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 anc