisrael to cause eventual punishment and judgment. 

 

 

The Right Perspective Is Needed 

 

Incidentally, in saying some good things about true Jews and a recognition of bad Jews, this writer is not throwing any praises and rewards or hatred and animosity on the Edomites (or Kenites as well) who have brought so much hurt and harm on not only Yehudah and Yisrael; but indeed, upon the entire world. 

 

Edomite or Jew haters need to go back and read YHWH’s law.  Despite gross Edomite hatred of Yisrael (Gen 27:41), Moshe wrote that fleshly Israelites are not to abhor (hate) Edomites (Deut 23:7).  This is a hard command for some persons to accept and obey. 

 

As bad as they have been (some of the most evil persons who have ever lived), and as much hurt as they have been responsible for in Yehudah and Yisrael, one must always remember the words of Moshe and not get carried away with improper hatred and bad feelings. 

 

Like YHWH has said--vengeance belongs to Him (Deut 32:35; Ps 94:1; Rom 12:19).  Specifically, He has declared that He will take vengeance on His enemies (Deut 32:41; Nah 1:2), and this surely includes His Edomite enemies (Oba 1:8; Mal 1:4).  More precisely, He affirms that He will take vengeance on Edom (Ezek 25:14-17). 

 

 

A Big “If” 

 

If it is true that the Southern Edomites and later Khazars are indeed the evil Amalekites, as seems to be the case, it must be a gigantic paradox of sorts that the ancient Jewish religion could hold such incredibly bad feelings and even hatred for the Amalekites--all the while that Jews have allowed them to convert en masse to Judaism, perhaps some in John Hyrcanus’ days and many more likely over the past 1,300 years, in the form of the Khazars. 

 

Of course, Scripturally, some of these bad feelings are totally and correctly justified.  The true believer could never have any kind words or feelings for the diabolically wicked Amalekites.  But the other words of Moshe must be adhered to which prohibit hatred for the Edomites, to certainly include the Amalekites (Deut 23:7). 

 

The previously discussed Piska three focuses on this dilemma of blotting out the Amalekites while also not hating them.  This source puts the question in the same context as the Egyptians who invoked slavery and enormous punishment upon the Israelites. 

 

Piska 3 argues that the Amalekites could have been hanged or exterminated without the presence of hatred, as per Joel 3:19 (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 42-43).  This same commentary ties the wicked in Psalms 9:5-6 to the evil Amalekites. 

 

Thus, while the ancient Jews may have taught and advocated a role for the Israelites to play in the final extermination of the Amalekites, as cited earlier by Maimonides and in the Jewish Chumash, such an option seems totally out of the question for the contemporary individual Israelites (who no longer live in the theocracy in Canaan and have no authority to execute secular justice). 

 

Despite this obvious limitation on individual Israelites, the House of Yisrael governments could have historically taken action against them if they had just been willing to obey YAH’s Torah.  However, as a minimum, all individual Israelites should personally be remembering Amalek periodically (as the Jews do annually now, just before Purim) and the failure of Yisrael’s ancestors to obey Deut 25:19. 

 

Consequently, people having some perception about the evil Amalek-Edomites must be patient and allow The HIGHEST to execute His judgment upon them.  While this writer has great respect and admiration for Reb Maimonides, he may have had some mis-understanding of reality. 

 

There seems to be absolutely no Scriptural authority presently for hatred of Edomites or of Amalekites.  Individual Israelites have no authority whatsoever to think that they have secular power to execute justice upon the evil Amalek-Edomites.  YHWH will execute justice at His time and by His method. 

 

 

The Ten Commandments 

 

In 1956, Paramount Studios made its famous movie on Moshe and the Exodus called the “Ten Commandments,” with Charlton Heston as Moshe.  While many so-called religious movies are sadly lacking from almost any viewpoint, this one was very interesting, although it did have some fiction and questionable presentations. 

 

Vincent Price and the previously cited Edward G. Robinson played the primary two villains in the work.  Of these two enemies of truth, justice and righteousness, Robinson’s part, as the very diabolical Dathan, was by far of the more evil man.  In this movie, Dathan was the epitome of evil.  He would sell his own mother out for money.  So there was no limit to what he would do for gain. 

 

In real life, Edward G. Robinson (correctly Emmanuel Goldenberg) was assuredly a real Amalek-Edomite and an accomplished first rate actor.  He was extremely good on the stage and particularly did well playing bad guys.  Thus, he was a good choice to play Dathan, the arch villain in “The Ten Commandments.” 

 

In the movie, he was supposed to be an apparent Jew involved in the Egyptian slavery and afterwards when freed along with the other Israelites.  In terms of his role, it is evident that he was to be a very wicked Edomite who was doing exactly what Edomites do best of all--attach themselves to Yisrael to bring as much hurt, harm and destruction on Yisrael as is humanly possible. 

 

Edward G. Robinson was the classic actor to play the role of this very deceitful and evil Amalek-Edomite attached to Yisrael, as a parasite to carry out his predetermined genetic disposition of hurt and harm for Yisrael.  Of all the actors and parts in this classic movie, Robinson and his role were right at the top. 

 

Any student of truth, wishing to visually observe a crafty, evil Amalek-Edomite in action against Yisrael, should by all means see this fascinating movie.  It’s better than a thousand words in showing a real, clever, cunning, evil, depraved Amalek-Edomite in action. 

 

A final note is called for on the presentation of evil in this movie before moving on.  In this classic story, the playwright needed some more wicked villains to be oppressing the Jethro family in the desert (per Ex 2:17) which would allow Moshe an opportunity to do a good deed by running the villains off.  The choice for this group of terrorizing, evil, depraved oppressors was a band of Amalekites (called shepherds in the Word). 

 

And it was not far fetched to expect and believe that a party of roving, wicked Amalekites would have showed up in the Southern Sinai to afflict and impose hurt and harm on some nomadic Midianites.  In the real world of history, it is easy to perceive how the Amalekites wandered over the Sinai to hurt, plunder and destroy as much as possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 147--Jewish Sects in the First Century I

 

 

Race and the Jewish Sects 

 

The presentation on the Idumeans, in the previous chapters, opens the door to another thread of thinking which now surfaces in a look at the breakdown and composition of the first century CE Jews into various political and religious sects and divisions. 

 

There is the certainty that some of the actual racial or ethnic considerations mentioned may connect in some fashion to the different Jewish sects of Second Temple days. 

 

Manifestly, it would be very difficult to try to be precise on any condition of linkage because of a possible lack of any hard, recognizable evidence from the Book.  Here, the word "possible" has been purposely used since some strong proof could exist, but just presently be beyond the apprehension of this writer. 

 

The MESSIAH apparently mentioned the several divided sects of Judaism in His parable about the poor man Lazarus who at death went to Avraham’s bosom and the rich man who went to the grave (Lu 16:19-31). 

 

Some Christians like this message on Lazarus because they think that the locales of heaven and hell were involved.  The truth is that this story was a parable and was not necessarily supposed to be taken in a literal sense. 

 

Regardless, an interesting little remark was in the parable which could be relevant to a discussion of the different Jewish sects.  The rich man had five brothers (Lu 16:28).  Thus, there were seven persons involved, as described in the parable. 

 

For an interpretation, many scholars feel that Lazarus was the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, which consisted of YESHUA’s disciples.  The rich man was perhaps the Pharisees and the five brothers were possibly the Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Hellenists and Zealots. 

 

Please understand that some of these definitions were nationalistic and/or political and not necessarily religious, per se.  Certainly, the Nazarenes, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes involved religious doctrines and religious peoples. 

 

The Hellenists and Herodians were probably secularly oriented and most of them may not have been religious at all (as in the case of atheistic Amalek-Edomites).  The Zealots were a little more complicated and will be addressed in the following chapters. 

 

 

The Hellenists 

 

For a start place on this theme, it is very evident that The MESSIAH and the faith He was propagating would hardly have been compatible with the views of the Hellenists who were continuing the work that the Greeks started centuries earlier, following the exile, in trying to reshape the Jews into another cultural and religious mold (actually, the Babylonians tried this even earlier during the exile). 

 

In the case of the Hellenists, their goal was to change the Jewish culture and religion into one with a Greek orientation (as briefly mentioned in a prior chapter). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 296) says it happened both in Palestine and in the Diaspora and consisted of the use of the Greek language, adoption of Greek names, adoption of Greek educational institutions, growth of Greek literature and philosophy and religious deviation and syncretism in legal institutions and art. 

 

The just cited adoption of Greek names was one of the adverse fall outs of this motion which greatly affected the Septuagint and the eventual Greek New Testament (as briefly touched upon in an earlier chapter, and as will be addressed in some detail in later chapters). 

 

Judaica goes on to outline how Hellenism produced deviations from Jewish observances and the extreme allegorists who insisted on interpreting ceremonial laws as parables.  Some in Alexandria became citizens of the state (which involved worship of the city gods).  The more common reaction was to abandon Judaism (except for Yom Kippur) and become secularists (ibid, v. 8, p. 301). 

 

 

Yes, Secularists 

 

The short of it was that the Hellenists were largely secularists with little or no concern with religion at all.  In the contemporary society, one might look upon them largely as secularists or as atheists/agnostics.  If they had any religious ambitions today, they would turn to Reform Judaism or some of the watered down Christian groups. 

 

It was this situation which prompted the true Israelite Jews to have so many problems with Antiochus Epiphanies, elsewhere discussed, c168 BCE, when he tried to recast the Jews as a Grecian people.  Through the work of the Maccabees, Antiochus’ efforts largely failed. 

 

Although the Greek ideology would succeed with later Christianity, it did not make appreciable inroads among the Israelite Jews and their Hebrew culture, as noted earlier.  "Encyclopaedia Judaica" (v. 8, p. 295), in its article on Hellenism, suggests that the Greek influence was promoted mainly by wealthy Jewish aristocrats from the early times of Greek dominion, c300-100 BCE. 

 

As assimilated Edomites, discussed earlier, gained power, influence and prestige in the area (obviously, from the time of Herod on), it is likely that some or at least a few of them would have become Hellenists, simply because of philosophic reasons and an opportunity to hobnob with the more affluent true Jews. 

 

The previous chapters noted how the Amalek-Edomites rose to power over Yehudah.  Surely, they were in league with the fat cat, Hellenist Jews. 

 

While secularist Jews and Christians might be quite happy and content with a Greek religion and Greek orientation, it is quite manifest that YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly were in an entirely different world.  Future chapters herein will focus on why the true Scriptural religion is one with a Hebrew focus with no allowance for deviations into Greek philosophy and thinking. 

 

 

The Herodians 

 

Next, it seems persuasive that the sect of the Herodians were largely Amalek-Edomites (who probably lived primarily in Judea).  In fact, the “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 182) makes the case that the Herodians in Second Temple days were descendants from converts to Judaism of Edomite origin (which in those times involved essentially Amalek-Edomites). 

 

There probably were no true Jews in this classification.  However, if there were some non-Edomites among the Herodians, they would have been at least tolerant and supportive of the Idumean presence among the Jews.  Why?  As Josephus reported, the Herodians were “partisans of Herod” (“Antiquities,” 14:479). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 388) suggests that little is known about them and then allows that they were Herod’s supporters in the Jewish community who urged the people to accept Herod’s rule and even spread messianic ideas which could be applied to Herod and his rule.  Effectively, they were Herod’s people! 

 

As pointed out earlier, many of them were probably not truly religious at all--at least, in terms of the true Hebrew faith. However, Clarence H. Wagner Jr, editor of the “Dispatch from Jerusalem,” makes the case that some of the Herodians were members of the religious Sadducee sect (evidently as priests) in the Jerusalem area (in the Aug 2000 “Bridges for Peace,” p. 5). 

 

Per Wagner, the Herodians controlled the Temple grounds and the Temple service.  Thus, they were the persons directly in charge at the Temple who permitted the presence there of the on-going banking and commercial activities (to be discussed in a later chapter). 

 

It seems almost a certainty that most of the Herodians lived in Jerusalem; or at least, in the province of Judea.  In this sense, it is manifestly true that the majority of these Edomites could be called Judeans (Jews in the KJV), based simply on the basis of geography or nationality. 

 

If the Herodians had any real religion at all, they likely were secret Satanists or Luciferians (both genetically and religiously), as will be established in later chapters with more detailed discussions on the Edomites who racially dominated the Herodian sect.  However, it is true that some of these evil persons pretended to be religious Jews--as is a common Amalekite trick and work of deception (per Rev 2:9; 3:9). 

 

 

Herodian Pharisees? 

 

Having recognized this Judean reality of the Herodians, it must be allowed that some of these Herodians may have also “pretended” to be Shammai Pharisees (as allowed in Mark 12:13, where the Greek kai is used to seemingly link certain Pharisees to the Herodians, in the sense of an adjective--Pharisee Herodians).  Besides claiming to be Jews, some of them were likely thought of as atheists, agnostics or secularists as well. 

 

Therefore, the issue with the Herodians focused on the connection between the Herodians and the Herod family and their backing and promotion of Herod’s rule.  For certain, the Herodians quickly became arch enemies of The MESSIAH (Matt 22:16; Mk 3:6; 12:13).  This is a crucial point to remember in assessing the Amalekites! 

 

Because of the frequent troubles which Yohanan the Baptist, YESHUA and the disciples had with the Herod family and its supporters, it is clear that the New Testament Nazarenes and Their LEADER were in opposite camps to the Herodians.  They certainly had little or nothing in common. 

 

 

Herodian Loyalty 

 

One more important point about the apparently Edomite Herodians needs mention.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 8, p. 643) notes that the Herodians and the upper priesthood were most affected by the Roman War and that many of the Herodians assimilated with the Roman nobles. 

 

Based on Clarence Wagner’s comments, noted above, the Sadducees and Herodians were likely very close--almost the same.  So this makes sense. 

 

This assimilation with the Romans is one of the important reasons why the Hittite nose became so prominent in the Roman Empire (as described in an earlier chapter), and how the international banking institutions became so powerful and influential there (to be later discussed). 

 

In mentioning this willingness of affluent Amalek-Edomites to abandon Judaism and the Jewish people in order to link up with the conquering Romans, the point must be made that they have apparently repeated this exact scenario on more than one occasion.  Much evidence exists suggesting that fat cat Amalekites sold out poor Jews to the Nazis in WWII (after having helped Hitler in his rise to power). 

 

A later chapter will focus on the Amalek-Edomite Jewish masters and international bankers when their empire is crushed by the previously mentioned Russian and Persian armies in the coming age end. 

 

At that time, there is every reason to believe that they will again sell Judaism and the true Israelites and true Jews out at the blink of an eye (again, after having been the primary agents causing the Russian and Persian conflict with the House of Yisrael). 

 

 

The Sadducees 

 

Certainly, the high priests, their families, the leadership of the Temple and part of the priesthood were Sadducees, in contrast to the lay people who were mostly Hillel Pharisees (to be described in the following chapters).  Thus, the religious leaders were Sadducees and this could have included some of the scribes as well. 

 

Clarence Wagner, cited above, makes the case that Herod appointed Herodians to be the high priests.  He says that the appellative Herodian was the name for the priests and cited some NT Scriptures which supposedly would allow this connection (Matt 22:16; Mk 3:6; 12:13; as outlined above in showing Herodian opposition to YESHUA). 

 

Conversely, in “Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian” (p. 486), writer Lester L. Grabbe suggests that the term Sadducee was interchangeable with Boethusian.  The backdrop of this was that when Herod took over the priesthood operation (to be later discussed), he showed favoritism (for some reason--a pay off or something) to the priestly family of Boethus (which was to provide a number of high priests thereafter). 

 

Grabbe did not attempt to broach the question of the racial or ethnic origin of this Boethus priestly family.  Maybe, they were outright Herodians, as suggested by Clarence Wagner; or perhaps, they were originally Levites who became followers of Herod and/or the Herodians or intermarried someway with the Herodians. 

 

Since much or all of this priestly hierarchy was appointed by Herod or served with his approval, it must be concluded that most of them were politically tied in some way to the Idumeans.  Or at least, they were sympathetic to the Edomites and their positions of strength.  In mentioning this Edomite link to the Sadducees, it must be noted that there were some exceptions, as will be shown below. 

 

In later discussions on the priesthood, questions will be raised to suggest that most of the later Second Temple priesthood may not have been legitimate descendants of Levi, as should have been the case (Mal 2:3).  Perhaps Clarence Wagner is correct in linking the priesthood of the Sadducean party to the Herodians. 

 

Regardless of what part of the priesthood was in Herodian hands, it must be acknowledged that there have been some non-Amalekite priests who were legitimate cohen in late Second Temple days (like the righteous Zekharyah--Lu 1:5-6).  The same can be said for the Sanhedrin.  They were not all Amalekites, though the Amalekites controlled this body. 

 

 

David Flusser on the Sadducees 

 

Respecting the position of the Sadducees, former Hebrew University Professor David Flusser, in his book on "Jewish Sources in Early Christianity," wrote that much of the Jewish persecution of YESHUA and His followers came from the Sadducees. 

 

Professor Flusser noted that the Sadducean opposition to YESHUA and the role they played in His execution was precipitated by His denunciations of them and His prophesied destruction of the Temple (which gave them money, power, prestige and status).  Pride, being what it is, surely motivated the Sadducees to hate The MESSIAH. 

 

When one links in the Amalekite Herodian connection to the Sadducees, it is easy to see that this enormous hatred of The MESSIAH would exist among them. 

 

 

The Essenes 

 

The position of the Essenes is a little more complicated primarily because so little has been known about them until the modern discovery of the 2,000 years old Dead Sea Scrolls (mentioned earlier)--many of which appear to have been used by or applicable to Essenes living in the Qumran community.  While many of these documents have been translated, studied and commented upon, some have not. 

 

Professor David Flusser also wrote that YESHUA’s beliefs were influenced by the Jewish sages and a surfacing philosophy situated at the point where the left wing of the school of Hillel Pharisees (to be described in the following chapter) met the right wing of the Essene movement (“The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect,” p. 81).  

 

In another work, Flusser observed that the writings of both Yohanan the evangelist and “Paul” the apostle suggest linkages to Essene works.  For example, Flusser noted that “Paul’s words in Rom. 12:15, which stem from Hillel, a ‘Pharisaic’ sage (note, Hillel is discussed elsewhere herein--ed), are embedded in a homily (Rom. 12:9-13:7) of Essene origin” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. xiv-xv). 

 

Some people, like Flusser, have made the argument that Yohanan the Baptist was an Essene (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. xix).  A few scholars even argue that the Baptist was Qumran’s “teacher of righteousness” (described in early Qumran literature).  But there are problems with this theory because the teacher was referred to many years before Yohanan was even born. 

 

Eric McCarty, in an article on the “Essenes and Their Influence on Christianity” (Oct 1997 “New Beginnings,” p. 10), wrote that “Christianity was heavily influenced by the Essene movement.”  He mentioned the belief of historian Robert Eisenman that the Pharisee “Paul” spent three years at the Qumran community and that “James the Just” was an Essene (ibid, p. 10).

 

Certainly, the NT attitude on love and fellowship was so close to that taught by the Essenes that one Scrolls’ scholar mentioned that there is a belief that the evangelist John wrote his good news book at Qumran (video on “The Enigma of the Dead Sea Scrolls”). 

 

Though YESHUA and the collective Apostolic Assembly (of the Nazarene sect) do not seem to have had any direct connections with the separatist Essenes, the parallel in some of their doctrines and teachings has to be important. 

 

In a booklet on “Was Jesus a  Qumran Essenes?” (appendix, p. 1-4), writer Harold Hemenway listed four pages of some 260 points of similarities in the teachings of the NT with the teachings from the Qumran scrolls.  Manifestly, the Essenes had much in common with the NT Apostolic Assembly.  Many NT teachings were outlined in former Qumran writings. 

 

 

Some Qumran Beliefs 

 

The most important aspect of Essene theology is that the Essenes represented the ultraconservative branch of Babylonian Jewry and that they alone understood the words of the Damascus Document, “the exact interpretation of the Law” (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls” or UTDSS, p. 83). 

 

The Essenes seem to have been a reaction to the attempted Hellenization of the Jews that occurred in Palestine with the Greek dominion (UTDSS, p. 80).  These Essenes completely rejected the authority of the Talmud and believed that the Pharisees were those people who spread false laws and were builders of a wall because of the Talmudic fences the Pharisees had built around the Law (UTDSS, p. 43). 

 

As the Essenes saw it, the Pharisaic laws constituted an “annulment” of the Torah because they replaced Scriptural laws (UTDSS, p. 221).  Moreover, they charged that the Pharisees were “seekers after smooth things” (UTDSS, p. 220-221). 

 

The surviving Qumran literature indicates that the sect believed that they were “sons of light or children of light.”  Not only did they apply these titles to themselves, but they were quite adamant in believing that they were The ELOHIM’s chosen people by the process of “divine election” and “predestination” (per the Jul/Aug 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 15).

