A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 33: Consequences of the Controversy of Zion

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 33: Consequences of the Controversy of Zion 

Commencing with our Commentary on Isaiah, this evening we are going to do something different. Just last week, May 28th, a prerecorded podcast I had done for Jerm Warfare earlier in the month was published at UKColumn.org, and until now I had not mentioned that here. Yet the interview is very pertinent to this subject which we are discussing at this point in Isaiah because it considers the very consequences of the Controversy of Zion which is first mentioned in prophecy here in Isaiah chapter 34, and while the controversy persists through the time of Christ and down to this very day, in Scripture it is only described by that term here in Isaiah. Therefore we will present our commentary for Isaiah chapter 35, which is still discussing the consequences of the Controversy, and then we shall present the interview, which discusses its historical consequences in our modern world. 

In Isaiah chapter 34, Yahweh is portrayed as having called all nations to Himself, and then announced that on account of His indignation, they are all utterly destroyed. With all certainty, this is a far-vision prophecy, as Israel, or at least much of what remains in Judah, is about to be taken into captivity, and in the later words of Jeremiah the prophet we read, in Jeremiah chapter 30: “11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.” In the context of that chapter, the Word of Yahweh speaks of the “time of Jacob’s trouble”, and in the opening verses of Jeremiah chapter 31 it is followed by the promise that “1 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. 2 Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.” That is a reference to the Assyrian captivities of Israel, because when Jeremiah wrote those words, the Babylonian captivity of the remnant of Judah in Jerusalem had only been about to happen, it had not yet happened.

Shortly after that, and in the same context, there is an explicit promise of the New Covenant which is expressed in the words: “31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

This is the consequence of the Controversy of Zion, and the conditions of ancient Israel and Judah were much as they are for the Camp of the Saints today, as it is prophesied in Revelation chapter 20. Most supposed Christians today are worshipping Jews, just as ancient Israelites had worshipped the gods of the Canaanites. But the people of those same gods had destroyed Israel and Judah, and likewise today, Satan, the collective of Jewry, has gathered all nations from the four corners of the earth against the Camp of the Saints, the Christian nations of the world. But just as all of the ancient nations were all condemned to destruction by Yahweh God for what they had done to Zion, so it shall be at the return of Christ, and the fulfillment of His promise in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. In that parable, the goat nations are all consigned to the fires, on account of how they had treated the sheep.

Now, turning our attention back to Isaiah chapter 34, after His announcement of the destruction of the nations, Yahweh had turned His Own attention to Idumaea in particular, which is the land of Edom. Doing that He promised them a more particular destruction, described as a sacrifice and a great slaughter, and then He had explained: “8 For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.” We can be certain that the controversy of Zion is still ongoing today, because the descendants of Esau have returned to build the waste places, as it is described in Malachi chapter 1, and it is they, the Edomite Jews, who dwell in Jerusalem and the ancient lands of Israel and Judah today, as they even pretend to be the children of God and His elect. These are the descendants and successors of the people to whom Christ had said: “ 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,” as it is recorded in John chapter 10, and it is they whom He had spoken of later, saying “9 I know … the blasphemy of them which say they are Judaeans, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”, in Revelation chapter 2. So for this cause, the Controversy of Zion, in Isaiah 34:5 we read: “5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.” The Edomites are the people of God’s curse, and in Romans chapter 9, Paul of Tarsus had likened them to “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. All of these describe the people known as Jews today, although many of them are also contained within other presumed, or perhaps, assumed, religions and nationalities. 

As Isaiah chapter 34 continued, we read another rather ominous prophecy which had forewarned that the streams and the land of Zion would be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and that it would be inhabited by wild beasts, satyrs, and various kinds of unclean birds. Then with that there was a declaration to “16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” The words “none shall want her mate” must refer back to the unclean beasts and the satyrs, and also the owls and vultures of verse 15 where it describes “every one with her mate.”

Then in verse 17, the final verse of the chapter, we read: “17 And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.” This line is quite obscure, even cryptic, here in the context where the subject seems to be these unclean beasts who are described as inhabiting a land of pitch, fire and brimstone. But as Isaiah chapter 35 continues, the context does not change and the message turns to one of consolation for the children of Israel. So at this point, before we commence with Isaiah chapter 35, we will read a note from the editors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, which they had written to preface their translation of Isaiah chapter 35 from that source: 

1QIsaiah^a ends chapter 34 with “forever” in Isaiah 34:17 and then continues with the beginning of Isaiah 35:3. A later hand has inserted the passage containing the last few words of 34:17 and 35:1-2, which the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint also contain. It is possible that the passage had been in the text from which the scribe of 1QIsaiah^a was copying and he simply omitted it by mistake. But 35:1-2 makes sense by itself and appears more likely to have been a late supplement that was inserted into the shorter text of 1QIsaiah^a on the basis of a growing variant text. The Masoretic Text also sets it off as a separate paragraph explicitly through the use of paragraph markers. The last words of Isaiah 34:17 can be understood as referring to the wild animals that will inhabit the ruined land just described in Isaiah 34 or to the redeemed exiles of Isaiah 35 who will inherit Zion. 