 

All of these titles and religious concepts offer clear linkages to people the NT Scriptures, in particular, call the election (as cited earlier and to be further described later).  In a word, the Qumran people were true “fatalists” in terms of their anticipated futures--much like the Word teaches for the very elect (Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:11).  This predestination connection was explored in some detail in former chapters on election. 

 

 

Judean Children of Darkness 

 

In contrast to the sons or children of light, it should be noted that the Qumran writings also referred to persons whom they referred to as sons or children of darkness, in the context of certain Jerusalem Jews and the Temple operations. 

 

In the above mentioned article by Eric McCarty on the “Essenes and Their Influence on Christianity,” he suggests that these children of darkness were non-Israelite proselytes to the other Jewish faiths (Oct 1997 “New Beginnings,” p. 8). 

 

While it might be that the Qumran community took a non-acceptance view of non-Israelite proselytes in general, it is more probable that their critical focus was directed at the nokri/nekar proselytes, like the Amalek-Edomites, posing as Shammai Pharisees (to be discussed in the succeeding chapter), and Kenites, acting as scribes, etc, in the Jerusalem area. 

 

It is probable that ger aliens would have been acceptable at Qumran since the law recognizes their legitimate conversion to the Hebrew religion in contrast to nokri/nekar aliens (Ex 12:45, 48).  As will be established later in this section, the Qumran people were strongly opposed to the Temple hierarchy and authorities in Jerusalem, whom they considered to be illegitimate, apostate and illegal. 

 

Consequently, it can be concluded that the problem which the Qumran people had with the Judeans in Jerusalem and especially those involved with the Temple was racial.  Apparently, they believed that these aliens and/or their ancestors were illegally converted to Judaism in defiance of YHWH’s laws of conversion (like the Edomites, as discussed in previous chapters herein). 

 

 

The Conflict 

 

Moreover, the Qumran people were looking for the establishment of YHWH’s kingdom on earth in their day. 

 

From their perspective, the transition to The ELOHIM’s kingdom would involve a great time of trial in which the children of darkness would persecute the children of light with the conflict turning to war between the two factions. 

 

In time, the sons of light would prevail over the sons of darkness.  Specifically, the “War Scroll” from Qumran dogmatically asserts that the sons of darkness are to be destroyed and wiped out (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 152). 

 

With the establishment of the kingdom, the children of light would rule as kings and priests with The Coming MESSIAH (Oct 1997 “New Beginnings,” p. 9).  This transition and the ensuing conflict has obvious implications in terms of the return of The MESSIAH and the establishment of His kingdom on earth for the millennium.  It will be assessed in a later chapter. 

 

 

The NT View 

 

With this mention of the popular Essene references to the sons of light and darkness, it must be pointed out that YESHUA periodically used these same expressions.  While the NT does not seem to identify the sons of darkness in the clear manner that the Qumran people did, one can find some identification of the sons of light. 

 

The MESSIAH makes it abundantly plain that the sons of light are His disciples and followers.  He calls them the light of the world (Matt 5:14-16) and children of light (Jo 12:35-36; 46).  He also asserts that they must follow Him in order to avoid darkness (Jo 8:12). 

 

The Apostle Yohanan was to later write that the believer who loves his brethren are in the light (I Jo 2:10), while those who hate their brethren are in darkness (I Jo 2:9).  Though it is possible for some racial or ethnic dimensions to subsist in Yohanan’s remarks (like Esau’s hatred for Yakov, and the Edomites’ hatred for Israelites, Gen 27:41), they do not necessarily seem to be present at a first reading and literally. 

 

Yohanan’s words appear to focus on qualities of love and hate in the generic sense.  Of course, it might be that the Essene definition of the sons of darkness is correct and does apply here (because of the persistent allegations that Yohanan spent some time at Qumran).  Thus, he would have been familiar with the Essene teachings. 

 

In that context, it might be that he had those Essene ideas in his mind in the context of love and hate in the fellowship.  Manifestly, the Qumran sect taught a form of brotherly love within the sect, to be contrasted with the hate taught by the sons of darkness in the Jerusalem power structure.   

 

YESHUA and the disciples were all cognizant of the love and hate problems within the Amalek-Edomite Jewish leadership in Jerusalem (as will be more precisely elaborated upon in later chapters).  Certainly, references to hate bring to mind the situation in Jerusalem. 

 

 

But Something Was Wrong 

 

Despite all of these intelligent and logical beliefs of the Qumran people, many of which were founded on Scriptural truth and reality, the Essenes must have had some problems somewhere in their theology and practice.  Assuredly, they were not the Apostolic Assembly, as elsewhere noted. 

 

On one interesting occasion, during His Sermon on the Mount, The MESSIAH found a need to express reality that the righteousness of His followers would, of necessity, have to exceed that of other religious sects and beliefs.  He did it by saying that unless the righteousness of His disciples exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees, they would no way enter the Kingdom (Matt 5:20). 

 

Of a verity, the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was commendable in some or many respects.  Manifestly, they were far more obedient and mindful of the Torah, righteousness and sin than the whole bulk of Christendom--which has written YHWH’s laws of righteousness off in its agenda. 

 

That the scribes and Pharisees were carnal, evil people in the flesh, there is no denying, but so are all the rest of the people in the world--including Christians (as proven earlier) and Jews at large. 

 

While YESHUA made this statement in the context of the scribes and Pharisees, He could just as well applied it to all of the other sects of Judaism.  Unless the righteousness of His disciples exceeded that of the Sadducees, the Essenes, etc, they could no wise enter the Kingdom. 

 

If the Essenes were more righteous than the Pharisees, why then did not YESHUA use them in His illustration to demonstrate contrast?  Why did He ignore them and pass over their supposed higher state of obedience and righteousness?  This is a difficult question. 

 

 

The Authority 

 

Perhaps this issue is in some way linked to the fact that the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moshe’s seat, as discussed previously (Matt 23:2). 

 

As pointed out by Christian writer Harold Hemenway (“Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 6), this reference more correctly refers to the Shammai Pharisees who were in the majority in the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and largely called the shots on Judaism (the Shammai Pharisees will be discussed in the following chapters).  It would seem that it was some of these people whom the Essenes were so opposed to. 

 

In any case, it would appear that certain scribes and Pharisees at the Temple had been delegated great authority to teach Moshe and to establish discretionary actions to accomplish the Torah. 

 

This need is clearly established for a ruling and/or central body to establish rules, regulations and customs in those cases where the Scriptures allow discretionary options in the fulfillment of YAH’s laws.  This condition was cited earlier and will be elaborated upon in some detail in later chapters.  Principally, it surfaces in connection with the feast days and their observation. 

 

The ELOHIM has legislated much information on the feast days (Passover, Pentecost, etc)--but not all.  As a minimum, there has to be a recognized authority to establish the calendar and decide exactly which days are to be observed.  Clearly, for the Jews in Second Temple days, YHWH granted that authority to the scribes and Pharisees. 

 

 

An Important Essene Problem? 

 

So, why did The MESSIAH by-pass the Essenes who were extremely obedient, faithful, devoted and dedicated (in His statement on contrast)?  Perhaps the Essenes had one or more problems which precluded them from possessing any delegated authority from YHWH within collective Judaism, or from being recognized by YESHUA as being extremely righteous in His comparison (Matt 5:20). 

 

In fact, it must be significant to note that while The MESSIAH advocated and taught some things shared with the Essenes, He personally never seemed to have had any contact or dialogue with them directly.  In His many teachings and remarks, He never directly referred to them in any context.  Their presence seems to be strangely silent in the NT.  Why? 

 

Despite all of the good qualities and beliefs taught and advocated by the Qumran people, they did have a clear problem with the feast days because they had refused to recognize the authority granted the scribes and Pharisees (mentioned by YESHUA, above). 

 

Instead, the Essenes had adopted an unscriptural solar calendar (of 364 days annually), evidently from the book of Jubilees.  This calendar was in sharp contrast to the luni-solar calendar followed in historic Judaism and indeed in the Tanakh (as will be conclusively proven in later chapters on the calendar). 

 

By following this 364 days a year solar calendar, the Essenes were designating and keeping annual feast days generally (as outlined in the Torah--Lev 23) on the wrong days.  This condition thrust the Essenes into an entirely different world than the bulk of the other Jews (including YESHUA and His disciples). 

 

This writer is suspicious that it was this erroneous calendar teaching which hurt and damaged the Essene credibility more than anything else.  Because of this problem, it would seem that YESHUA could not or would not attempt to cite their righteousness as a base or sample to compare with in terms of the needs of the Apostolic Assembly. 

 

Perhaps this also explains why the NT generally ignores the presence of the Essenes.  Later chapters in this production addresses the whole calendar question and the relationship of certain solar calendars to historic sun worship.  Conversely, the Scriptural calendar is outlined in some detail with precise Scriptural citations to establish truth. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 148--The Hillel Pharisee YESHUA

 

 

Some Background 

 

Scholar J. F. Strange spoke at a conference on “Hillel and Jesus” in Jerusalem in 1992 and said that “no ancient document (like any book of the NT) can be interpreted apart from its historical, geographical and social context” (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 291).  The point of this is that a student of YESHUA must take a careful look at Second Temple Judaism to ever begin to appreciate the words of the NT. 

 

In terms of first century CE Judaism, one must be aware that this larger body was divided into a host of fragments, sects and parts (some 24 divisions, per the Talmud, as discussed elsewhere herein).  As scholar J. D. G. Dunn wrote, it is more accurate to speak of “Judaisms” (in the plural), rather than Judaism (ibid, p. 156). 

 

Dunn goes on to declare that YESHUA and the movement He sparked “have to be reckoned within and as part of the wider, more diverse Judaisms” of that period (ibid, p. 157). 

 

This prevailing division in Judaism and some of its specific facets will be addressed in later chapters herein.  Thus, there is no intent to begin to make that presentation now. 

 

However, there is a need to briefly outline some aspects of that presentation in order to appreciate and understand YESHUA’s religious environment, development and relationship with the Jewish people during Second Temple days. 

 

 

More on the Main Divisions 

 

Many people are well aware of the fact of two of the major groupings of Second Temple Jews--in the vein of the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  Christendom has condemned and spoken evil of the Pharisees so much and so long that the very word “Pharisee” in the modern world has come to denote both a person who is evil and hypocritical. 

 

But what is not known by most Christians is the fact that the Pharisee definition included a host of sub-definitions (in a sense, it was in those days something similar to what one finds today within Christendom in that there are a number of different sects and entities in modern Christianity [32,000 different Christian denominations], just as there were among the Jews [24 Jewish groups] in Second Temple days). 

 

The two main divisions within the Pharisees were the schools of Shammai and Hillel and they exhibited vast differences between themselves (as will be described in later commentary herein). 

 

These two groupings arose in the last half of the first century BCE and were extremely dominant in Judaism in the first century CE. 

 

For sure, the overall Hillel definition was further broken down into several different groups (like the Baptist appellative includes a number of Baptist sects or sub-components).  Perhaps this finding similarly existed within the Shammai definition. 

 

There is no intent to presently look at these several definitions.  Again, subsequent chapters herein will assess them and particularly the breakdown of the Hillel definition since the Nazarene followers of YESHUA were a part of the Hillelite Pharisees. 

 

But what is virtually unknown among Christians is the fact that YESHUA The MESSIAH of the first century CE was a clear Hillel Pharisee.  Evidently, He was born into that condition, raised that way and surely died that way.  This is not a loose and irresponsible statement made by this writer because its verity can very easily be established from the New Testament. 

 

 

Yes, YESHUA Was a Pharisee? 

 

While it is true that YESHUA often had differences with the Jews (correctly the Amalekite Judeans), these disagreements seemingly were never directed at the Pharisees of the School of Hillel, per se. 

 

Instead, The MESSIAH usually sided with them in His explanations of the Torah (despite the fact that some of them “may” have been hypocrites themselves in terms of obeying those laws--Matt 23:2-3). 

 

For this view, author Harvey Falk, in "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus," writes that "the Pharisees criticized by Jesus were (of) the School of Shammai, who dominated Jewish life and thought.”  Evidently, Falk detects no particular condemnation leveled at the School of Hillel Pharisees, per se. 

 

 

Harold Hemenway 

 

Christian writer Harold Hemenway assessed the subject under discussion in his booklet on “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?” which discusses some twenty or so themes in Second Temple days that were controversial between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. 

 

In all cases addressed by Hemenway (except on the divorce question), YESHUA sided with the beliefs of Hillel as opposed to those of Shammai (starting with the question about whether the kingdom was shut up from the Gentiles or not and going on to one’s moral liability for thoughts as well as acts).  As Hemenway concluded, YESHUA was a Hillel Pharisee in the midst of Shammai Pharisees. 

 

 

Criticism Was Common with the Pharisees 

 

A later chapter on the Talmud will examine the historical record which proves conclusively that YESHUA’s condemnation and criticism of the Pharisees were much like those emanating from other Pharisaical teachers of His day. 

 

Hence, the Pharisees themselves commonly criticized and condemned themselves (each other) over their own shortcomings (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 13, p. 366).  Yes, as hard as it might be to understand, but the Talmud (Yevamot 16a) even links Bet Shammai with Satan (“Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 6). 

 

The point is that the sages behind the Talmud were free to criticize and condemn whomsoever they chose (even including one of the most famous Jewish teachers of the first century BCE--Shammai). 

 

 

YESHUA and Hillel 

 

Having just quoted above from “Hillel and Jesus,” it would be well to note that this is a 486 page book, edited by James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns, with contributions of many modern scholars (both Christians and Jews) on the relationship or linkage of YESHUA to His predecessor Hillel. 

 

From the time of Ezra forward, Hillel and YESHUA became the two most important persons of all to affect history.  

 

Significantly, Hillel was the principal opponent of the ruling Shammai Pharisees.  He preceded YESHUA from about 60 BCE to around 10 CE.  When YESHUA observed the festivals as a boy and teenager at the Temple in Jerusalem, there is a likelihood that He at least saw and perhaps even met the great Jewish teacher and spokesman Hillel (the Reb). 

 

Noted Christian scholar Charlesworth outlined the dilemma in “Hillel and Jesus” (p. 3), when he noted that for much of the last 2,000 years Jews have written about and studied Hillel without regard to YESHUA.  Likewise, Christians have written about and studied YESHUA without regard to Hillel.  It seemed for centuries that few scholars in either faith could perceive the linkage between the two. 

 

 

Yes, YESHUA Was a Hillelite 

 

Perhaps the distinguished Jewish scholar Abraham Geiger blazed the trail on what was to ultimately unfold--when in 1864, he came out and publicly declared that YESHUA was a Pharisee Who belonged to the Hillelites (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 8).  But his work was to remain dormant and largely ignored for many of the succeeding years. 

 

Now, here in the early 21st century, this is all changing--since savants in both faiths are beginning to understand the presence of a very definite tie or linkage between Hillel and YESHUA.  This connection will be proven in comments to follow. 

 

The above quoted Jewish scholar Harvey Falk demonstrates this new attitude.  In 1985, Falk came out and categorically affirmed that YESHUA was indeed a Hillel Pharisee (and that His opposition to the Pharisees was to the Shammai Pharisees, as cited above).  Scholar Ernst Renan wrote that Hillel was the real teacher of YESHUA.  Paul Rieger also affirmed that YESHUA was a pupil of Hillel (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 7). 

 

Charlesworth, himself, takes the position that YESHUA was closer to Qumran’s Righteous Teacher on apocalypticism and disenchantment, but closer to Hillel on purity issues and the Temple and its services (ibid, p. 8).  Interestingly, scholar E. P. Sanders concluded that he found “no substantial conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees” (ibid, p. 159). 

 

Incidentally, there was another most fascinating linkage of YESHUA to His predecessor Hillel.  While YESHUA’s racial origin from the patriarch Yehudah and King David is well established, not much has been said about the situation with the great sage Hillel. 

 

“The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah” (p. 204, item 10) offers a very interesting legend on Hillel from Second Temple days.  It is said that Hillel was of Davidic stock (per a genealogical scroll, dating from that time)--and hence, he was a descendant of Yehudah, as was true with YESHUA. 

 

 

Some Reasons Why YESHUA Was a Pharisee 

 

Well known Jewish author Schalom Ben-Chorin (who wrote “Brother Jesus:  The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes”) was quoted in the May 16, 2002, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 29) in an article by Haim Chertok on “A stubbornly relevant Jew.”  Ben-Chorin wrote that “Jesus himself talks like a pharisaic rabbi.”  Yes, YESHUA was a Pharisee and more importantly a Pharisee Rabbi, as will shortly be assessed. 

 

In “Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance” (p. 106-107), Jewish scholar Hyan Maccoby wrote that “Jesus was not only educated as a Pharisee, he remained a Pharisee all his life... As a RABBI, Jesus was a typical Pharisee teacher.  Both in style and content, his religious teachings show an unmistakable affinity to Pharisaism, and especially to the teachings of the apostle of Pharisaism, Hillel.” 

 

Any scholar wanting to debate Ben-Chorin or Maccoby should spend a little time studying Pharisee beliefs in late Second Temple days.  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 13, p. 364-366) offers a sketch of this thinking which included such things as a belief in a resurrection of the dead; a coming judgment; rewards in a coming afterlife; a loving, omnipotent and sovereign ELOHIM; free will; importance of study and deeds; etc. 

 

 

Pharisee Segregation 

 

There are several other most interesting reasons which likewise give credence to the belief that YESHUA was indeed a Pharisee.  According to “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v.13, p. 364), the word Pharisee is derived from the Hebrew stem “parash,” which means “to be separated” (apparently, as in the kodesh sense). 

 

Therefore, the Pharisees (within Judaism) were those who were the separated ones or separatists.  As Judaica notes, they avoided contact with “others” (obviously non-Pharisees) for reasons of ritual purity, as with heathens and with the heathenizing tendencies and forces in their own nation (like with the Sadducees). 

 

This Pharisaical separation from the Sadducees may have carried over to the Essenes as well.  In a preceding discussion on the Essenes, the point was established that YESHUA and the entire NT environment seem to have utterly ignored and/or avoided the Essenes. 

 

Though the Essenes were circumcised Jews (which would have theoretically allowed social contact), there seemed to be no social intercourse with them and NT people for some positive reason (per the surviving records).  As suggested elsewhere herein, the Essenes must have had something wrong with their religion to suggest this separation. 

 

It is this attitude of Pharisee separation or separatism from other peoples which clearly dominated much of the NT (with the possible exception of Shaul the apostle).  Other chapters herein describe the situation with two different Roman Centurions.  In the first instance, YESHUA, Himself, had an encounter and perhaps maintained a degree of separation (Matt 8:5-13). 

 

The second incident arose with the Apostle Shimon Kefa (who was known as Simon Peter in the KJV and among Christians, as will be discussed at length in later chapters herein) and his reluctance to go and see Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10:1-22). 

 

Even twenty years later, Shaul noted this continuing Pharisaical attitude of Kefa when Kefa tried to maintain some separation from the House of Yisrael peoples who may not have been yet circumcised or had not yet completed conversion to Judaism (Gal 2:12). 

 

 

More Proofs 

 

Professor Shmuel Safrai points out that YESHUA contributed the annual half shekel to the Temple which was a doctrine of the Pharisees, in contrast to the Sadducees and Essenes who did not pay it; and that YESHUA worshipped regularly in the Synagogues, per the Pharisee custom--which was in contrast to the Sadducees, who may not have worshipped in the Synagogues at all (Jerusalem Perspective,” Jan/Jun 1994). 

 

Safrai goes on to suggest that YESHUA’s teachings on the Kingdom of heaven, repentance, parables and prayers are elsewhere common and often found in the early writings of the ancient Jewish sages.  Hence, YESHUA’s Words and teachings furnish more clues as to His religious persuasion and beliefs. 

 

The book of Luke records a most fascinating event which also goes a long way in proving conclusively that YESHUA was indeed a Pharisee.  As Luke recorded it, some “Pharisees” (obviously friends and/or religious brethren) came to YESHUA to tell Him to depart from thence because Herod would kill Him (Lu 13:31).  If He was not a Pharisee, this warning would have to be suspect. 

 

 

Further Connections 

 

A fascinating Reader’s Letter from Vancouver, Canada, in the “Prophecy Flash” paper of Nov-Dec 1996 (p. 88), examined the apparent linkage YESHUA had with the Pharisees in some detail and quoted “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” as outlined above. 

 

As this letter observed, YESHUA regularly had social intercourse with the Pharisees.  They willingly confided in Him (about Herod), sat with Him, ate with Him, taught with and by Him, talked with and to Him, and some even worshipped Him and/or with Him (Matt 12:9; Mk 1:21-22; Lu 13:31; 14: 1, 15).  In particular, some Pharisees had Him in their personal homes for meals and visitation purposes. 

 

In short, many Pharisees were His friends and followers (as Luke 13:31 indicates, per the above remark).  These facts are quite persuasive that YESHUA was indeed a Pharisee.  If He was not, then the Pharisees would have had none of these close dealings with Him.  They would have separated from Him. 

 

Besides this contact with the Pharisees, The MESSIAH also ate and dialogued with sinners and publicans.  This fact even prompted the Pharisees to criticize Him for such contact.  Obviously, He was a Pharisee.  For otherwise, they would have had no grounds for complaining and condemning Him (Mk 2:15-17).  They criticized him precisely because he was a Pharisee. 

 

In another case, the Word is careful to acknowledge that Yohanan (the Baptist) and the Pharisees fasted periodically.  This reality prompted the Pharisees to ask YESHUA why His disciples did not similarly fast (Mk 2:18-20). 

 

The very fact that they brought this matter up established that it was them (the Pharisees) in Judea and Judaism who fasted regularly and the fact that His disciples (and evidently Him as well) did not abide by this Pharisaical practice (of regular and/or frequent fasts) at that time (because of the fact that He, as The BRIDEGROOM, was with them--but surely, all of them did fast on Scriptural dates, like Yom Kippur, etc). 

 

 

Still More 

 

The Canadian reader under consideration went further and pointed out still more revelations which give absolute proof that YESHUA was indeed a Pharisee (evidently, of the School of Hillel, as Hyan Maccoby would allow, per his above quoted remarks). 

 

For example, the Canadian noted that YESHUA was a recognized RABBI among the Pharisees and was identified and called by them using that appellative (John 3:1-2).  Hyan Maccoby also made the same point in his remarks.  Manifestly, YESHUA was a RABBI.  And that is the clear teaching of the NT (which cannot be argued by anyone). 

 

It is important to note that the designation of “rabbi” evidently was used only by the Pharisee teachers.  Seemingly, it was an office and title exclusive to the Pharisees.  In other words, all of the Second Temple “rabbis” were apparently Pharisees.  Since YESHUA was a RABBI, He was surely a Pharisee. 

 

The reader’s letter under review quotes “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” as likening the rivalry between the Sadducees and the Pharisees to a renewal of the conflict between the prophets and priests of historic Tanakh times.  The followers of YESHUA were called “children of the prophets” (Acts 3:25), possibly in the context of a linkage which the Pharisees had to the prophets, in contrast with the Sadducean tie to the priests. 

 

Judaica carefully points out that the Pharisees considered themselves to be the traditional followers of Ezra whom they cherish (after Moshe) as the founder of Judaism.  The conclusion which one must come to on this issue is that YESHUA and most (if not all) of His early followers were Pharisees, evidently of the School of Hillel (even as late as c51 CE--Acts 15:5). 

 

These Hillel Pharisees (who were evidently sincere, religious, Israelite Jews) must be distinguished from the School of Shammai Pharisees who dominated Jewish life and thought in the Jerusalem area (known as Judeans in the NT), as suggested by Harvey Falk in his book "Jesus the Pharisee:  A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus," outlined above. 

 

 

Shaul and the Others 

 

Interestingly, all of the Apostolic Assembly leaders seem to have identified themselves as religious Jews on more than one occasion and without hesitation or reservation (Acts 16:20; 19:34; 21:20, 39; 22:3; Gal 2:14).  By the way, these references are all in the context of the present or presently, and not in the vein of the past or even future tenses. 

 

And as just suggested above, the evidence is massive that The ANOINTED ONE, Himself, was or had been raised as a Hillel Pharisee--very close to the Hasidic beliefs (as will be discussed in a later chapter).  In the case of the Apostle Shaul, he was an outright Hillel Pharisee (to be proven below).  Perchance, many of the other disciples of YESHUA also fit into this exact same category (Acts 15:5). 

 

Consistently and with regularity in the NT, Shaul refers to himself as a Jew without any hesitation whatsoever.  In other words, the Binyaminite Shaul correctly said on occasion:  “I am a Jew right now” (Acts 22:3, late in his life).  Never once did he say or suggest that he had been a Jew in the past and/or that he had given up, abandoned or changed his religion from Judaism. 

 

Not only did Shaul publicly affirm that he was a Jew in the present tense (obviously, in the religious context since he was racially from Binyamin), but he manifestly also affirmed his support for the Jewish culture (as is described elsewhere herein ). 

 

Positively, Shaul absolutely did not have any shame or regret over being a Jew.  One could easily conclude that he felt well about it. 

 

Again, as will be amply described in later comments in this production, the word Jew (the Hebrew Yehudi) had come to connote a religion or religious persuasion in the first century CE, perhaps because the Jews had proselytized so many peoples of other non-Israelite races--like the people in Esther’s day (Est 8:17) and the Amalek-Edomites, as discussed elsewhere herein. 

 

Therefore, even in late Second Temple days, there were possibly few true racial Jews left in Judea.  Succeeding chapters herein will prove this point quite conclusively. 

 

However, there are a few other key references which can now be cited to lend further proof to the position that YESHUA and many or most of His disciples were in fact Hillel Pharisees of the Jewish faith. 

 

For example, Shaul speaks of being a Jew in the context of a true religious faith (circumcision of the heart), as opposed to the outward physical, which would certainly include racial dimensions (Rom 2:28-29). 

 

Of most importance and as cited in prior comments, the Word reflects some references to the “Jew’s religion” in various English translations (Gal 1:13-14).  Importantly, Shaul at one time contrasted being a Jew with a proper religious nature in difference to being a sinner of the lost tribes with a wrong religious disposition (Gal 2:15). 

 

 

More from Shaul on the Pharisees 

 

Not only did Shaul speak well of himself being a Jew (presently, for 30 years over the course of the book of Acts), but he also unequivocally declared that he was a Pharisee (present tense), perhaps as late as 66 CE (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:4-6).  He did not say that he used to be a Pharisee.  He said “I am a Pharisee” right now! 

 

Furthermore, he noted that his father was also a Pharisee.  He certainly had no shame, sorrow or remorse over being a Pharisee.  To be precisely correct, it is also evident that he was a Hillel Pharisee--because he acknowledged that he had studied at the feet of the famous Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). 

 

Gamaliel was a grandson of Hillel and a prominent Hillel teacher in YESHUA’s time.  The student of truth may remember that this Gamaliel was the member of the Sanhedrin who cautioned the council and spoke in defense of the early work of the Apostolic Assembly (Acts 5:34-39). 

 

In an article on “The Pharisees, Hasidim, and the Early Jewish Church,” William F. Dankenbring says that Gamaliel was given the more important title of “Raboni,” meaning “our teacher” --in contrast to the usual Pharisee title of “rabbi,” meaning my teacher (“Prophecy Flash,” Aug 1994, p. 5). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 149--Jewish Sects in the First Century II

 

 

The Pharisees 

 

In terms of the remaining divisions in Judaism, it seems prudent to next review The Word's assessment of the Pharisees (as introduced in the preceding chapters). 

 

The Pharisees were a very old segment of Palestinian Jewry--having started as allies of the Hasmoneans in their early days of Second Temple rulership over Judea, before the Hasmoneans switched their support to the Sadducees (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 224). 

 

As noted previously, in terms of Second Temple days, the Pharisees were broken down into two main parts--the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai.  Both of these schools of thought developed in the latter part of the first century BCE. 

 

In later Jewish history, the Pharisees became the Orthodox Jews which interestingly today is still divided (with the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, as are addressed elsewhere herein). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 87, p. 1162) says that the School of Shammai legislated for the upper classes, the wealthy landholders and aristocrats, while the School of Hillel legislated for the poorer urban workers and artisans.  Since the NT Yosef was a carpenter, it is easy to understand why YESHUA would have been raised as a Hillel Pharisee (as discussed previously). 

 

 

Edomites and Power 

 

With the Shammai focus on the people with money, it is quite manifest that they quickly became the more dominant, influential and ruling Pharisees in the Jerusalem area.  Obviously, the Edomite power structure would have been drawn to the Shammai Pharisees (previously noted), as opposed to the Hillel Pharisees (since the Amalek-Edomites have a natural propensity for money and power). 

 

Positively, in Second Temple days, the Amalek-Edomites were in governmental power in the form of the Herods and their Herodian lackeys.  This Edomite power structure typically allied itself with the more influential and upper crust Jews (the Hellenists, Sadducees and Shammai Pharisees), as pointed out previously. 

 

While the Amalekites assuredly dominated or at least controlled the Herodian sect where most of them likely gravitated (as discussed earlier), one must not be surprised that some of them would identify with the Shammai Pharisees or other groups.  Maybe their presence among the Jews in the first century was much like their presence in the US and Britain in the 20th-21st centuries. 

 

In American politics, the Amalek-Edomites are mostly found in the liberal wing of the Democrat party.  Their Satanic evil and wretchedness are much at home among liberal Democrats.  But they do have “some” presence in other US parties and primarily in the Republican party where they also exercise enormous power (except for the Christian fundamentalist motion which has flexed its muscles for some years now). 

 

 

Satanic Amalekites Are Not Divided 

 

As elsewhere pointed out, Satan is not divided.  The Amalek-Edomite presence in the hypothetically divided religious and political sects is there for a purpose. 

 

The Satanic objective is always that the Amalek-Edomites will worm themselves into leadership roles where they can effectively take over or control the divided parties.  Once in control, they can begin a process of undercutting, undermining and destabilizing the parties or at least their functioning and effectiveness. 

 

In this sense, controlling Amalek-Edomites can concentrate on their primary objective--the destruction of Yisrael. 

 

Though the overall Pharisees were mostly true Jewish Israelites, as the evidence suggests, it would seem that Amalekite masters had gained power and influence over portions of the more dominant Shammai Pharisees (likely, because of Herod’s power--as elsewhere discussed herein). 

 

 

The Haverim 

 

In terms of the evidence showing that YESHUA’s disagreements were with the Shammai Pharisees (as described earlier), there is a contrary opinion among some scholars.  For this, it is necessary to revisit the 5th National Foundations of Our Faith Conference in Tulsa, OK when Dr Ken Hanson spoke on the “Haverim.”  Hanson, quoted earlier, noted the presence of the Haverim sect within the Pharisee definition. 

 

These Haverim were a fraternal organization of so-called friends (thus, a Pharisee clique). 

 

While Hanson did not link them to the Shammai or Hillel groups, his description would seem to allow that they were usually closer to the Shammai persuasion than to Hillel.  Because of their ties to the Shammai beliefs, they were possibly a part of the Shammai Pharisee definition in the time of YESHUA in Second Temple days. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 7, p. 1489-91) discusses the Haverim and suggests that some scholars believe that they actually surfaced after the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (c132 CE).  To whatever extent that they existed in YESHUA’s days, they probably were a small group of Shammai Pharisees--a fraternal group or clique of friends and separatists who were very meticulous about purity and impurity. 

 

In any case, Dr Hanson makes the case that these Haverim were very dedicated to ritualism and in that sense were the precise Pharisees which The MESSIAH so strongly opposed (like on the question of hand-washings). 

 

While Hanson’s remarks could be correct, the truth is manifest that the broad term Pharisee took in a lot of ground to cover both good and bad groups of Pharisees.  

 

 

The Hasidim 

 

Beyond this Hillel and Shammai division, it should be noted that there was the earlier mentioned Pharisees who were known as Hasidim or devout ones and who identified themselves with the Hillel beliefs (as a sect within the school of Hillel). 

 

In fact, Hillel, himself, was thought to be Hasidic because the Talmud says that at his funeral, Hillel was described as a humble Hasid and a disciple of Ezra (Sanhedrin 11a). 

 

The modern Hasidim motion probably differs somewhat from the Second Temple Hasidim and should not be confused with it.  The modern Hasidim seem to be generally a part of the Ultra Orthodox movement, which has much in common with the Haverim of Second Temple days (as discussed above).  Thus, the ancient Hasidim may not have an exact counterpart in today’s Judaism. 

 

Professor Shmuel Safrai of Hebrew University writes that the Galilee area was a stronghold of the first century CE Hasidim.  He says that all references now extant from Second Temple times about the Hasidim relate to the Galilee (“Jerusalem Perspective,” Jan/Jun 1994). 

 

 

NT Reality 

 

For the next focus, the New Testament “Gospels” communicate the thinking that YESHUA and many of His leading disciples and apostles were, as a minimum, generally respectful and considerate of the religious theology of the School of Hillel Pharisees and perhaps constituted a sect (the Nazarenes) or fragment (similar to the Hasidim) within the Hillel definition (as outlined in the former chapter). 

 

In view of the connections that the Hasidim Pharisees had with the Galilee region and since most of YESHUA’s disciples were from the Galilee, it is also suggestive that the Nazarenes may have had a lot in common with the Hasidim--actually “very close,” as allowed by Safrai. 

 

In fact, the Hebrew University scholar notes that in early Hasidic writings, the Hasidim considered their relationship with The ELOHIM to be one of extreme familiarity as a son or child.  They typically referred to Ha AV (The Father) with the Aramaic Abba and/or the Hebrew Avi--meaning “my father.” 

 

 

More on the Pharisees 

 

Preceding remarks outlined that YESHUA and perhaps most or all of his disciples were Pharisees of the Hillel definition.  There is no need to repeat those comments. 

 

Suffice to say, first century CE Judaism was extremely divided into different sects and parts (some 24 divisions, as noted earlier)--similar in some ways to what one finds today in generic Christianity.  To again quote scholar J.D.G. Dunn--he wrote that it is more accurate to speak of “Judaisms” (in the plural) rather than Judaism (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 156). 

 

Dunn also declared that YESHUA and the movement He sparked “have to be reckoned within and as part of the wider, more diverse Judaisms” of that period (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 157). 

 

And scholar J. F. Strange added that “no ancient document (like any book of the NT) can be interpreted apart from its historical, geographical and social context” (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 291).   For sure, it is imperative for a true believer in YESHUA to have some understanding of the environment of Second Temple Judaism. 

 

As pointed out in preceding commentary herein on the Pharisees, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v.13, p. 364) makes the point that the word Pharisee is derived from the Hebrew stem “parash,” which means “to be separated” (apparently, in the kodesh sense).  Thence, the Pharisees (within Judaism) were those who were the separated ones or separatists. 

 

This prevailing condition greatly influenced the relationship of people in NT times.  For example, this separation probably played a key role in understanding what happened with the two Roman Centurions, discussed in the Book (as allowed in previous comments herein)--like with YESHUA (Matt 8:5-13) and with Kefa (Acts 10:1-22). 

 

As pointed out in previous chapters, the Hillel Pharisees (who were evidently sincere, religious, Israelite Jews) must be distinguished from the School of Shammai Pharisees who dominated Jewish life and thought in the Jerusalem area, as suggested by Harvey Falk in his book "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus," outlined earlier. 

 

 

The Obvious 

 

There is every reason to believe that a number of the powerful Amalek-Edomites in Second Temple days were probably Shammai (or Haverim) Pharisees, as suggested earlier, and per evidence presented herein.  Consequently, there is cause to believe that YESHUA’s condemnation of the Pharisees at various times were properly being leveled at Edomite Shammai/Haverim Pharisees and not at Hillel people at all. 

 

In contrast to the influential, powerful and dominant Shammai/Haverim Pharisees (whom YESHUA had differences with and whom He regularly criticized), it must be noted that the common people (the Hillel Pharisees) were His friends, associates and followers.  Luke 13:31 was cited earlier, where they came to Him to warn Him. 

 

Moreover, there are the several recorded instances where the ruling Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and authorities were prepared to arrest or oppress Yohanan the Baptist, YESHUA and indeed YESHUA’s disciples on more than one occasion, but were discouraged from doing so because of the fear they had of the common people--the Hillel Pharisees (Matt 14:5; 21:46; Mk 6:20; 11:18, 32; Lu 20:19; 22:2; Acts 4:16-21; 5:26). 

 

This evidence is most persuasive that YESHUA, His disciples and colleagues in Palestine were all Hillel Pharisees.  The proof is overwhelming and cannot be denied. 

 

YESHUA’s problems were with the dominant Shammai/Haverim people (correctly, with the Amalekites, as will be proven below) and not with the Hillel believers (the Jewish-Israelite, common people). 

 

 

The Zealots  

 

Beyond SALVATION's disagreements with the School of Shammai and Haverim Pharisees (whose “attitude” may have somewhat influenced modern Orthodox Judaism, as it developed--to be later discussed), it is likewise evident that He probably was no fan of the Zealots, though one of His disciples was likely a Zealot (Simon, to be later described, Mk 3:18; Lu 6:15; Acts 1:13). 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 16, p. 948) even suggests that YESHUA, Himself, could have been a Zealot.  Of course, the better view is that He was not a Zealot (since His teachings were apolitical).  So this charge must be discounted. 

 

In any case, Judaica (v. 16, p. 947-950) says that the Zealot sect started with a man named Judah the Galilean in 6 CE.  Possibly, the original sect may have had some religious definitions in the beginning, although Josephus doesn’t seem to allow for such conclusions (“Jewish Wars,” 2:118; “Antiquities,” 18:1-10). 

 

In the main, the Zealots were nationalists opposed to Roman rule--although Harold Hemenway makes the case that the Zealots were actually Bet Shammai people--based on the fact that some or many of them were identified as Shammai Pharisees (“Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 6). 

 

“Judaica” (v. 16, p. 947) notes that a Pharisee named Zadok assisted Judah (Hemenway points out that Zadok was actually a Shammai Pharisee).  So it might be that philosophical motivations about resistance to the Romans probably crossed the lines of various religious persuasions.  As “Judaica” (v. 16, p. 949) allows, even the Essenes could have had some connections to this movement. 

 

As will be later explained, there is every reason to believe that some of the Edomite proselytes in Judea were active in the Zealot movement.  The “Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 197) argues that many of the Zealots involved in the Roman War were Idumeans who were as dangerous to the Jews as they were to the Romans.  This fact will be later established. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 150--Murderers of the Righteous

 

 

Another Entity 

 

Significantly, some Christian scholars and commentators believe that YESHUA accused the Zealots, mentioned in the former chapter, of murdering the prophets--as various Christian commentaries suggest for Matthew 23:30, 34.  While the subject of Matthew 23 may or may not involve Zealots, it does broach the matter of still one more definition of some opponents of YESHUA in Second Temple days. 

 

To allow that the Christian position of tying the Zealots to these murders could have some merit, there is a need for some further explanation on identifying these murderers. 

 

 

Dr Ray Pritz, Revisited 

 

Dr Ray Pritz of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research was quoted in former chapters.  He makes note of the fact that some of the Greek NT books referred to the Judeans (called Jews in the KJV) in the context of some of the wicked people in the Jerusalem area.  Yet, English translators typically do not attempt to make this distinction. 

 

The reason for these remarks was because the word “Judean” offers a geographical linkage, suggesting residency and/or citizenship and not race or religion at all.  While the word Jew was not used frequently in the Synoptics, the writer Yohanan certainly used it and often in a critical or unfavorable vein for certain persons of the Judean province. 

 

In any case, the NT does reveal a very interesting fact about the evil scribes and/or Pharisees in Matthew 23.  By and large, these workers of evil were scribes and Pharisees in or of Jerusalem/Judea (thus, they correctly were Judeans)--which must distinguish them from the Hillel Pharisees in the out country (like in the Galilee). 

 

This truth is very subtly brought out in several different ways.  For instance, most of YESHUA’s discussions and confrontations with them (like in Matthew 23) happened while He was in their presence in Jerusalem.  Also, Matthew 15:1 is careful to note that the scribes and/or Pharisees, being addressed, were “of Jerusalem.” 

 

When YESHUA dialogued with the evil scribes and/or Pharisees, away from Jerusalem, the Word is careful to point out that that the workers of evil were defined as “from Jerusalem” (Mk 3:22; 7:1).  Luke 5:17 is not precise on this.  But it certainly allows that the scribes and Pharisees involved could be from Jerusalem. 

 

The point of these comments is that the scribes/Pharisees being addressed by YESHUA in Matthew 23 were Judeans (who are called or presumed to be Jews in the KJV).  So these very murderers seem to have a tie to other evil Judeans cited elsewhere in the NT and particularly in the book of John. 

 

 

Scribes and Pharisees? 

 

Anyway, the context of Matthew 23 (with some similar statements in Luke 11:37-54) is revealing because YESHUA specifically identified the cited Judeans as being certain scribes and/or Pharisees.  Of course, some savants, like the previously quoted Harvey Falk and other students of truth, would surely argue that the Pharisees involved were of the dominant Shammai sect (in Judea) and not Hillel Pharisees. 

 

And this conclusion has to be true because of the statements made early on in Matthew 23.  As discussed in preceding chapters (with some remarks from Christian writer Harold Hemenway), it indeed was the Shammai Pharisees who sat in Moshe’s seat in terms of the Sanhedrin and leadership in Jerusalem (Matt 23:2).  Naturally, this dissertation in Matthew 23 has to focus upon them. 

 

Of course, it was the powerful Shammai Pharisee Judeans who dominated Jewish life in the Judea area.  The Galilee was the stronghold of the Hillel Pharisees. 

 

 

More Points of identification 

 

Preceding commentary outlined the work of Dr George Howard on the Shem Tob Hebrew text of Matthew.  Since YESHUA recognized the Pharisee authority (to sit in Moshe’s seat), it would be well to revisit the Matthew of Shem Tob. 

 

Based on the Shem Tob text, the Hebrew at Matthew 23:2-3 reads “Upon the seat of Moshe the Pharisees and Sages sit, but now all which He (referring to Moshe) will say to you, keep and do, but their (referring to the Pharisees and Sages sitting on Moshe’s seat) ordinances and deeds do not do because they say and do not” (“Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,” p. 113).  

 

The reality of this message clearly is that the subjects of Matthew 23 were gross hypocrites.  Actually, the balance of the presentation in Matthew 23 bears this truth out quite satisfactorily.  Those persons were religious hypocrites.  They talked a good tune, but they themselves were grossly evil and wicked (just like many Christians). 

 

As described in former chapters, there were two major schools of thoughts among the so-called Pharisee definition--the Shammai Pharisees and the Hillel Pharisees.  As described in a former chapter, YESHUA was categorically a Hillel Pharisee.  Thus, was He addressing fellow Hillelites in Matthew 23 or was He addressing the Shammai Pharisee leadership in the Judean province? 

 

 

More Revelations 

 

The next major facet of identification surfaces in Matthew 23:4, which indicates that the subjects involved created heavy loads for people and would not (help) bear the loads themselves (as most translations to English suggest--like the “Amplified”). 

 

Here, Shem Tob’s Hebrew text is probably correct in saying that “They demand and set forth great burdens [which] (the shoulders of men) are not able to bear; but they themselves even with their finger are unwilling to move” (“Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,” p. 113).  The point is that they create burdens for others which they themselves are unwilling to carry (again, they talk one way and act another way). 

 

This indictment really comes home when a person assesses the teachings of the Talmud in respect to the keeping of the Seventh day Sabbath.  As will be covered in a later chapter on the Talmud, the Shammai leaders demanded that no one could start a trip across the Mediterranean on the fourth day of the week or later if it would take them over the Sabbath day. 

 

Shammai said that ink, dyestuff, or vetches could not be soaked on a sixth day of the week unless there is time for them to be wholly soaked before the start of the Sabbath.  Shammai said that bundles of flax were not to be baked in an oven on the sixth day unless there is time for them to bake that day. 

 

Shammai said that fishing nets should not be spread on a sixth day unless there is time to catch fish that day (in other words, don’t leave the nets out over the Sabbath).  Shammai said that one should not help a goy (non-believer) place a burden or pack on an animal on the sixth day unless there is time for the pack animal to reach its destination that day. 

 

Shammai would not give hides to a goy (non-believing) tanner on a sixth day of the week unless the work could be completed that day.  There was also the conflict over the question of rendering healing help on the Sabbath day and pulling a few strands of grain to eat on the Sabbath day--both of which seem to have involved Shammai positions. 

 

Hillel took a contrary profile on all of these questions, plus many other things--like on how to recite the shema, as discussed elsewhere herein.  Is it not manifestly clear that the subject of Matthew 23 has to be the Shammai Pharisees and not the Hillel people? 

 

 

Still More Revelations 

 

In other illustrations of the harshness and oppressive theology of Shammai, versus Hillel, Harold Hemenway quotes from the Talmud and outlines a whole series of things advocated by Hillel to protect the poor people of the land from wealthy creditors and land owners (who were supported by Shammai), in obvious reference to the fat cat Amalekite bankers and leaders (“Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 4). 

 

Even the subject of tithing came into play (ibid, p. 4) when Shammai advocated tithing on the leaves, pods and stalks of plants grown for seed (Talmud, Shabbat 130b; Maasrot 4:5-6; Betsah 21b) and on the oil bought from the lawless (Dem 1:3).  Hillel successfully opposed tithing on the oil, but perhaps failed in opposing the Shammai ruling on plants (since the Shammai leaders sat in Moshe’s seat with great authority).  

 

As Harold Hemenway notes, this background on the plants must have influenced YESHUA’s words about paying the tithe on “mint and anise and cummin” (Matt 23:23) while ignoring the weightier matters in the Torah.  As the Talmud communicates, Hillel taught mercy (Lev. Rabbah 34:3), in contrast to the strictness of Shammai (Betsah 21b).

 

Next, Harold Hemenway (“Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” appendix) points out that the very wording of Matthew 23:5 is such that the Pharisees involved have to be Shammai Pharisees because it was precisely the Shammai Pharisees who enlarged the borders (tassels or tzitzityot) of their garments.  The Hillel Pharisees were more modest and humble in obeying the mitzwah (Talmud, T. B. Menahot 41b). 

 

And in perhaps one of the greatest revelations of all, YESHUA (apparently quoting Psalms 5:9) took note of the fact that the subjects involved were actually full of pretense and iniquity (Matt 23:28).  The English iniquity comes from the Greek anomia (which means anti-Torah, as outlined in previous remarks herein). 

 

As noted elsewhere herein, this one text (Matt 23:38) is most revealing because the one thing that truly religious Jews have always been devoted to has been the Torah.  This condemnation simply could not be leveled against the Hillel Pharisees of YESHUA’s day, nor can it be applied to the Orthodox Jews of today.  There is only one group of Jews in the first century CE which connect here--the Shammai Pharisees.   

 

 

More From Harold Hemenway

 

But perhaps one of the most fascinating features of identification for these people comes forth in Matthew 23:29-31 in that these very persons being addressed claimed that they would not have killed the prophets (interestingly, they themselves, in their day, had made some monuments or memorials to those dead prophets). 

 

In “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?” (p. 6), Harold Hemenway notes that the Talmud has a record from the first century BCE (perhaps around 20 to 10 BCE) of a conflict between the Shammai Pharisees and the Hillelites. 

 

Per the report, the Bet Shammai people sought to introduce some eighteen measures which would further create separation between the Jews and goyim--evidently the goyim House of Yisrael Israelites and/or maybe goyim in general (Shabbat 13b).  The Hillel people opposed these measures. 

 

During the course of the discussion on the subject, the Shammai people became outraged and murdered some of the Bet Hillel people (T.P. Shabbat 1:3c & T.B. Shabbat 17a).  Since some of the Hillelites were known as prophets, to apparently include some of the murdered Hillelites (Sukkah 28a & Bava Batra 134a), Hemenway interprets Matthew 23:30 in that vein. 

 

Because Herod and his Herodian colleagues were also busy killing the truly religious Jews (as covered below and elsewhere herein), it is clear that there surely would be a tie between the Shammai Pharisees and Herod and his people.  As outlined earlier herein, that tie does exist on the basis of racial grounds.  In other words, some, many or most of the Herodian Amalekites were Shammai Pharisees. 

 

By the way, Hemenway’s book on this subject (of 33 pages) lists a whole host of things which were addressed in the NT and things which were interpreted differently by the Hillelites from the Shammai big shots (like Matt 5:15-16, 38-39; 15:3-9; 21:12-13; Mk 7:9-12; 11:15-17; Lu 4:18; 20-26).  All of these issues were at least inferred in Matthew 23, though maybe not stated as such in that context.  

 

The remarks from the Talmud are most profound for a lot of reasons.  Certainly, this is one fantastic proof that the Pharisees, under discussion in Matthew 23, were actually Shammai Pharisees and not Hillel Pharisees. 

 

Furthermore, as noted above, some scholars do perceive the Zealots and their ancestors as being the principal killers of the righteous (Harold Hemenway shares this belief-- “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 4-6), although the mentioned Pharisees and scribes and their ancestors were clearly involved as well, per YESHUA’s words.  As a minimum, there was an apparent conspiracy to kill the innocent. 

 

In his booklet on “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?” (p. 6), as quoted above and earlier herein, Harold Hemenway quotes Josephus and the Talmud (Ant. 18:1-10; Yevamot 15B; Tosefta Eduyyot 2:2) to show that one Zekharyah (to be commented upon below) was murdered on the Temple grounds by Zealots who were linked to the Shammai Pharisees (of course, many Zealots were also Amalekites and Shammai Pharisees). 

 

As discussed above, in terms of Matthew 23:2-5, the Pharisees involved have to be Shammai Pharisees, which becomes very relevant in the present discussion. 

 

 

Guilty of All 

 

However, beyond just a simple recognition of certain scribes, Shammai Pharisees, and possible Zealots in the murders of the righteous Hillelites of the first century BCE, The MESSIAH appears to cover an awful lot of ground in saying that these precisely involved persons and their progenitors must carry the guilt for the shed blood of each (and all) of the slain righteous all the way back from Abel to Zekharyah, son of Berechiah (Berekhyah in the Hebrew--Matt 23:35). 

 

Not satisfied with merely indicting these individuals for the murders of all of the righteous in the historical vein, YESHUA carries His pronouncement forward to encompass the future murders of all of the righteous--including Himself (Matt 23:34).  Undeniably, these charges cover an awful lot of ground in running the gauntlet from past to present and to future. 

 

Although few readers of the Revelation to Yohanan would ever begin to grasp it, but the fact is that these same killers also link in some fashion to Mystery Babylon The Great in whom was found the blood of all of the righteous slain on planet earth (Rev 18:24).  So here, in Revelation and in Matthew, what is the issue? 

 

Of course, the references to the past in Matthew 23:35 are to Abel, slain by Cain (Gen 4:8), and to Zekharyah, son of Berekhyah.  The identity of this Zekharyah, son of Berekhyah, mentioned by YESHUA is in dispute and probably remains a mystery.  The first clear option here is that this man was the OT Prophet Zekharyah, who was a son of Berekhyah (Zech 1:1). 

 

As noted above, Harold Hemenway makes it that Zekharyah, son of Berekhyah, was the one killed in Second Temple days by the Zealot-Shammai Pharisees (and thus, may not be the OT prophet Zekharyah). 

 

Henry Alford’s “Greek New Testament” (v. 1, p. 233) suggests that this Zekharyah (in Matthew 23:35) was not the son of Baruch (who was cited by Josephus), because he was killed too late to be referred to by YESHUA.  Alford offers the possibility that the man involved was Zekharyah, father of Yohanan the Baptist, who traditionally was killed by Judeans (correctly Amalekites--ed) at the Temple (per Origin). 

 

But also, Alford quotes Lightfoot and gives the more common view that the Zekharyah involved was Zekharyah, son of Jehoida (Yehoyada in the Hebrew), who was killed by King Yoash and other Jews in First Temple days (II Chron 24:21).  There was a ancient saying that the shed blood of this Zekharyah was never washed away till the Temple was burned by the Babylonians. 

 

Any and all of these different people named Zekharyah could be under consideration by YESHUA (whether specifically defined or not).  Probably, they all were righteous persons who were murdered by the same workers of evil. 

 

 

The Problem 

 

So the question--what single factor is present that would link together the murders of Abel and all of the other righteous ones in Yisrael? 

 

For an answer to this enigma on the historic murderers, one may initially speculate that the common denominator in all of the killings was the presence of sin and iniquity in the hearts and minds of the killers.  Certainly, this is true here.  And it is also true in all illegal murders whenever and wherever they have occurred in world history. 

 

Yet, the denunciation by YESHUA must likely be something more explicit and concrete than just a vague and general charge of sin (which could be leveled at all of so-called humanity for all murders committed).  For sure, the criticism must be something that is very definite and recognizable to prompt The MESSIAH to be so exact in His specifications. 

 

An examination of the precise reasons why The MESSIAH would lay such a broad based and far reaching charge of incredible wickedness and evil against certain Pharisees and scribes will be addressed in the following comments. 

 

 

Acts 7:51-60 

 

For some more clarification on what YESHUA had in mind about the murderers of the righteous, in His denunciation of various Pharisees and scribes (Matt 23), one must come forward in time to the early Apostolic Assembly and the murder of Stephen (which has been and will be discussed in some more detail in other portions of this study). 

 

Luke’s writing on this theme (which was under discussion by YESHUA in Matthew 23), includes quite an assortment of useful information on these murderers when one looks at them carefully in the complete context of Stephen’s words at his death (Acts 5:25 to 7:60). 

 

The setting for Stephen’s remarks in Acts was that the disciples had been preaching YESHUA to the people in Jerusalem and particularly at the Temple.  The leadership in the priesthood had ordered the disciples to quit this effort.  They refused to do so.  Stephen was one of the persons who resumed and/or continued this preaching campaign to the public in Jerusalem (Acts 6:10). 

 

Assuredly, some of the people and even the priesthood were of legitimate Israelite stock and actually included a number of believers by the time Stephen began his final discourse (Acts 6:7).  But certain of the synagogue (the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrines and some from Cilicia) opposed Stephen and falsely accused him to the council (the Sanhedrin, per Alford’s “The Greek Testament,” v. II, p. 65). 

 

 

Stephen’s Defense 

 

Consequently, and while on trial, Stephen made his famous defense of the faith before this council and the various people who were standing nearby and watching the proceedings (Acts 7:1-58). 

 

This assemblage of persons seems to have included Shaul and some of the lay people, elders, scribes and leaders, in addition to the Sanhedrin.  Categorically, the group had numbers of true racial Israelites and probably even some believers in YESHUA present. 

 

Stephen talked to this assemblage and used the pronoun “our” on several occasions in reference to the patriarchal fathers and other important historical Israelites (Acts 7:2, 32, 39, 44, 45)--making some students of the Book (incorrectly) suppose that the entire group was legitimate Jewish Israelites. 

 

Certainly, Stephen was in a nation of accepted Israelites and surely many of them were his fleshly brethren.  Thus, he could correctly refer to their collective ancestral fathers as “our fathers.” 

 

But at least, in this governing council and/or those present, there were some persons who were descendants of the persecutors of the prophets (evidently the same persons who had been the murderers of the prophets, mentioned earlier by YESHUA) because Stephen identified them and directed some of his comments of criticism specifically at them (Acts 7:51-58). 

 

 

Changing Our to Your 

 

Significantly, in his condemnation of these people, Stephen switched the words “our fathers” (which he had been using) to the words “your fathers” (Acts 7:51-52).  This is a most important point to grasp.  Therefore, Stephen indicted some portion of this ruling Sanhedrin and/or assemblage of people as being descendants of the people who persecuted (and seemingly murdered) the prophets of old (Acts 7:52).

 

Is it possible that he used his finger to point to the correct individuals when he said “your fathers”?  If there was any doubt about who he had in mind, he would have likely pointed them out so that all present could understand his comments.  Clearly, he focused his references to these evil people of old as “your fathers” and not “our fathers,” as applicable to the other persons present.   

 

This switch must be important because the persecutors and murderers of the prophets of old were obviously not the ancestors of the collective Israelite people in general in Palestine in Second Temple days.  If they had been, Stephen should have left the pronoun as “our” instead of changing it to “your.” 

 

In other words, Stephen was addressing a mixed crowd of people.  Many or perhaps even most were true Israelites who were his racial brethren.  In that context, he talked about “our ancestors.”  But others present were not true racial Israelites.  They were not his brethren and he referred to their ancestors, who persecuted the prophets, as “your fathers.” 

 

 

The Murderers and Race 

 

So the basic question remains.  Why is it that YESHUA tied these murderers of the prophets to certain scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem in the first century CE (in Matt 23).  Likewise, the same question can be asked about Stephen and why he accused the fathers of certain Jews of persecuting the prophets. 

 

Solution--there is every reason to believe that racially and by seed line, the murderers and persecutors involved all tie together.  For instance, some discussion was had earlier on the Kenites and their evident descent from Kain and his father (Gen 3:1-4, 12; II Cor 11:3; I Jo 3:12), their ties to the Amalekites (Num 24:20-21), and their survival among the Jews as scribes to YESHUA's day (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14; Jo 8:44). 

 

A later chapter on Christian Church history will further address these opponents of Stephen in the context of their presence as alleged Jews in Jerusalem in certain synagogues (the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrines and some from Cilicia--Acts 6:9).  Suffice to say, there is a tie here of these supposed Jews (Amalekites or other children of Satan) to Alexandria which will prove to be most profound. 

 

 

More on the Amalek-Edomite Linkage 

 

As proven herein, there is also some very clear Scriptural evidence of the Amalek-Edomite linkage to the murderers.  This tie surfaced with the Amalekite King Herod, who tried to murder The Baby YESHUA and did slaughter 14,000 innocent baby boys in Bethlehem (Feb 8, 2002, “The Week,” p. 18), and to his son, Herod Antipas, who murdered Yohanan the Baptist (Matt 2:13-18; 14:1-12). 

 

Even the Talmud and early Jewish writings indicate that Herod the Great was guilty of murdering some of the Second Temple, Jewish sages (i.e. two important “rabbis,” Numbers Rabbah 4:14, as quoted in the “Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 9). 

 

With just a minimum of study, it is very easy to determine that YESHUA’s essential NT conflict was with Amalekites and Kenites (both of whom were identified as “Judeans,” in the Jerusalem area).  YESHUA’s friends and colleagues were (religious) Jewish Pharisees of the Hillel class in the outlying areas--like the Galilee. 

 

A previous chapter noted that the Herodians (who were likely all Amalekites) were his principle enemies (Matt 22:16; Mk 3:6; 12:13).  These Herodians were from Jerusalem (thus, Judeans) and admittedly some or many of them clearly did claim to be Pharisee Jews--obviously, of the Shammai class, which dominated Judaism from Jerusalem. 

 

In fact, as cited in a former chapter, the case can be made that the Shammai Pharisees from Jerusalem (and/or the Haverim Pharisees, who were likely Shammai Pharisees) were almost synonymous with the Herodian Amalekites from Judea.  This connection is subtly brought out in Mark 12:13 where the Greek “kai” is used to link the Judean Herodians to the Judean Pharisees (Shammai Pharisees in Jerusalem). 

 

While one could argue that these Amalekites were posing as religious Jews, YESHUA and probably most true Jews correctly understood them to be sons of Satan and perceived that they were not religious people at all (they were effectively Herodian secularists, atheists or Satan worshippers).  Therefore, it is no wonder that the Apostle Yohanan would call them Judeans and sons of the Devil. 

 

In terms of the scribes, it seems a certainty that they were Kenites (as proven in other comments herein).  So, what one finds in the NT is a conflict between YESHUA and certain Judeans (Kenite scribes and Amalekite Herodians--some of whom were posing as Shammai Pharisees, but who were actually sons of Satan). 

 

The KJV and most English translations call these Judeans “Jews,” as if they were precisely the same people as the religious Jews in the Galilee and in the Diaspora.  These two words/ideas are not the same at all (as will be conclusively proven in other remarks herein).  Most readers of the NT never distinguish between these Amalekites and Kenites and the true, religious, Jewish Israelites (Hillel Pharisees). 

 

Moreover, some of the Amalekite Shammai Pharisees and Kenite scribes might could be classified as Zealots because of Zadok, mentioned earlier, and especially if the ideas of Christian scholars on the Zealots have merit here (note--some authorities, like the “Davis Bible Dictionary, claim that the Zealots were Edomites). 

 

 

Tying It Together 

 

To tie all of this thinking together, it would be well to also turn to Josephus’ comments on the role of the Amalek-Edomites in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem (elsewhere discussed herein). 

 

In that context, it seems certain that some Amalek-Edomites were both Zealots and Shammai Pharisees and/or Sadducees.  If they were non-Edomites, they could have been blind followers working for and serving the Amalekite masters (just as janissary Christians do today; the word janissary will be defined in a later chapter). 

 

Specifically, Josephus and numerous Jewish writers have reported over the years that the Southern Edomites were closely allied to the Zealots during the Roman war of 66-70 CE.  Since the Idumeans played a major role in the fall of Jerusalem, it’s very reasonable that linkage of the murderers to certain Zealots and Amalekite Shammai Pharisees could have merit. 

 

 

Mystery 

 

Also, the Amalekite role in the murders of the righteous particularly surfaces when looking at the situation with Mystery Babylon the Great, mentioned previously, as being responsible for all of the blood of the righteous slain on planet earth (Rev 18:24).  The Mar 1998 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 36) correctly notes that Mystery Babylon and the evil Edomites both involve mysteries. 

 

The evil woman of Revelation 17-18 is known as Mystery Babylon while the things of Esau are referred to in the context of the hidden (or mysterious) things (Oba 1:3-6).  Could these two references connect in some fashion?  Are Edomites somehow involved with Mystery Babylon?  Comments below will establish this connection. 

 

In addition, there is the much broader perspective of the racial Canaanites, who survived in Palestine and who intermarried from time to time with the lines of Yisrael, Yehudah, Esau and assuredly even the Samaritans or Cutheans (as plainly suggested in Ezra 9:1-10:11; Neh 13:3-29).  As discussed previously, the Canaanites could well be descendants of Cain through Naamah--as Jewish tradition teaches. 

 

This Samaritan link is interesting because Jewish tradition has long held that the Prophet Yeshayahu was “sawn asunder” by a Samaritan (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 354, and possibly implied at Heb 11:37). 

 

A “Vision of Daniel,” found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, mentions a Balakros who is thought to be the same person as Belikra, an evil Samaritan, accused of murdering Yeshayahu in the second century BCE apocryphal, Martyrdom of Isaiah (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 268).  

 

Manifestly, there is also the clear issue of the racial ancestry of the Amalek-Edomites themselves (who were in Judea, posing as Jews).  As a minimum, they were part Hittite (Canaanite)--since they certainly descended from Esau and his Hittite wife.  Their integration with the Samaritans was broached in a former chapter. 

 

Perhaps the greatest proof of all of who YESHUA had in mind in His indictment was stated by Him in very clear words.  In the context of His condemnation, He called the exact people involved “serpents and a generation of vipers” (Matt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33; Lu 3:7). 

 

The words serpents and vipers are NT expressions precisely for the descendants of Satan through Kain (Jo 6:70; 8:44; Acts 13:10; I Jo 3:8-12).  This includes the Amalekites particularly and the Kenites, Canaanites and other Edomites generally.  There is absolutely no question about who YESHUA was addressing with His charge. 

 

 

Revelation 17 

 

It goes without saying that these various peoples (Kenites, Edomites, Canaanites, etc), who were descendants of Cain and his father, have constituted the backbone of Mystery Babylon (Rev 17) which has been the epitome of evil on earth for quite some time now.  Students of truth familiar with the racial identifications of these various populations can quickly ascertain the connections. 

 

The Samaritans were one of the primary groups of people intimately involved in forming the Mystery Babylon Church or religious definition (in the context of Simon Magus and several others, to be described in subsequent chapters).  As will be later proven, some of these Samaritans had to be Amalek-Edomites (which is plausible, since the word Samaritan was a geographical reference in NT times). 

 

The previously cited Ben Sira, Shimon Yeshua, not only said that he abhorred the Edomites, but he laid out his hatred against them and the Philistines in the sense of a comparison or link with “the foolish people who dwell in Sichem” in Samaria (Ecclus 1:25-26, quoted in “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. I, p. 7, division 2). 

 

Whether Ben Sira meant only a comparison or something else is unclear.  It might be correct to interpret his words as allowing for some evil Edomites and (remnants of the) Philistines who inhabited Shechem of Samaria in his day. 

 

Thus, it becomes possible that besides the Cutheans and some apostate Jews who dwelt in Samaria (as described earlier herein), Ben Sira (who lived in about 190 BCE) knew and understood that some Edomites and Philistines also lived together in Samaria.  This fact would be important in assessing the subsequent work of Simon Magus of Samaria and the Roman Catholic Church. 

 

 

The Evils of Mother Rome 

 

Later chapters will also establish the significant linkage between many of the Edomites (in Sicily, Southern Italy, Ireland, etc) and the general Hamitic peoples in Southern Europe with the Roman Catholic Church (Mystery Babylon).  Otherwise, it is also true that numbers of Amalekites have also become Roman Catholics over the years.  Manifestly, Mystery Babylon has been made up of many of these precise people. 

 

Along this line of thinking, it is important to note that the ancient Etruscans named the hill where the Catholic Church sits as the Vaticanus, which means a habitation of dogs (“Fossilized Customs,” p. 45).  This is a most fascinating connection to the generic Edomites (who are called dogs in the Scriptures, as discussed earlier). 

 

In the Jan-Feb 2000 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 5), Earl Jones discussed the penetration of the Catholic Church “from the beginning” and stated that even the Protestant Churches have been penetrated.  Jones wasn’t precise on “who” did the penetrating.  But his words suggested that it was evil Jews (hence, Amalekites). 

 

The writer of this study would just add that it has been racial Amalekites who have penetrated both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches over the years.  As will be proven in succeeding chapters herein, Amalekite masters/bankers not only have been leaders in the Church of Rome, but they founded it.  So the Amalekite link to Christianity is enormous; and from day one, as allowed by Jones. 

 

 

Ignorant Christians 

 

It does absolutely no good for a bunch of ignorant and uninformed Christians (to certainly include the Christian Identity people) to holler and scream about the evils of the Jews, Judaism, Edomites and so forth--all the while that they totally ignore one of the most extraordinary and fantastic sources of gross evil and wickedness in all of history--the Roman Catholic Church.  

 

Whatever the shortcomings of the reformers in the days of the Protestant Reformation, they correctly had some perception about the tyranny of the mother Roman Catholic Church (as “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” and numerous other first hand accounts all illustrate).  Christian people who simply wanted to practice their religion on the basis of their own beliefs and faith were murdered by the millions all over Europe. 

 

That there have been some very evil Amalekites among Jewry, there is no denying.  But the recognized Amalekite Jews were never as bad as was mother Rome when she ruled the world with an iron fist.  The Roman Catholic Church has been one of the greatest forces of evil in the recorded history of Adam. 

 

Please understand that in this discussion on the Roman Church, the focus on why this entity has been so incredibly evil and tyrannical is precisely because of the racial makeup of its founders and primary leaders over the centuries. 

 

As will be conclusively proven in later chapters herein on Christian history, Amalekites specifically and Edomites and children of Kain generally have been the primary leaders of the Roman Catholic Church since her inception around the year 42 CE.  True, there have been some other racial peoples involved in the church.  But the leadership and direction have always been in Edomite/Hamite hands. 

 

It is impossible to make the same charge about the Jewish religion.  True, some evil Amalekites have posed as religious Jews.  And in Second Temple days, they manifestly controlled the Shammai Pharisee and Sadducee leaderships in Jerusalem.  But overall Judaism was never profoundly impacted upon by the Amalekites, as has happened with the Roman Catholic Church. 

 

Subsequent chapters will prove conclusively not only the linkage of the Edomites and children of Kain to Catholicism, but also the presence of a lot of good, racial, Jewish Israelites practicing Orthodox Judaism over the years (this is particularly true with the Sephardi Orthodox where many true Israelites can be found). 

 

 

A Point Missed From Second Temple Days 

 

Admittedly, the focus of Matthew 23 on the murderers of the righteous seems to be on the scribes and/or certain Pharisees (however that reference is to be defined).  But as pointed out above, the real issue was upon race and race in the context of the sons of Satan--starting with Cain (who murdered Abel) and on forward to our time today. 

 

From here, there is another facet of the Second Temple situation which must be acknowledged.  Later chapters herein will address the details of the death of YESHUA.  Just as David Flusser noted (per his previous comments on the Sadducees), much of the NT record on YESHUA’s death does point to the high priests/Sadducees. 

 

However, even these bodies were largely made up of Amalekites (plus a few Israelites, many of whom surely served the Amalekite masters in charge), as was pointed out in preceding comments on Rome (incidentally, Psalms 22:15-20 helps prove this truth, as will be broached in the later chapters on YESHUA’s death). 

 

This is an important truth to understand.  Clarence Wagner, quoted earlier, makes the case that the word “Herodians” (who were all or almost all Amalekites) and the Sadducees were synonymous terms.  While the whole priesthood was not of Amalek, certainly many or most were (as mentioned by Wagner and discussed earlier). 

 

The point being here is that the racial factor present in the scribes and/or Shammai Pharisees classes under discussion in Matthew 23 has to be the precise same racial factor present with the contemporary Sadducees and Herodians, who played such a crucial role in the execution of YESHUA.  In other words, they were essentially all the same people--racially. 

 

Hence, the whole issue of Matthew 23 and the people who killed YESHUA and who murdered all of the righteous for all ages ties together by race.  Consequently, the concern in Matthew 23 was not upon the scribes and/or Pharisees, per se.  The theme was about the racial identification of the people under discussion. 

 

Therefore, it is not just simply the individual scribes and/or Pharisees mentioned in Matthew 23 that are important and at issue.  Instead, the focus of Matthew 23 is effectively upon their collective racial/ethnic origins.  Clearly, the evidence is massive that the scribes were Kenites and the Pharisees were Shammai/Haverim Amalekites (as noted elsewhere herein). 

 

Moshe tied these Kenites and Amalekites together in Numbers 24:20-21 and affirmed that they were the enemies of Yisrael who dwelt in Edom/Mount Seir (Num 24:18, 21).  Truly, they are both descendants of Satan/Kain and fully qualify as the murderers of the righteous for 6,000 years. 

 

Not only were these precise people found in a definition of scribes and/or certain Pharisees of Second Temple days, but they constituted most or all of the Herodians and bankers and some part of the Sadducee and priesthood definitions.  In effect, most of the Jewish leadership in the Jerusalem area in YESHUA’s day was in the hands of these sons of Satan.  This is the same situation today in Christian America. 

 

 

A Whole Line of Descent 

 

In other words, these evil nokri/nekar people of old were clearly the ancestors of the later persons living in Judea who persecuted and ultimately murdered YESHUA (yes, per Matthew 23:31).  In effect, these succeedingly evil people in Second Temple days had worked themselves into positions of authority and effective control over the collective Jewish nation (just as they control Christian America today). 

 

Beyond this presence of evil among certain priests and in the Jewish leadership in both ancient times and during the first century CE, there is another factor worth considering in the context of the murder of Zekharyah--starting with the Zekharyah, murdered by King Yoash and others of his day (previous chapters outlined the situation with Yoash, son of Achazyah, and grandson of Yehoram and Atalyahu). 

 

Although Yoash was of the Davidic line and was almost killed by his own grandmother Atalyahu, as a child, he did survive and gain the throne (II Kg 8:18, 24-27; 11:1-4).  The point of this is that Yoash was one-eight Edomite from his grandmother Atalyahu (who was half Edomite). 

 

Since it takes three generations to clean up or breed out the Edomite lineage to allow a person’s genealogy to be acceptable in Yisrael, Yoash still had some Edomite genes and perhaps hatred toward true Israelites (as discussed in previous chapters). 

 

While the death of the OT prophet Zekharyah is unclear, the other possibilities for the murderers of a Zekharyah in the first century CE all seem to involve Judeans who clearly had to have been Amalekite Shammai Pharisees and/or Kenite scribes in some fashion. 

 

As pointed out in former chapters, the people called Judeans (of the geographical province of Judea) were actually racial Amalekites, Kenites or other descendants of Satan-Kain in some fashion.  While many of them may have pretended to be Shammai Pharisees or scribes, the truth is that they were atheists, agnostics or outright children of Satan. 

 

 

Some Final Problems 

 

Almost from the beginning of Matthew 23, there seems to be some real problems with the words.  The previously cited Lester L. Grabbe, in “Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian” (p. 488-489), points out that the different sects of Judaism each had their own scribes. 

 

The question must then come up on Matthew 23 as to whether the subject was the scribes or the Pharisees or both (assuming the conjunction is correct between the scribes and the Pharisees).  As Grabbe notes, Josephus never connects the two definitions.  So--are the references different or are they one and the same in the sense of the scribes of the Pharisees, as allowed by Grabbe (on this, see Acts 23:9)? 

 

The English conjunction “and” in Matthew 23 is the familiar Greek “kai,” which might be a conjunction (as some Greek scholars contend); or per its more correct usage, the meaning is “even, also, or that is to say.”  In this context, the remark might be saying that the scribes, even or that is to say the Pharisees (or the scribes of the Pharisees--as allowed in some translations of old documents). 

 

In “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (v. I, p. 2), Dr Emil Schurer implies that the scribes and Pharisees involved were the same.  He even calls them (the scribes) the rulers of the people.  While his focus was not upon the Shammai Pharisees (who were the dominant class), per se, it is interesting that he recognized this domination which the scribes exercised. 

 

Probably, both references are valid.  As discussed earlier herein, the apparent Kenite descendants of Satan-Kain seem to have been important in the scribe business.  Likely, they served all of the different sects of Judaism for money and without any concern over religious scruples.  As descendants of Satan, the aspect of religion was quite irrelevant to them anyway. 

 

As will be shown in the following comments and in the next chapters, the actual Pharisees being addressed (which were Shammai Pharisees, as was proven in preceding remarks) were people of a like racial/ethnic profile (as the scribes).  So it might be that the two definitions were almost one and the same. 

 

If the scribes under discussion were connected to the just cited Shammai Pharisees (in terms of so-called religious faith and belief), then they are virtually the same (both racially and religiously). 

 

Thus, with the Greek “kai” in Matthew 23 (connecting “scribes” and “Pharisees”), the idea might reflect a type of an adjective in the sense of (Shammai) Pharisee scribes or scribal (Shammai) Pharisees (who were racial Kenites).  If the same idea holds true in Mark 12:13 (discussed earlier), the result is (Shammai) Pharisee Herodians or Herodian (Shammai) Pharisees (who were racial Amalekites). 

 

In this case, the real enemies of YESHUA would have to be clarified as Kenite scribes of the Shammai Pharisee class and Amalekite Herodians of the Shammai Pharisee class (both entities lived in geographical Judea and were called Judeans, as noted above and earlier).  The tie between the Kenites and Amalekites was made in Numbers 24:20-21 by Balaam centuries earlier and needs no clarifying comment now. 

 

As pointed out earlier herein, it was these Shammai Pharisees (and scribes) who dominated Judaism in the Jerusalem area (and many of them were also of the Zealot persuasion, as cited above).  The Galilee was a stronghold of the Hillel Pharisees. 

 

It is also important to note that the book of John particularly calls these workers of evil in Jerusalem-- “Judeans,” in the sense of a geographical definition, and not Yehudim (Jews), in the sense of religion or race (as proven above and elsewhere herein). 

 

Manifestly, Jerusalem and Judea were the very places where the evil Amalekites (and Herodians) ruled supreme.  The evidence is very persuasive that the people being addressed in Matthew 23 and Luke 11 were scribes of the Pharisee definition (or otherwise Judean scribes and Amalekite Pharisees).  The scribes were surely Kenites and the Pharisees were probably Shammai Amalekites from Jerusalem. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 151--The Kayin Presence

 

 

The Murderers, Revisited 

 

In support of the presentation in the prior chapter on the murderers of the righteous, one only needs to look back at what YESHUA said about these involved evil Pharisees and scribes earlier (Matt 23:31).  In opening that sub-topic of condemnation, He clearly reported that they were the very “children” (descendants) of the killers of the righteous prophets. 

 

Consequently, if the ancestors of these Pharisees and/or scribes were the murderers of the righteous individuals noted (Matt 23:31), then it stands to reason that their racial ancestor also must have been the killer of righteous Abel (Matt 23:35).  There can be no other conclusion on this interpretation. 

 

Therefore, is it not plausible that the actual, physical, racial descendants of Cain (the killer of Abel) have been and are the very people who have been the activists, conspirators and leaders over the centuries on planet earth responsible for the murders of all of the righteous from Eden to the present and on to the future age end? 

 

Certainly, this option cannot be dismissed or passed over lightly.  If true, a student of reality might can next progress one step further and detect the obvious linkage or relationship between the Kenites (scribes), Edomites and/or Canaanites and the evil scribes and Pharisees opposing YESHUA (assuredly of the School of Shammai). 

 

Too, this connecting tie might also encompass some of the Shammai and/or Haverim allies in the form of the Zealots, Hellenists, Herodians and Sadducees--although these sects were strongly divided politically.  If the Kenites did intermarry with some Amalek-Edomites and Canaanites, maybe all of these people could be just one big ball of wax. 

 

The point of this is that the NT scribes and/or Shammai/Haverim Pharisees being addressed (as workers of evil from Jerusalem), must surely be the (racial/ethnic) people who killed the righteous for all of history--starting with Abel to the days of the judges, the prophets and the Apostolic Assembly; and on forward to the Holy Roman Empire (and the great Catholic Inquisition and tribulation); and now to the age end. 

 

 

The Priesthood 

 

In mentioning the murderers of the righteous, the Sadducees surely must have had a major role in this wickedness in Second Temple days, as outlined in prior chapters and as suggested by David Flusser, previously quoted.  Certainly, some portion of the priesthood seems to have been included in the context of the Herodians and Canaanites. 

 

Albeit, there were very explicit marriage laws in existence which would have theoretically kept the priesthood lineage pure (Lev 21:13-15; Ezek 44:22).  In particular, Leviticus 21:15 must be cited.  It specifically commands the priests to not profane their seedline among the people--obviously illegally among the nokri/nekar aliens. 

 

A former chapter herein discussed at length the Scriptural demands for marriage placed upon the priests. 

 

Of note, a priest could only marry a woman of his own people (Lev 21:14).  His prospects for marriage were limited to women of Aaronic descent.  Despite these restrictions, the evidence is that likely these precise people had also miscegenated and contaminated their seed lines over the years just like the Yehudim had done. 

 

 

Some Revealing Scriptures 

 

For support of this reasoning, there are several very revealing Scriptures.  One of the most apparent references was written by Nechemyah, right after the Jewish return from the exile, when he perceptively observed that the priesthood had been defiled and damaged (Neh 13:29).  In context, the cause of this defilement seems to relate to their illegal intermarriages with nokri/nekar women, mentioned earlier (Neh 13:23-29). 

 

Beyond Nechemyah's very pungent comments, it is useful to recognize that Ezra was also quite precise in naming certain priests and Levites as being guilty of the sin of miscegenation (Ezra 10:18-24).  A note in the "Amplified Bible" suggests at least 17 priests, 10 Levites and 86 laymen were actually involved by count. 

 

These 113 persons were probably the beginning of the problem after the exile.  It likely continued on and intensified over the years, as other Scriptures seem to communicate.  In a word, these 113 miscegenators were "only" the tip of the coming iceberg of sin. 

 

In context, the reformer Ezra appropriately recorded that many of the early violators named accepted The ELOHIM's Words and judgments and did repent (Ezra 10:5, 12) by divorcing and separating from their nokri/nekar wives and mongrel children (yes, the judgment was to get rid of both the women and their own bastard children--Ezra 10:3; Neh 13:3). 

 

Seemingly, there were some four persons (including two Levites) in those days who tried to be contentious and argumentative over their sins (Ezra 10:15), much like later Christians would do (i.e. Christian writer Sydney Cleveland tries to attach sin to Nechemyah’s efforts and [ignorantly] claims that “Jesus” through “Paul” had a different view on interracial marriages--per the Nov-Dec 1997 “Sabbath Sentinel,” p. 10). 

 

Too, there was the situation with a priest named Menachem, who married Nikaso, daughter of the Samaritan king Sanballat, as described in a former chapter herein.  As noted earlier, Nechemyah chased this Jewish priest away from the restored Jewish priesthood (Neh 13:28).  Thus, this Menachem allegedly went to Samaria where he became the high priest of the Samaritans and their warped religion. 

 

The next reference on this theme was written by the prophet Malakhi, also after the exile, when he said that the seedline of the priests had become corrupted (Mal 2:3) and that the sanctuary of the Temple had been profaned by the "men of Yehudah" in their rejection of their Israelite wives for sinful marriages with the mixed, nokri/nekar women in the land (Mal 2:11-16). 

 

While the last part of this message could be suggestive of the men of Yehudah, at large, the context certainly included the priests. 

 

On the next source, one only has to consider Yirmeyahu's observations that in Yehudah, both false prophets and priests were guilty of the murders of the just and righteous in Jerusalem (Lam 4:13).  Since it has already been established herein that these same racial persons were descendants of Kain, the killer of Abel, it is certain then that the priesthood in YESHUA's day was not pure from Levi-Aaron, as one would suppose. 

 

 

More on the Kayin (Kain or Cain) Line 

 

In the previous discussion on the Kenites, who are good candidates for being the male progeny of Cain and his father, the reader was left to wonder about how they may have survived among the Jews to YESHUA's day.  The remark by Yirmeyahu (Lam 4:13) would make a thinking person be very suspicious that these same Kenites and Canaanites may have infiltrated the priesthood in some fashion to effect survival. 

 

In fact, it seems highly plausible that some of the priests and Levites were Kenites or Canaanites.  As noted earlier, the Scriptures are quite assertive in declaring that some scribes were, in reality, Kenites (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14).  Please note that the thrust of YESHUA’s comments in Matthew 23 was directed at “certain” Pharisees and scribes (in the context of the murderers of the righteous). 

 

Possibly, the whole Temple hierarchy was infiltrated and contaminated to some extent by the descendants of Cain in the form of Kenites, Canaanites and Amalek-Edomites as well (as allowed by Clarence Wagner, in linking the Sadducees to the Herodians). 

 

This option of a Kenite/Canaanite-priesthood link gains some credence when one looks again at the impetus for Kain's murder of righteous Abel.  The difficulty there arose over sacrifices and offerings, as will be shortly assessed.  Question--did the children of Cain take over the Jewish sacrificial and offering system through the priesthood?  Well maybe, the answer is yes. 

 

Previous comments herein have already focused some attention upon the depraved Canaanites (and more will follow in later presentations).  Manifestly, Canaanites most certainly did miscegenate with Yehudah and the priesthood over the years.  This reality from Scriptural history is so well established that no fair, intelligent person can dismiss it. 

 

 

Zechariah 14:21 

 

For the next fascinating text on this theme, there is an interesting prophecy by Zekharyah proclaiming a coming time when no more Canaanites will be allowed in the House (Temple) of YHWH (Zech 14:21).  What a wonderful prophecy of hope for all true worshippers! 

 

Of course, this statement was surely necessitated in Second Temple days because Canaanites were "illegally" present in the Temple--either as supposed "Jewish" worshippers and/or as ostensible "Levite" priests.  All things considered, both options are very likely in view of Yirmeyahu's prophecy and Nechemyah's words, as just outlined. 

 

David Pileggi, a writer in Israel, mentions that the Essenes of the Qumran community believed that the Jerusalem priesthood was illegitimate and ritually impure and was thus leading the people astray with their false teachings (in an article on “Who Were the Essenes?,” appearing in the Jul/Aug 1990 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 10).  This option was alluded to earlier and will be explored in some detail in a later chapter. 

 

Also, on this theme, the Dead Sea Scrolls contained some fragments of “A Tale of Joshua” (4Q522) which seems to address a future building of the Temple in Zion (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 422-23).  This reference seems to be apocalyptic or perhaps dealing with the millennial Temple. 

 

In any case, it has some most important comments which tie back directly to Zechariah 14:21, now under discussion.  It mentioned a son of Jesse who will drive the Amorites (a Canaanite tribe) from Jerusalem.  Evidently, he will have a role to play in the building of this future Temple. 

 

This document apparently was written in the context that the Amorites, Canaanites, Jebusites and others committing sin were presently in the city--evidently to be cast out by this son of Jesse, who could be the beloved of YHWH, also mentioned in the text.  

 

At a first reading, one may suppose that the subject of this tale is David.  But David never built the Temple and it is even questionable to what extent he really drove the Canaanites out of the larger Jerusalem area. 

 

 

The Background on Kayin (Kain)  

 

The Scriptural account of the conflict between Kain and Abel seems clear enough that there is not too much room for speculation.  As the Book indicates, Kain (or correctly Kayin in the Hebrew) and his brother (evidently his half brother) Abel (Hevel in the Hebrew) brought forth their gifts to The ELOHIM YHWH.  Hevel offered a blood sacrifice and Kayin offered some produce from his garden (Gen 4:2-12). 

 

As the Word communicates, The MOST HIGH was pleased with Hevel’s offering and displeased with Kayin’s gift.  The context of Genesis 4 seems to suggest that jealousy and hatred entered the heart of Kayin toward his brother.  Accordingly, he rose up and murdered Hevel. 

 

As pointed out in the above comments, this background lays the groundwork for a belief that the descendants of Kayin actually infiltrated the Jewish priesthood and took over some part of the offering and sacrificial systems.  Interestingly, there is some ancient Jewish tradition which adds much credence to this option. 

 

In “The End of Days” (p. 6, 249-250), Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg lays out much on these ancient traditions which have prevailed over the centuries to spur some contemplation and study of them even today in modern times. 

 

One of the oldest traditional stories dates to about 20 CE (which puts it in the time frame of YESHUA The MESSIAH).  Per Gorenberg, a debate and/or discussion arose among Jewish scholars of that day on what else could be involved in the murder of Hevel by Kayin.  Several different theories (beliefs) surfaced to fuel the dialogue. 

 

However, one of the most fascinating beliefs was put forth by Rav Levi who said that the two brothers had an argument on how they were going to divide the earth to themselves and over which brother would get Mount Moriah (the eventual Temple Mount). 

 

While this conflict might seem far fetched, one must remember that there is some traditional knowledge suggesting that Eden included Jerusalem and/or Palestine (as discussed elsewhere herein).  Even if the garden started or was centered in the Persian Gulf area (as outlined in a former chapter), it is possible that it was quite large and could have extended West to Palestine. 

 

The importance of Moriah was a belief that whichever brother owned the mount would possess the key to heaven.  As Levi recorded it, the argument grew intense and soon erupted into a fight between the two brothers.  Ultimately, Kayin prevailed and murdered his brother Hevel. 

 

 

The Depravity of Kayin 

 

Probably, this section is a good place to discuss the reality of the Canaanites not only being in the land, but as mixing in with perhaps all of the tribes of Yisrael (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35); and particularly, with the people of Yehudah.  The background on these Canaanites is most interesting, as will now be shown. 

 

In the first place, they descend from Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen 9:18; 10:15-19).  As noted in previous remarks, Jewish tradition has it that Ham’s wife (hence, Canaan’s mother) was Naamah, a direct descendant of Kain (Gen 4:22).  Consequently, the Canaanites are partly from Noah and partly from Cain.  This then opens the door to the depravity of Kain from his father, discussed earlier. 

 

Otherwise, Canaan is important to focus upon because Noah placed a far reaching curse on him (Gen 9:25).  Much controversy has surrounded this curse and there are different attempts to explain what happened to precipitate it. 

 

Certainly, Noah’s nakedness was exposed (Gen 9:22).  Does that mean that Ham and/or Canaan looked upon the nakedness of their own father/grandfather or did they sexually violate their own mother/grandmother? 

 

Or could it mean that Ham/Canaan performed a homosexual act on Noah?  Perhaps a better view might be that they exposed Noah’s nakedness and castrated him, so that he would not have any more children (a fourth son) to compete with Canaan (Ham’s fourth son) for the land and promises (as suggested by the former Dr Ernest Martin of Portland, Oregon). 

 

Although Ham possibly did not commit a homosexual act on Noah, Darrell W. Conder makes the case that Ham assuredly was a bisexual (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 9).  Conder quotes Barbara Walker’s “Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” which notes that legends connect Ham to Eros and Cupid, who were the gods of love to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. 

 

Conder indicates that the Sodomites were descendants of Ham and that there was an extensive presence of homosexuality in the Mystery religions pushed by Ham’s descendants.  Conder’s argument would allow one to believe that there is a homosexual tendency which would run in certain families. 

 

 

Religion Is Not The Issue 

 

Persons familiar with the Book are acutely aware of the fact that the Canaanites had some fundamental problems in their genealogical makeup from their inception.  These problems were of sufficient magnitude to prompt YHWH to place them under a succeeding curse demanding that the Israelites entering the land righteously slay all of them--including men, women and children (Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-17). 

 

Now, Christians can speculate to doom's day on the "why" for this indictment and try to find something wrong with the Canaanite religion which would justify condemning even their smallest, infant babies. 

 

But religion is not the issue here with the Canaanites, nor was it ever a particular problem in any historical context because small babies can theoretically be raised and taught to believe in any faith (unless there is an inhibiting genetic factor present precluding this reality). 

 

For a classic proof that religion is not the problem with the Canaanites, all one has to do is to go back in history and review the prevailing attitude of The SUPREME YHWH toward Yisrael vis-à-vis other peoples. 

 

Good examples of such people would include the Phoenicians and Philistines, who were Israelite neighbors along the Mediterranean coast.  They were not under any mass indictment for all of them to be slaughtered as YAH judged for the Canaanites. 

 

While the Egyptians were intimately involved in heathen sun worship, Yosef actually married a woman (Asenath) who was a daughter of one of the local religious priests (Gen 41:50).  If there was anything wrong with the children born of this marriage, there certainly never was any evidence of it nor any condemnation of the religion of Asenath and/or her father that would have cursed her children to death. 

 

By the way, the fact that Asenath’s father and likely mother were involved in Egyptian sun worship does not imply that they were necessarily Egyptians/Hamites in race (though they may have been so).  Just as Moshe was an Egyptian nationally, as noted earlier, the same seems true for Asenath and her parents. 

 

But it would be mere conjecture to decide what their race was from the few scanty remarks about them in Genesis.  Archeological evidence from Egypt shows that this land had people present from each of the four major races (White, Black, Red and Yellow).  So it’s entirely plausible that Asenath was a White Caucasian, as was true for Yosef. 

 

 

More 

 

Earlier, both Yitzhak and Yakov took wives from the land of Mesopotamia (Padan-Aram).  The people there were, of course, pagan sun worshippers.  Even the book of Genesis reflects the outright false religion and idolatry of Yakov’s father-in-law Laban and perhaps also Yakov’s wife Rachel (Gen 31:25-34). 

 

Again, there was no particular condemnation (demanding death) attached to these women and their children--despite the existence of false religion in their ancestry.  Of course, it is probable that with their marriages to Yitzhak and Yakov, the religion of Rebekah, Leah and Rachel all changed in time to the Hebrew faith of their husbands. 

 

Obviously, the practice of false, heathen religions did not seem to prompt The MOST HIGH to demand the death of even small babies and infants before social intercourse could commence between them and Israelites. This line of thought will be elaborated upon in a future chapter in this publication. 

 

Manifestly, the evidence is that the Canaanites were, from the beginning, probably descendants of Cain (and his father, previously mentioned and to be later elaborated upon) through Naamah and Ham.  Obviously, there was something wrong with these people and their developing character from the immediate post flood days to prompt Noah to explicitly place them under the curse which he did (Gen 9:25). 

 

 

Israelite--Canaanite Amalgamation 

 

But moreover, the Scriptures have a still further extraordinary report which conveys that the behemah and chaiyah were both present in the land with the Canaanites (the behemah--perhaps as slaves) and had racially miscegenated with the Canaanites, as suggested earlier (Ex 22:19; Lev 18:1-30; Num 11:4; Deut 7:22; 20:15-16). 

 

There is every reason to believe that these Canaanites were racial mamzer and nokri/nekar in every sense (Ezra 9:1-10:11; Neh 13:3-29).  Put another way, they were evidently "bastard" persons, arising from the cross of the behemah and chaiyah with Adamites (animal and man--just like the French bastart has it).  Too, there was the question of the lineage of Kain's father, as discussed elsewhere herein. 

 

In identifying these Canaanites as being racial nokri/nekar and mamzer, the point must be made that they were not alone in this racial status from years of miscegenation.  The previously mentioned Egyptians and Edomites were all also products of miscegenation. 

 

It’s just that the Canaanites (along with their nearby neighbors, the Moabites, per Deut 23:2-3) were probably more mongrelized (with the adverse behemah genes) than the rest of their Middle Eastern neighbors (like the Edomites and Egyptians at that time). 

 

Moreover, the Canaanites were illegally occupying the land promised to Yisrael and their continued occupation of this land would only invite Israelite miscegenation with them to such an extent that Yisrael’s racial future as an identifiable people was in jeopardy. 

 

The ELOHIM most likely ordered the mass extermination of the Canaanites to preclude the future destruction of Yisrael (this possible eventuality will be broached in later comments). 

 

 

Yisrael Disobeyed 

 

Yet, instead of obeying The ELOHIM and slaying the Canaanites, Yisrael disobeyed and allowed many of the Canaanites to continue to live and exist in the land, as noted in earlier comments (Josh 9:14-18).  Of course, once the two peoples of Yisrael and Canaan lived side by side in the same land, racial integration and amalgamation proceeded on virtually unabated (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35). 

 

This same reality surfaced in Britain when the Caucasian immigrants came into the British Isles to settle and eventually miscegenate and cross with the earlier Colored peoples of Hamitic and/or Mongoloid extraction who had settled in Britain previously.  In time, Britain became a blend of these races (hence, the likely reason for Elizabeth Taylor’s black hair).  The same phenomenon happened and is happening in America. 

 

The White settlers here began immediate miscegenating and crossing with the Indians.  Most so-called White Americans who have early roots in the North American continent have Indian ancestry (like Dan Rather, Cher, Ben Johnson, James Garner, Robert Mitchum, Roy Rogers, Will Rogers, Jane Russell, Oral Roberts, Jim Jones [of Jonestown], Bill Clinton, etc), just as most American Indians have White ancestry. 

 

Significantly, the same can be said of the Blacks here.  Most have White genes and many White Americans have Negroid genes (as outlined in a prior chapter). 

 

 

The Priesthood, Revisited 

 

As pointed out in the above comments, there are some good reasons to make a fair, objective, open-minded student of the Word come to realize that even the seedline of the priesthood had become contaminated with the progeny of Cain--either from the Kenites, the Herodians (as mentioned by Clarence Wagner) or the Canaanites left to live in the land (Lam 4:13; Matt 23:31-35). 

 

This situation then opens the door to the prophecy by Zekharyah, mentioned earlier in this chapter, where he declared that the day will come when there will be no more "a Canaanite" in the House (Temple) of YHWH of Hosts (Zech 14:21).  Apparently, in Second Temple days, the Jews, at large (in their worship and/or in the priesthood), included some Canaanites. 

 

Since the prophet Zekharyah uttered those far reaching words, one would have to stop and ponder on how in the world Canaanites can all of a sudden become "recipients" of the Good News, as believed and taught by Christianity, all the while that YHWH says He doesn't even want them in His Temple.  Something obviously smells in Christendom and it's not cheese. 

 

Along this same line of thought, attention should also be focused on YESHUA’s Words to certain scribes and Pharisees that they had shut up the kingdom of heaven so that they would not go in themselves nor permit others to enter in (Matt 23:13).  Why in the world do Christians continue to believe and teach that these persons will respond to the Good News? 

 

 

Simon 

 

This line of thought opens up a need here to pause and note that one of the twelve apostles commissioned by YESHUA was the previously mentioned Simon the Canaanite--as the King James Version has it (Matt 10:4; Mk 3:18).  Terribly, this KJV translation is wrong, as will now be shown. 

 

Isaac Asimov, in his “Bible Guide,” asks "Can there be a Canaanite among the apostles?"  Of course, the answer is "no."  So Dr Asimov points out that the actual Greek word involved is "Kananaios," which some suggest should be correctly translated as "Simon the Cananaean." 

 

In truth, this name Kananaios comes from the Aramaic word "kannai" which Asimov gives for a meaning-- “a zealous one."  Thus, in Luke 6:15, Simon is called "Zealot,” as discussed earlier.  By the way, other translators corrected the KJV mistake over the years to make Simon be referred to as the Cananaean or the Zealot. 

 

 

The Nokri/Nekar Question 

 

In retrospect, this whole presentation on the nokri/nekar aliens (who, by the way, today, appear to be mamzer and nothos, as the Scriptures establish--Ex 12:45; Deut 23:2; Neh 13:1; etc) proves that there is no way that they could be a part of the Good News recipients, as described in the New Testament. 

 

This same indictment would have to affect certain Jews who were and are nokri/nekar strangers.  Even if they did call themselves Jews, the fact remains that they could not be the focus of the commission in defiance of the law (and thus constitute sin--I Jo 3:4).  This possibility is supported elsewhere herein. 

 

On this and without attempting to take the time here to again explain the previously discussed Scriptural differences between the nokri/nekar aliens and the ger strangers, an uninformed person can easily read the Hebrew of Exodus 12:45 and 48 (along with Deut 23:2; Neh 13:1 and Heb 12:8) and quickly realize that there is a difference because YHWH's Word clearly distinguishes between the two definitions of non-Israelite peoples. 

 

For the person really interested in and striving for truth, there is a simple remedy here to find verity on the nokri/nekar aliens versus the ger strangers.  One can quickly study the contextual uses of the words in the Book and clearly determine what the differences are of the two groups. 

 

 

Restrictions 

 

By The MOST HIGH's law, one type of non-Israelites can be legally converted to the true Assembly of believers (Ex 12:48) while the other peoples cannot be legally (righteously) converted as proselytes to the Congregation of Yisrael (Ex 12:45; Neh 13:1), evidently until the third or tenth generations--assuming the line continues to cross back with the right stock that long (Deut 23:2-8). 

 

Again, on this issue and as is true with several other findings in this study, the typical Christian will go into a state of shock upon learning that The MOST HIGH would dare make various decisions about so called human beings on the basis of race or ethnic origins.  Yet, this precise situation is what one finds in the Book.  It is indisputable. 

 

So whether anyone likes it or not and whether the reader throws this study in the trash can and goes off to complain, criticize and sulk, the fact remains that there is a clear and absolute Scriptural differentiation between the nokri/nekar and the ger aliens. Obviously, this fact will have a dramatic effect on YESHUA's later commission. 

 

 

Truth Can Be Found 

 

Though the student of truth may not have an abundance of clear and certain Scriptures to establish the level of verity desired, the fact remains that there is much in the Word which can be studied, analyzed and put together sufficiently to allow some conclusions on the past history of the Jews and Judaism, at large. 

 

Thus, could these Scriptural messages about Edomites, Kenites and Canaanites, out of the past, have any relevance for us today?  Well maybe.  So, back in YESHUA's day, as well as today in our time, perhaps many of the so-called Jews in Judaea were not and are not of Yisrael at all. 

 

Although most Christians could care less one way or the other on the racial makeup of the Jews or anyone else for that matter, the issue is important to The HIGHEST in His Word.  Of course, it is quite reasonable to see that SALVATION was not sent to Canaanites, Edomites or other nokri/nekar aliens for that matter--who could not even be converted to Yisrael by the law (Ex 12:45; Deut 23:7-8). 

 

 

Genesis 4:1-12 

 

There 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   

 

However, beyond the just outlined obvious in this presentation, 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, as was mentioned in a former chapter herein. 

 

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 

 

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). 

 

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). 

 

 

More Clues 

 

The Gypsies with all of their problems would seem to best express what the curse on Cain might entail.  Beyond them, it is also very plausible that the Kenites (attached as parasites on the House of Yehudah) might could also qualify for this identification. 

 

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 earlier described Canaanites are also interesting in this regard because the word Canaanite means “merchant, trafficker” (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary,” #3669).  As mentioned previously, the Canaanites were descendants of Ham and his wife who probably was Naamah, 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).  As discussed previously, the Phoenicians were Edomites who evidently descended from one of Esau’s marriages with Canaanite women. 

 

In terms of the Amalek-Edomite Khazars with the Kain link (as outlined so far), “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?). 

 

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). 

 

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, as will be broached in later chapters herein). 

 

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 Bottom Line 

 

In any case, 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 (which will be addressed in a future chapter).  In particular, the descendants of Kain (especially the Amalek-Edomites) seem to predominate in the entertainment and media industries. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 152--Amalek-Edomite Religion I

 

 

Why Parables? 

 

The whole question on the racial origin or makeup of many of the first century CE Jews, mentioned in the prior chapters, may also add some light to a perplexing problem surfacing in the so-called Gospels over YESHUA's choice of using "parables" in His dialogue with the peoples of Palestine. 

 

Much of Christianity supposes that He used parables to help His listeners understand.  Per this view, the parable was a type of revelation of a teaching.  And at a first glance, and without any study of the Scriptures in terms of what they say, it is easy to see that many Christians ignorantly believe that the parables were to reveal truth. 

 

But despite this prevalent Christian thinking, there is another interpretation.  By turning to the Word, one finds a most profound disclosure on this topic at hand when the disciples queried The MESSIAH precisely on this subject and asked "why" He spoke in parables to the population (Matt 13:10)? 

 

Accordingly, one might speculate that The SON OF ADAM's reply would be something along the line that He used parables to help His audience comprehend and to better illustrate certain points.  However, that's not what He answered at all.  No, not at all. 

 

 

A Surprise! 

 

Instead, YESHUA poignantly hurled at them the fact that it was not given unto all individuals to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom (Matt 13:11).  Therefore, He spoke to the public at large in Palestine in parables, expressly so that they would not understand (Lu 8:10). 

 

Consequently, The MESSIAH used parables to hide the truth from the masses (though understanding was given to YESHUA’s disciples). 

 

This response then leads one to next ask about "why" information on the Kingdom was being withheld from certain peoples?  On this, the answer may go back in some fashion to the presentation made earlier on the presence of numbers of nokri/nekar peoples in Canaan who were posing as Jews. 

 

Having just mentioned the difficulty of understanding YESHUA's parables, at least by persons who were not supposed to comprehend them, there is a need here to highlight one of those parables which seems especially germane to the topic--if it can be properly understood. 

 

While apprehension was positively closed to multitudes of people, the fact remains that understanding is possible by some or the Book would not have parables present to challenge the inquisitive mind.  Those parables are there for a reason whether anyone of us can understand them or not. 

 

 

The Vineyard Parable 

 

Respecting this issue, The MESSIAH was engaged in a conversation with the chief priests and leaders of the people, after they had accosted Him to demand by "what power of authority" did He minister under (Matt 21:23).  YESHUA then told them that the (hated) tax collectors (publicans) and harlots would enter the Kingdom of Heaven before they do (Matt 21:31). 

 

In going on, The ANOINTED ONE next told the parable of the vineyard or the parable of the absentee landowner, depending on how one may wish to title it (mentioned in a previous chapter).  The subject was so profound and far reaching that The HIGHEST saw fit to have it recorded for posterity by three different witnesses (Matt 21:33-41; Mk 12:1-9; Lu 20: 9-16). 

 

This wonderful parable tells the story of a man who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it and prepared it to produce fruit.  He then let it out to some tenants and went away to another country.  When production time arrived, he sent some of his servants to get his share of the produce.  But the tenants responded by beating and killing the servants. 

 

Again, the landholder sent another team of servants, even more than previously.  And once more, the tenants responded with the same treatment.  So the landowner followed up by sending his own son to the wicked tenants in an effort to obtain justice. 

 

Naturally, the owner's son got the same consideration as the earlier servants.  He, too, was killed by the evil tenants.  Question--what will the landholder now do to those tenants?  Answer--he will come himself and impose the death penalty on them and turn the vineyard over to others. 

 

 

Who Were the Tenants? 

 

In this context, Luke carefully notes that upon hearing the parable, the chief priests and leaders of the Jews cried out "may it never be" (Lu 20:16). 

 

YESHUA then proceeded to say that The STONE rejected by the builders had become The CORNERSTONE and for this reason the Kingdom of The EL would be taken from "you" (the Jews He was speaking to) and given to another people who will produce the fruits of it (Matt 21:42-43). 

 

With this background, one might ask here--who were the wicked tenants?  Although there are some complex questions about this parable which cannot be addressed now because of space constraints, the tenants have to be certain Jews--at least, the ones YESHUA was talking to as He, Himself, asserted (Matt 21:43). 

 

There is little debate or argument from Christendom generally on this since The MESSIAH was so precise in linking the evil tenants to the chief priests and the “leaders” of the Jews (like the Herods and the Herodians) in the conversation.  Thus, as a minimum, those so-called Jews (correctly Judeans) were covered, as well as perhaps even a broader definition--encompassing the Jews, generally. 

 

By the way, the vine has historically been the House of Yisrael.  If certain Jews (Amalek-Edomite bankers/masters, to be later assessed) have been in charge of collective Yisrael and if they have beaten and murdered the LAND OWNER’s servants and SON, what will He do to them when He comes for judgment?  

 

 

YESHUA’s Sheep 

 

Allegorically, YESHUA was and is The GOOD SHEPHERD (Jo 10:2, 11, 14).  He is The DOOR for the sheep (Jo 10:9).  His followers were and are always alluded to as sheep (in both the OT and NT).  His sheep know Him and He knows them (Jo 10:3, 14).  His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (Jo 10:3-4, 27).  He gives His sheep age lasting life (Jo 10:28).  And He died for His sheep (Jo 10:15). 

 

Nevertheless, some of the Jews He came into contact with (evidently Judeans in the Jerusalem area) could not “hear” His Word (Jo 8:43).  Certainly, this would seem to be a most unusual and strange thing to be saying about "true" Israelites in covenant relationship with Him. 

 

Additionally, this discussion on the Jews seems to gain still more credence because at a particular point in time, The ANOINTED ONE was very careful and specific in telling some of those Jews in Jerusalem that they were "not of His sheep" (Jo 10:26).  Furthermore, He had earlier declared that they were not even of The ELOHIM (Jo 8:47). 

 

Hence, if various Jews were and are not of YESHUA's sheep fold or of The ELOHIM, one would have to stop and ponder on the question of "why."  And as outlined so far, the most plausible answer appears to connect in some way to their real racial and ethnic backgrounds.  

 

 

Jews Not In Bondage? 

 

Moreover, the likelihood of racial connotations affecting the status of the Jews also comes home in another unique little set of circumstances that surface elsewhere.  For this one, certain Jews (surely Judeans) told YESHUA that they were "Avraham’s seed and were never in bondage to any man" (Jo 8:33). 

 

YESHUA's initial response was not to deny their assertion or even to question it (Jo 8:33-36).  Later, He even affirmed it with very positive words (Jo 8:37, 53-56).  The point being is that anyway we may try to cut it, they told the truth.  And since they told the truth, what does that conversation entail for a student of the Word? 

 

Well, being the seed of Avraham is not necessarily synonymous with being Israelites.  Why?  Why, because Avraham left long lines of descendants from Ishmael and Esau, along with those from his wife Keturah.  So Avraham did have other progeny which must not be dismissed in this dialogue. 

 

Albeit, besides claiming a link to Avraham, these same Jews, as just mentioned, went one step further and charged that they had never been a slave to anyone (Jo 8:33).  Again, The MESSIAH's reply didn't dispute any of their charges.  In fact, He agreed (Jo 8:37, 53-56). 

 

 

Yet, True Jews Were In Bondage 

 

Now, people familiar with the Book are acutely aware of the fact that the line of Yakov Yisrael spent some 400 years in Egyptian captivity and bondage.  True Israelites had certainly been in an extended period of slavery. 

 

Consequently, if those Jews had of been racial bloodline Israelites, they could never have made the statement they did.  And if so, then surely The ANOINTED ONE would have caught them on it.  After all, He was not stupid, but clearly understood the truth about their genetics even if they were in a state of confusion on it. 

 

Furthermore, it is significant to note that any “true” Jews (racially descending from Yehudah), living in Palestine in Second Temple days, were descendants of the 6th century BCE House of Yehudah which went into Babylonian bondage for 70 years under Nebuchadnezzar. 

 

Again, it would seem strange that those so-called Jews talking to The MESSIAH could “seemingly” tell the truth on this theme, unless they were admittedly not of a true Yehudah lineage.  For sure, the truth is plain and cannot be confused.  Thus, those Jews talking to YESHUA were not racial Israelites. 

 

They were not true Yehudim or Israelites at all.  And what were they?  Well, they were from the line of Avraham though not of Yisrael.  That leaves Ishmael, Esau and/or Keturah's sons.  In view of Josephus' writings about the Edomite presence in much of Yehudah, it seems plausible that those men were Edomites. 

 

Incidentally, the previously quoted Ernestine Young in the Apr 2002 “Kingdom Digest” (p. 46) tries to make the case that these Judeans in John 8 were actually of the line of Shelah since they said that they were not born in fornication (Jo 8:41), in the sense that the line of Pharez/Zerah was illegitimate in comparison with the case with Shelah, as described earlier (Gen 38:2-30). 

 

Of course, Young’s argument has to be wrong based upon the context and the discussion earlier in John 8:33.  The Jews descending from Shelah manifestly went into Babylonian captivity.  So they could not be the participants in the dialogue. 

 

Actually, most scholars accept this fornication allegation in the vein of YESHUA’s situation (because of His birth before Yosef married Miryam) which seems to be the better option here. 

 

 

Christian Opposition to the Obvious 

 

Before leaving this recitation on the dialogue between YESHUA and those fake Jews, the writer of this study can recall an interesting Christian response to it.  In a conversation with a rebellious, uninformed, Christian preacher in Council, Idaho, mention was made of these alleged Jews and their statement that they had never been in bondage to anyone. 

 

This Christian leader and spokesman ignorantly proclaimed that the Judeans involved were lying when they said they had never been in bondage.  He contended that even as they spoke those words, they were then in bondage to Rome.  Thus, his argument was that they were true Jew descendants of Yehudah and were just lying to YESHUA for some reason.  

 

With the outright ignorance and confusion of this so-called authority, what can one say.  If this bondage was so plain, why then did those Jews lie about it.  YESHUA’s acceptance and affirmation of their words certainly gives their statement legitimate status and demands that it be accepted as truth. 

 

Beyond the obvious, it should additionally be acknowledged that the Jews in Judea were not in any particular or real bondage in the sense of slavery and in the context of Yisrael’s bondage in Egypt or Yehudah’s enslavement in Babylon (the Edomites, by the way, were not captives of Egypt or Nebuchadnezzar, as discussed earlier). 

 

After all, the Jews under Rome had virtually total local autonomy over their religious affairs, as well as much control over their secular affairs.  Effectively, the Judean Jews (at least, the infiltrated Amalekite Jews) had their own local government and province rulers in the form of the Amalek-Edomite Herods. 

 

In a sense, one would be hard pressed to call this existing situation in first century Palestine true “bondage,” as was the topic under discussion by YESHUA and the cited Jews.  No!  The point remains.  Those alleged Jews told the truth.  If they were Amalek-Edomites, they had never been in bondage to anyone! 

 

In the 1898 Spanish American War, the US gained possession of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and other territories.  The indigenous people living in those places came under US government control.  Who would dare argue today that these people were in bondage as slaves? 

 

This is the same thing that happened when Rome gained control of the Middle East.  The people were not actually enslaved. 

 

 

Still More Christian Opposition 

 

The context of this encounter which YESHUA had with these particular Jews brings out another interesting point which some Christians have also attempted to use to fight and oppose the obvious message which YESHUA was putting across. 

 

In John 8:33, these persons said that they were Avraham’s seed (Greek “sperma” meaning “seed, progeny,” per “Young’s Analytical Concordance”).  In verse 37, YESHUA affirmed that they were the sperma of Avraham.  There is no question about it, sperma refers to a man’s fleshly seedline descendants--so they were fleshly descendants of Avraham. 

 

Verse 39  appears to offer a conflicting position and certainly one of confusion or double talk when YESHUA said that “If you were Avraham’s children, ye would do the works of Avraham.” 

 

The important thing about this dilemma is that in this verse, the word children comes from a different Greek word (as Ray Barker of Colville, WA once pointed out to me).  It comes from “teknon,” which means “one born, a child,” per Young’s. 

 

There are at least two ways to look at this Greek teknon.  In the first place, as outlined by Young’s, it can mean a child which may or may not apply to progeny.  This fact seems to be brought out in the several contextual uses of teknon. 

 

However, a better view seems to surface in “The Expositor’s Greek Testament,” edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.  This commentary (v. I, p. 778) on the Greek charges that “If their origin could be wholly traced to Avraham, then their conduct would resemble his.” 

 

In other words, these particular Judeans were of the fleshly seed of Avraham (as they said and as YESHUA acknowledged) and evidently Esau as well.  But their origin was not wholly traceable to Avraham since his seedline (through Esau) had become contaminated and defiled. 

 

Correctly, their origin must have also went back to the Canaanites and possibly the Kenites who had intermarried with Esau and his Edomite descendants, discussed earlier.  Moreover, any linkage to the Canaanites and/or Kenites opens the door all the way back to the garden of Eden and the conception of Kain, described earlier. 

 

 

The Synagogue of Satan 

 

Moreover, when the Apostle Yohanan received the Revelation, he was informed of a most amazing little fact about “some” alleged Jews.  YESHUA told him in a message to the Smyrna and Philadelphia Assemblies that there were (are) some so-called Jews in the world who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie because they are actually members of the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9).  

 

Apparently, the Philadelphia believers would (will) be able to recognize these impostors for what they are (persons claiming to be Jews; when, in fact, they are not Jews at all).  This remark is contrasted by YESHUA with a possible complaint against the Smyrna Assembly which did not (or could not) distinguish these fake Jews as being real members of the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9). 

 

Incidentally, any person familiar with the Sabbatarians, which developed in Bohemia from the works of John Huss and John Ziska in the 15th century CE, should be able to immediately identify the Smyrna Group of Revelation 1-3 (the seven assemblies of Revelation will be addressed in some detail in later chapters herein). 

 

But for now, it should be noted that the Smyrna Sabbatarians of Bohemia have historically allowed themselves to racially mix with and be taken advantage of by Eastern European Amalek-Edomites.  This contact and often absorption into the Edomites and their wickedness have adversely affected the Sabbatarians over the years. 

 

Beyond the historic Smyrna confusion over the persons that make up this synagogue of Satan, it must be noted that Christendom, at large, has had the same problem for most of the last 2,000 years.  Even those Christians who passionately hate Jews and/or Judaism have equally been ignorant on these most profound words. 

 

 

Yohanan’s Conclusion 

 

The point of these messages written by Yohanan is that there are people out in the world, posing as Jews and calling themselves Jews; when, in reality, they are not Jews (from a racial, religious or any other perspective at all), but are correctly members of the synagogue of Satan. 

 

Obviously, the more astute and observant Philadelphians knew (or will know) the truth on this matter while the Smyrna people (despite their faith) had problems and limitations in understanding. 

 

Incidentally, the Philadelphians are far more obedient than the other individuals in the other six assemblies, mentioned by Yohanan in Revelation (1-3).  Their perceptions on truth obviously affect them and their willingness to obey. 

 

 

Who Are These People of Satan? 

 

In earlier presentations in this study, mention was focused on the fact that YESHUA identified certain persons (posing as Jews and/or as descendants of Yisrael) as actually being children of their father, the Devil (Jo 8:44), and of being a generation of vipers (Matt 12:34; 23:33). 

 

Even Yohanan the Baptist earlier had the same perception.  He, too, identified certain Judean people as actually being a generation of vipers (Matt 3:7; Lu 3:7).  These have to be quite profound statements in charging that those alleged Jews were truly descendants of Satan. 

 

In another statement, Yohanan linked some workers of sin and unrighteousness to being children of the Devil (I Jo 3:8-12).  Could this statement by Yohanan relate to the situation with Kain and his descendants and their possible mastery of or expertise in the practice of sin, as discussed earlier (Gen 4:7). 

 

Elsewhere in this work, the point has been made that the law was given only to Yisrael; and therefore, sin legally is chargeable to Yisrael only.  Yohanan’s reference to sinners and workers of unrighteousness has to be Israelites or supposed converts to Yisrael (like the Amalek-Edomites). 

 

In context, these people seem to have been linked to Cain who was of that wicked one (I Jo 3:12--as discussed elsewhere herein).  At this point in time, those alleged Jews of the first century CE can be more precisely identified.  Assuredly, they have to be sinning Edomites who had amalgamated with evident descendants of Nachash, as established in earlier chapters of this book. 

 

Specifically, Esau married some Canaanite women (Gen 36:2--which perhaps included one or two Hittite women Gen 26:34; 36:2) and his Amalek line almost certainly also later intermarried into the Kenites--while sharing Petra with them (Gen 36:8-9; Num 24:18, 21; I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14; Jasher 29:20-23). 

 

The short of this is that the Edomites were racially a mixture of the seedlines of Yitzhak, Kain (and his father Nachash) and other peoples.  Earlier chapters have established that Kain truly was a son of Satan.  So it is patently clear that the NT has it right in identifying the Amalek-Edomites as being children of the Devil. 

 

 

Christian/Sacred Name Ideas 

 

Of course, Christianity is completely lost in trying to interpret what in the world YESHUA was talking about in these remarks on the synagogue of Satan (in Revelation).  Many Christians just ignore them as being unimportant, while others offer something which is totally illogical and ridiculous. 

 

A good illustration of this last option was presented by Jacob O. Meyer in an article on “A Comprehensive Interpretation of Philadelphia,” appearing in the May 1997 “Sacred Name Broadcaster.” 

 

Meyer (p. 15) says that a Jew is one who worships Yahweh and then argues that the Revelation remarks on the synagogue of Satan, refer to anyone who says they are worshipers of the true Mighty One, but they are not living according to the Word. 

 

While Meyer is the so-called “Directing Elder” (formerly the Presiding Bishop) of the Bethel, Pennsylvania Assemblies of Yahweh, one has to wonder if he would allow that he is one of those Jews of the synagogue of Satan.  In other writings, this “Directing Elder” has tried to imply on occasion that he is Jewish.  On other times, he has implied that he is not--thus, adding to the confusion. 

 

Moreover, he claims to be a worshipper of a deity he calls Yahweh and from his remarks, it is quite manifest that he and his group (which he directs) is pretty far from true worship (hence, not living in accordance with the Word).  Consequently, it would seem that indeed this Meyer, his group and all of Christendom at large fit into the exact, same category of false worship. 

 

 

Christians?

 

William F. Dankenbring, in an article on “What is the Synagogue of Satan?,” typifies the Christian dilemma when he said that the synagogue of Satan refers to all apostatizing Christian churches and all apostatizing Jewish synagogues (Mar 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 49).  This article also seems to equate Yohanan’s words to certain of the Christian groups that broke off from the old Worldwide Church of God. 

 

Are true Jews members of the synagogue of Satan?  Of course not, per this message in Revelation.  People who are not Jews but who call themselves Jews or pretend to be Jews are under discussion (as the context of Revelation 2 and 3 conclusively prove); and not pagan Christians or Sacred Namers, as bad as the Christians and Sacred Namers are in their false worship practices. 

 

There is no conceivable way that Yohanan’s words could focus on Christians who never have, do or would call themselves Jews.  Christians are certainly not Jews, nor do they pretend to be Jews. 

 

As much as Christians hate and oppose Jews and Judaism, it is inconceivable that any thinking Christian would allow himself to ever be called a Jew, under any circumstance. 

 

 

Jewish Attitudes on Race 

 

One more remark on this discussion about proselytes needs mentioning before moving on.  While YHWH's law and Word laid down some very explicit requirements for the conversion of non-Israelites to truth and the Congregation of Yisrael, many of the Jews in the Babylonian exile and thereafter never particularly cared what YHWH had said. 

 

Like Christendom, Judaism, in the exile, became an international and cosmopolitan religion open to all persons of whatever kind all the way from Elizabeth Taylor to the now deceased Sammy Davis Jr. 

 

Therefore, Judaism never really took the words, distinctions and definitions of the behemah and nokri/nekar alien vis-à-vis the ger foreigner seriously, as outlined by Moshe.  Consequently, anybody from the time of the exile on could be and indeed often did become (supposedly) religious Jews (like the evil Herods). 

 

Of course, along with the religious incorporation of any and all strangers, some Jews (especially Amalek-Edomite Jews) have also routinely miscegenated with any and all people, also without regard to what YHWH stipulates--again, just like Christianity. 

 

The point is that YHWH's law lays down very definite edicts on marriage and membership in His congregation.  Yet, historically, both Christians and Jews could care less with what He says on these themes. 

 

With this background, an objective, open minded individual can now begin to comprehend some of the things which have had a tremendous impact upon the Yehudim over the centuries. 

 

The issue in Revelation 2 and 3 categorically addresses people who are not Jews, but who pretend to be Jews and call themselves Jews.  The only people in world history (in recognized definable groups and in any number) that has ever qualified for this description are the Edomites, Canaanites and Kenites, outlined and discussed so far. 

 

 

Just Pretend 

 

Interestingly, this possibility of pretense is much a part of the Jewish mind set.  This reality was brought out by Earl Jones in his Sep-Oct 1999 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 3).  Jones quoted former Jewish leader David Ben-Gurion as saying that “A Jew is anyone who says he is.”  Earl noted that Ben-Gurion’s authority for his statement was the Talmud, which may have such a remark. 

 

A related view was expressed in Dec 2002 by Israeli leader Shimon Peres who said the definition of a Jew should not depend on one having Jewish parents or grandparents, but on how parents raise their children (Dec 27, 2002, “Forward,” p. 2).  He added that Jews raise their children in Israel, send them to the army and sometimes lose them in war. 

 

He concluded by saying that if any “rabbis” want to define who is a Jew, “We will define who is a rabbi” (ibid, p. 2). 

 

Perhaps the thinking of Ben-Gurion or Peres has helped to build the situation among Jews where the most evil and vile people of all, the Amalek Edomites, can get away with claiming to be Jews; when, in fact, they are not Jews at all by any definition.  Even good, honest Jews accept the pretense, lies and deceptions emanating from the deceitful Amalekites. 

 

There should be a litmus test for these wicked Amalekites--if they insist on going around claiming to be Jews when they are not Jews.  In the sense of religion, this would not be hard to do since so many Amalekite Jews actually admit that they are atheists--all the while that their deeds prove that they are truly sons of Satan. 

 

Consequently, there are so-called ethnic Jews (actually racial Amalekites) who pretend to be religious (and particularly in the vein of Reform Judaism) or they may hold themselves out to be atheists or agnostics.  Yet, in their hearts and mentality, they are dedicated Satanists/Luciferians (both from a religious and racial perspective). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 153--Amalek-Edomite Religion II

 

 

Matthew 23:28, Revisited 

 

A former chapter herein briefly mentioned Matthew 23:28 in the sense that the word “iniquity” in the KJV comes from the Greek anomia which means anti-Torah, as outlined in the previous comments.  This one text is most revealing when one looks at it carefully. 

 

The scribes and Pharisees involved (or the scribes of the Shammai Pharisee classification) in Matthew 23 (discussed in the former chapters) are assuredly Amalekites and Kenites (descendants of Satan).  As other Scriptures demonstrate, many of these workers of evil pretend to be Jews (Rev 2:9; 3:9)--but they are not Jews. 

 

They may be regular members of some synagogue (especially Reform and maybe even Ashkenazi Orthodox) and attend weekly Shabbat services (completely, while they wear their own kippahs and tallitot for show off purposes).  But their hearts are far removed from the truth present in the Jewish synagogues. 

 

As Matthew 23 outlines, these frauds are full of hypocrisy and anti-Torah beliefs.  They may look good on the outside, but their hearts are far removed from the Torah and righteousness.  This is one of the realities of the evil Amalekites and Kenites.  Their hearts are full of evil and wretchedness, regardless of whatever pretense they demonstrate for Judaism. 

 

Without a doubt, these Amalekites and Kenites are manifestly anti-Torah (in their hearts).  Actually, this reality runs strong within all of the different categories of Edomites, as described in the preceding chapters. 

 

 

Another Point 

 

Incidentally, there is a final observation on Matthew 23:28 which must be mentioned.  This single text proves conclusively that Matthew 23 is not an indictment against the collective Pharisees of 2,000 years ago or religious Jews since then.  After all, in the Scriptures, the generic Pharisees (certainly the Hillel Pharisees) are very Torah observant.  The same is true with most Orthodox (certainly Sephardic) Jews today. 

 

It is precisely because most religious Jews are so incredibly Torah observant that Christendom hates them so passionately.  Christians hate the Torah and hate Jews who obey the Torah.  Because of this reality, Christians almost always express their opposition to religious Jews on the very premise that religious Jews obey the Torah and are “trying” to gain salvation through obedience of the law. 

 

No one but an absolute fool would dare try to accuse truly religious Jews of being anti-Torah, as is suggested in Matthew 23:28.  Accordingly, religious Jews are not and cannot possibly be the subject of Matthew 23.  Some religious Jews may be hypocrites and sinners (just like everybody else), but they are not anti-Torah. 

 

For sure, the Judean Amalekites are thoroughly identified as descendants of Cain and Satan in Matthew 23, as proven in preceding commentary.  Without a doubt, they are sons of Satan--physically, mentally and spiritually.  Just as ancient Jewish sages stated, the Amalekites are the most evil and depraved people of all time. 

 

 

Karl Marx 

 

Perhaps the Amalekite Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) best illustrates the incredible deception and pretense of the very evil Amalekite mind.  Marx was born in Germany of Jewish parents and was supposedly a religious Jew as a child.  His father was a lawyer (originally named Hirschel ha-Levi, which he changed to Heinrich Marx). 

 

In 1824, the local German government passed an edict prohibiting Jews from being advocates.  So the senior Marx followed the usual Amalekite practice by changing the religion of himself and his children to Protestantism (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 11, p. 1071). 

 

As pointed out elsewhere herein, the change of names or religions by Amalekites is a very common procedure.  They have no difficulty in making these changes at all. 

 

In college, young Karl Marx was attracted to the Hegelian philosophy which led him into radical Socialism in the 1840s. 

 

Like other Jew haters, Karl began to express his venom for Jews and especially for Judaism (Judaica, v. 11, p. 1074).  He then identified himself as an atheist.  It was this supposedly atheist Karl Marx, who, with Friedrich Engels, became the fathers of the atheistic Communist movement. 

 

But what is not known is that Karl Marx was a dedicated, secret Satanist (per Dr Stan Monteith, in the video “Secrets of the Illuminati”).  Actually, this is a common Amalekite trick.  They pretend to be religious Jews, Christians or something else, like even atheists.  Yet, in their hearts, minds and practices, they are secret Satanists. 

 

 

Nitzan Arnon 

 

The tremendous Karl Marx hatred for Judaism carried forward into virtually all of the motions which he pro-created.  Few people can understand how much traditional Communism hated Judaism, along with all other religions.  Yes, Communism, as founded by Marx, was never partial in its anti-religious bias. 

 

When the Marxist Amalekites from Eastern Europe migrated into Palestine from the late 19th century on, they brought with them this intense hatred for Judaism, righteousness and truth.  As these Amalekites founded and established the early kibbutz motion, the anti-Judaism even prevailed in many of these supposed Jewish organizations. 

 

This whole situation was brought out in a write-up on a Messianic Jew named Nitzan Arnon.  Nitzan was born and raised on a kibbutz in the Northwest corner of the Galilee.  Per the Jul 2002 “Maoz Israel Report” (p. 1), his kibbutz was a part of the Shomer HaTsair movement which meant that it was a very liberal, leftist-oriented organization. 

 

In the “Maoz Israel Report,” Nitzan says that his kibbutz was so much against religion (Judaism) that on Yom Kippur, the people there would eat pork on purpose to show their disdain for religion (obviously Judaism).  And this tells the tale of how many of the secularist Jews have approached Judaism.  Many of them (probably the Amalekites) have carried enormous hatred for Judaism, which surely goes back to Karl Marx. 

 

Incidentally, Nitzan came to America and became a “Notstri” (meaning a Nazarene) and a “Yehudi Meshichi” (meaning a Messianic Jew).  On returning to Israel, he made contact with a Messianic Jewish congregation called “Tiferet Yeshua” (meaning the Glory of YESHUA) in Tel Aviv. 

 

 

Moses Margoliouth 

 

Moses Margoliouth (1820-1881) was another famous Jew who passionately hated Judaism (“Messianic Jewish Manifesto,” p. 67).  Margoliouth was a convert to Christianity and became a vicar in the Church of England.  However, he left his mark on history by his feelings for the Jews and Judaism. 

 

Apparently, Margoliouth was a writer of some renown.  Per Dr David Stern, in “Messianic Jewish Manifesto,” Margoliouth wrote about his disdain for traditional Judaism.  Stern expresses concern about how someone with the feelings of Margoliouth over Judaism could have ever had any love, respect or concern for the Jewish people. 

 

 

US Senator Joseph Lieberman, Revisited 

 

The US news sources were ablaze in August 2000 with Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore’s decision to pick US Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut as his vice-presidential running mate.  The Amalekite controlled media was obsessed with this story for days and days.  They whined on and on about whether the American people would be anti-Semites and vote against Lieberman. 

 

In mentioning Lieberman, he was billed as a moderate and a man of some morals and scruples--since he is supposed to be an Orthodox Jew.  Almost everyone bragged on him when he criticized the sodomite Bill Clinton, during Slick’s disgrace over the evident Amalekitess Monica Lewinsky. 

 

However, the truth is that Lieberman’s criticism meant nothing in the final analysis since he went on to vote for Clinton in the ultimate showdown on removal.  When he had a chance to take a real stand for righteousness, he chose to acquit the sodomite Clinton.  Even Lieberman was not much upset with Bill for having sodomized a young, Jewish (Amalekite) girl.  As a minimum, it looks like he would have been outraged. 

 

Lieberman has an extremely liberal voting record in the Senate, though maybe a little more moderate than some of his Democrat colleagues.  But he clearly is a questionable man in terms of morals.  He’s not much of an Orthodox Jew--since he reportedly is a closet queer and shaves  (both in violation of the Torah).  This reality is evidence that he is, in fact, an Amalekite son of Satan (as mentioned in the Prologue). 

 

Moreover, in his voting record in the Senate, he has often voted contrarily from the positions of the US Orthodox “rabbis.”  For example, American Orthodox Jews are much opposed to partial birth abortions on moral grounds.  Yet, Lieberman has routinely voted in favor of partial birth abortions in all instances.  He clearly is not a religious Orthodox Jew who takes to heart the stance of Orthodox Jewish teachings. 

 

He also held “some” views which were in line with Republican candidate George W. Bush--like supporting school vouchers for private schools and for the privatization of social security.  But after Al Gore chose him, Lieberman conveniently changed his position on those issues liked by the Republicans.  In his weaseling, he announced that he no longer approved of the vouchers or of the privatization of SS. 

 

Historically, Lieberman has been against affirmative action programs for Blacks.  That is--he was against affirmative action while a politician in the state of Connecticut.  When Gore chose him, some of the Negro Democrats were really upset.  So Lieberman met with them and assured them that he had changed his position.  He announced publicly that he is now in favor of affirmative action. 

 

In terms of the city of Jerusalem, Lieberman has long held the popular Jewish position that the capitol of the state of Israel should be moved there.  Since Gore chose him for his running mate, Lieberman has now altered his position on this question.  He now says that Israel should wait before moving her capitol to Jerusalem.  Clearly, he is not a man of principle who will stand by his beliefs.  Lieberman will compromise! 

 

 

Some Orthodox Views on the Hypocrite 

 

Some, sincere, Orthodox Jews are well aware that Lieberman is a fraud and have publicly spoken out against him.  Perhaps Orthodox Rav Yehuda Levin is the best illustration of this Jewish opposition to Lieberman.

 

He says “There’s no way in the world that any Orthodox Jew could possibly support something so horrific” (as Lieberman’s stand on abortion).  Levin says that even Orthodox children know that abortion is “akin to murder.”  This rav has been operating a “Jews for Morality” website on the Internet.  But pro-Lieberman hackers have allegedly shut it down (Sep 2000 “Internet Vortex,” p. 2). 

 

Jewish leader Richard Lessner, Vice President of American Renewal, adds that “Since being Al Gore’s running mate, Sen. Lieberman has turned his back on almost everything he once stood for in order to pander to various liberal special-interest groups--the teachers’ unions, Hollywood, the militant homosexual lobby” (Nov 2000 “National Liberty Journal,” p. 6). 

 

David Friedman of Toward Tradition and Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth have said “On the campaign trail during the day, Gore and Lieberman prattle endlessly about family values and protecting children against the cultural sludge issuing from the entertainment industry.  But at night they attend gala Hollywood fundraisers and accept millions in campaign contributions from the very purveyors of the cultural pollution they supposedly decry” (Nov 2000 “National Liberty Journal,” p. 6). 

 

 

The Beit Din 

 

The Jan/Feb 2001 “Believer’s Advocate” (p. 20) had this news report-- “A Rabbinical court in Brooklyn, New York has taken the unusual step of excommunicating Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential hopeful on Al Gore’s ticket. 

 

“The New York Torah Court stated that Lieberman caused ‘grave scandal’ for the Jewish religion by the fact that, while claiming to be an observant Jew, Lieberman has been misrepresenting and falsifying to the American people the teachings of the Torah against partial-birth infanticide, against special privileges and preferential treatment for flaunting homosexuals, and against intermarriage of Jews. 

 

“Rabbi Joseph Friedman, a spokesman and participant in the Rabbinical court, said in a statement that Lieberman, ‘violated our sacred Torah by his Senate votes upholding partial birth infanticide and legitimizing homosexuality, which abnormal and unhealthy behavior the Torah strongly condemns as sinful and immoral.’ 

 

“A beit din is comprised of three Talmudists who may convene to consider sanctions when there is a question about how a person has conducted himself in regard to Torah teachings. 

 

“Decisions from a beit din are not based on secular law, but rather the interpretation of Jewish teachings.  A beit din, which means ‘house of judgment,’ may consider matters including divorce, financial disputes, and other questions of Jewish law.” 

 

While true, religious Jews correctly understand how evil and depraved that the hypocrite Lieberman really is, it is absolutely fascinating that many gullible, ignorant Christians love him and continue to pour out support for him, regardless of how depraved he is. 

 

 

The Essence on the Hypocrite 

 

The point is that Lieberman is not a man of character and integrity, as the controlled media has continuously advertised and bombarded the public about.  He is a man who will completely change his position on important issues if it benefits him politically.  Since he is supposedly so different from Gore, why is it or how is it that the two of them could have run together?  Obviously, something smells here and it is not cheese. 

 

Whereas truly religious Orthodox Jews take their religion seriously and try to live it daily in all aspects of their lives (as outlined in prior chapters on the Torah), this is not the situation with the so-called religious Lieberman.  He is one alleged Orthodox Jew who simply does not make any effort to abide by Orthodox morality.  Thus, he is a hypocrite and assuredly a racial Amalekite. 

 

However, in fairness to Lieberman, it is reported that he does religiously keep the Seventh day Sabbath.  Supposedly, he will not campaign on that day or engage in secular activity.  To the extent that he keeps the Sabbath, this is good.  But otherwise, his religion is extremely questionable and far removed from true Orthodox Judaism. 

 

The point of these remarks is that Amalekites are extremely crafty, clever and conniving.  They will change their names and go to any length to propagate their depravity and evil.  They will gladly pretend to be Jews, Christians or whatever if they perceive an advantage in it.  Some will even pretend to be Orthodox Jews--as in the case of the fox Lieberman. 

 

 

Parable of the Wheat and Tares 

 

Thus, one might can perhaps get some perspective on the "why" YESHUA was to say that there were people out in the world who claimed to be Jews and were not, but were, in fact, of the synagogue of Satan (as discussed earlier).  Vividly, this whole discussion may well partly explain the parable of the wheat and tares, also referred to by YESHUA (Matt 13:24-43). 

 

This parable of the wheat and the tares can be particularly important to consider on this discussion about the Jews because it undoubtedly links in a definite way to Ovadyah's prophecy, previously discussed.  In prior comments, mention was focused upon the status of Cain/Kain and the fact that he was carefully identified as being of that “wicked (Greek poneros) one” (I Jo 3:12). 

 

It is most significant to note that the tares were likewise identified as being children of the wicked (Greek poneros) one as well (Matt 13:38).  Surely, these tares tie directly back to Kain, the product of Eve’s sin with Satan.  But there is more on this theme. 

 

You may remember from the parable that the darnel (which evidently includes the children of Cain and his father--Matt 13:38) was to be gathered and "burned up" (Matt 13:30).  In addition, mention should be made here to an observation by the prophet Yeshayahu on some "thorns and briers" (whose identities will be highlighted and commented upon later in this study). 

 

Yeshayahu noted that in a coming time, these "thorns and briers" will be burned up (Isa 9:18; 27:4), as is the fate of the just described tares.  And significantly, this is also precisely the doom of Ovadyah's Edomites (Oba 1:18).  They are to be burned up, as one burns up stubble (a short bristly growth--like tares or briers?).

 

Obviously, these texts tie the Edomites directly back to Cain and Satan. 

 

Maybe, in time, there will be a separation of the true Yehudim from all of the false ones (of Kain) being burned up and having a presence together for the past 2,500 years or so. 

 

As discussed in an earlier chapter, The ELOHIM will apparently use the Urim and Tummin to identify which strands are wheat and which are tares (as allowed in the March 2002 “Vendyl Jones Research Institutes Researcher,” p. 1-3).

 

 

Piska 4.9 

 

The previously discussed “Pesikta De-Rab Kahana” is a fabulous production of Sabbath teachings in early Jewish synagogues.  Piska 4.9, in this collection, is relevant because it focuses on interpretations of Psalms 73:25 and Numbers 19:3, which are rather complex to deal with in most English translations of the Tanakh. 

 

Piska 4.9 (p. 83) asks whom have “I in heaven” to bother with (Ps 73:25) and you shall give (Edom) unto the priest Eleazar (Num 19:3).  These texts are brought together to say that The ELOHIM will cast Edom’s prince (Satan?) out of heaven, out of the encampment.  Then Edom shall be slain (at Bozrah) before YHWH’s face. 

 

Some aspects of this interpretation seem reminiscent of Revelation 12 where the Dragon makes his ascent into heaven to be engaged by Michael in war and ultimately to be thrust back down to earth (Rev 12:7-9).  Isaiah 14:12-15 seems to have the same event in mind. 

 

Also, YAH’s sword is “bathed” in heaven in preparation to descend upon Idumea and the “people” of The ELOHIM’s curse (Isa 34:5).  Of course, this last text is a preparation for YESHUA’s descent to Bozrah in Edom to rescue the very elect from the jaws of an approaching Beast army, as will be addressed in a later chapter on prophecy. 

 

The point of all this is that ancient Jewish synagogues in YESHUA’s day were thinking and discussing some of these age ending events, although they may not have had the benefit of the passage of time which modern interpreters have. 

 

It has to be significant that these ancient Jews had enough perception to recognize that Satan was the prince of the Edomites and that he would be cast out of heaven. 

 

This thinking certainly dovetails with the teachings of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly, under discussion, in this chapter, on the reality that the Edomites are children of the Devil or sons of Satan, so to speak. 

 

Early Judaism seems to have had some perception along this same line in believing that Satan was the prince or leader of the wicked Edomites. 

 

 

Qumran, Revisited 

 

Previous chapters addressed the Essene sect in first century Palestine and the overwhelming evidence that the people at Qumran were Essenes.  For the benefit of research and study of truth, these people left for history some of their famous works as a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which have now been published, studied and commented upon. 

 

It is apparent that the racial mixing phenomenon of Jewish religious authorities is the precise reason why the Essenes were in such opposition to the so-called Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, who largely controlled the religion and the Temple. 

 

These adverse Essene feelings toward the Jerusalem Jews were discussed earlier in the context that Jewish authorities had proselyted non-ger aliens (actually nokri/nekar people) illegally into Judaism, in defiance of Moshe’s words on the racial qualifications of proselytes (per the earlier discussion herein). 

 

As outlined heretofore, the Qumran persons manifestly felt that the Jerusalem power structure was illegitimate, illegal and apostate.  They called these Judean Jews and their followers “sons or children of darkness,” in contrast to themselves, whom they believed to be “sons or children of light.” 

 

The Essene “War Scroll” found at Qumran actually identifies these sons of darkness in the context of the Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites and other mongrel peoples of the early Middle East (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 151). 

 

As concluded in earlier comments, these children of darkness were surely the Amalek-Edomites, Kenites, Canaanites and other nokri/nekar peoples illegally converted to Judaism in Second Temple days.  These illegal and improper converts had taken over the priesthood and both religious and secular control of the people (assuredly, in the form of the Herods under Roman authorization). 

 

Former Hebrew University Professor David Flusser’s monumental work on the Qumran people focused on these children of darkness.  Flusser noted that the Qumran sect also referred to these sons of darkness as those who are of the Devil (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 315).  This reference can be restated as “sons or children of the Devil.” 

 

From the numerous NT quotations linking the Judean power structure (Shammai Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, Herodians, etc) to evil Amalek-Edomites, Canaanites, Kenites, etc, in the context of them being sons or children of Satan, it is patently obvious that they were/are the same people as Qumran’s sons of darkness. 

 

Therefore, the evidence suggests that the Essenes possessed some of the same thinking as YESHUA and the leadership of the Apostolic Assembly.  Both groups fully knew and understood who were the members of the synagogue of Satan, posing as Jews (Rev 2:9; 3:9). 

 

Future discussions in this production will focus on other similarities between the Nazarenes and the Essenes. 

 

 

Essene Hate? 

 

The previously quoted Eric McCarty, in an article on the “Essenes and Their Influence on Christianity” (Oct 1997 “New Beginnings,” p. 8), notes that the new members to the Qumran community took an oath to love the children of light and hate the children of darkness.  This is a most interesting belief for religious Jews who were very close in theology to the NT Nazarene people. 

 

At a first glance, it would certainly appear to be in conflict with some of the Christian interpretation on the Sermon on the Mount, in the context of love and hate (Matt 5:43-44). 

 

However, as noted earlier and to be further covered in later chapters, YESHUA’s Sermon on the Mount was specifically addressed to His followers/disciples in the context of their entity and group and not to the general public. 

 

 

Some Clarification 

 

The “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. IV, p. 690) notes that the “hate” (Greek “misco”) remark in Matthew 5:43 refers to the prevailing interpretation on the OT among the collective people and not on any specific OT saying.  Certainly, the law doesn’t convey the hatred idea as the KJV communicates (Lev 19:18; Deut 23:6). 

 

As noted elsewhere herein, Israelites are specifically told to not abhor or hate the evil Edomite (Deut 23:7).  Hence, the Greek “misco” may not refer to hate in the psychological sense at all; but rather, to disowning, renunciation and rejection, as pointed out by the TDNT (v. IV, p. 690). Yet, as Moshe wrote it, the believer is “not” to seek the peace or prosperity of certain mamzer peoples (Deut 23:2-6). 

 

It might be that hate in the NT context was focused on this aspect of renunciation and rejection since it’s hard to fathom that the Scriptures would teach outright hatred, as one normally thinks of it. 

 

However, the “New Beginnings” writer (McCarty) went on to note that even YESHUA had enemies which He cursed (Lu 19:27).  So one must be careful about drawing conclusions on this NT text. 

 

Furthermore, Josephus reported that the Essenes were “ministers of Peace” (“Jewish Wars,” 2.8.4).  Significantly, YESHUA taught His disciples the same thing (Mk 6:8).  Earlier discussions herein on Second Temple Judaism likewise have noted many of the similarities between the Essenes and the Nazarene followers of YESHUA. 

 

The point here is that one must be careful about drawing dogmatic conclusions about this Qumran hate idea.  It might be that the concept involved was not so hostile, but was more along on the lines of rejection, renunciation and opposition and particularly in view of the Torah’s words on hate, noted above (Deut 23:6-7).