So apparently, the original text of 1QIsaiah^a in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is evidently the only scroll in which this portion of Isaiah had survived, is wanting the last words of Isaiah 34:17 which appear in both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text, and which are translated in the King James Version as “from generation to generation shall they dwell therein”, through the first two verses of Isaiah chapter 35, and in that scroll they were added by a later, or at least, a different scribe some time after the original scribe had completed the scroll. Due to the conditions under which the scrolls were found, the passage could not have been added too long after the scroll was completed. But for that reason alone they then make the assertion that this pericope of two-and-a-half verses “appears more likely to have been a late supplement that was inserted into the shorter text of 1QIsaiah^a on the basis of a growing variant text.”

However Origen’s Hexapla also attests to the presence of the last words of Isaiah 34:17 and 35:1-2 in his copy of the Hebrew, and in the translations of Symmachus and Aquila of Sinope. In verse 17, where the Septuagint has a verb ἀναπαύω, which is to stop or to rest where the King James Version has dwell, both Aquila and Symmachus have the verb κατασκηνόω instead, which is literally to pitch one’s camp or tent but also to rest, lodge or settle, so they had interpreted the underlying Hebrew word in much the same way as the translators of the King James Version. In Isaiah 35:1-2 there are even greater differences in the various translations, which attests to the presence of those verses even in Old Latin manuscripts in addition to the other Greek translations. So we would reject the notion that these verses are not original to the text of Isaiah, because the only witness which suggests that they are may have only made an honest mistake, which was repaired by a scribe who later corrected the text. [1]

However the observation by the editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, that Isaiah 34:17 can refer back to the wild beasts is valid, as we had stated at the end of our presentation of that chapter. Yet it can also look forward to the subject of the verses which follow as the Word of God here in Isaiah chapter 35 turns our attention back to the land, and then to the children of Israel. If the children of Israel were selected by lot, as Yahweh has described, then those who were going to be destroyed were selected by that same lot. Those who are going to be destroyed shall spend eternity in the land of fire and brimstone, which we had asserted is an allegorical description of what is called the Lake of Fire in the Revelation, where the children of Israel shall be rewarded with the land which is described here in the opening verses of chapter 35.

This is the most severe consequence of the Controversy of Zion: Yahweh God has assured salvation to the children of Jacob, and He has assured destruction to every nation which had ever opposed the children of Jacob. The enemies of God, and especially the children of His curse, the Edomite Jews, hate the children of Israel on account of their blessings which they have from God, and in modern times, blind Christians bless their enemies, who are the enemies of their God, Jews and Muslims and others who would rather kill them in turn, in spite of their blessings.

With that we shall now commence with Isaiah chapter 35, and we reject the notion that the first two verses are a scribal interpolation:

35:1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. 2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God. 

The transformation of the land of burning pitch and brimstone, in which would dwell the wild beasts, the satyrs and the unclean birds, also seems to forebode the end of those beasts, where the pivotal, or perhaps transformative, text in Isaiah 34:17 may well look back to them, or it may also be read to look forward to the redeemed of Yahweh described here in this chapter. For the beasts, the blessings and promises for the redeemed of Yahweh forebode destruction. This is why Paul of Tarsus had written to the Philippians and admonished them, in chapter 1 of the epistle, to strive together for the faith of the gospel, “28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition [or destruction], but to you of salvation, and that of God.” This reflects the same messaged which is conveyed here in Isaiah chapters 34 and 35.

As for the encouragement which now follows, Paul also evoked this passage where he had written an encouragement to his fellow countrymen, and said in Hebrews chapter 12: “12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; 13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” So continuing with Isaiah, and in reference to the same token of salvation of which Paul had written in Philippians:

3 Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. 4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. 

The example of the patriarch Jacob is the pattern of deliverance which the children of Israel must follow, if they are to please Yahweh their God as Jacob had pleased Him. The fact that He shall deliver them is often prophesied throughout the Scriptures, and there are no prophecies which indicate that they shall ever deliver themselves, even if they may be a vehicle which Yahweh shall employ in their deliverance. Jacob had long awaited on Yahweh His God, or Isaac his father, before he took any overt action for his own self-interest. He never married until his father had told him to marry, and then he married a woman where his father had told him to find a woman. He sought only one wife, even if the circumstances had given him four wives. Later, when he faced calamity, he fought when he had to, however he never exacted vengeance when he was harmed, and he became angry with his sons, Simeon and Levi, for acting in vengeance without consulting him, when his daughter Dinah was raped. Jacob’s words in Genesis chapter 49 betray the fact that he would have always waited on God for vengeance, and that was a rule by which he had lived his entire life. Throughout his life, Jacob was delivered in ways that he himself could have never expected. So in Genesis 49:18, Jacob had declared that “18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.” That should be an example for all of his children.

In Luke chapter 4, Yahshua Christ is described as having gone into a synagogue in Nazareth, and taking up a book of Isaiah to read to the people, He said: “18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Reading that text, He read from a portion of a scroll which contained what we now know as Isaiah chapters 58 through 61. So most of the first verse of that citation, Luke 4:18, is from Isaiah 61:1, and then at the end of that verse a line from Isaiah 58:6 is inserted, which Yahshua must have done purposely as He was reading. There we read the clause “to set at liberty them that are bruised”, as it appears in the King James Version. Then, in Luke 4:19, Yahshua returned to Isaiah 61:2 where He stopped halfway through the verse, and read only the first clause where the King James Version has “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

So Yahshua Christ had stopped short of the remaining portion of the verse, where it continues in Isaiah 61:2 and after the words “2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD”, as it is in Isaiah, it then says “and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn”. Here it is clear, that those who mourn are not comforted until the “day of vengeance of our God”, but it should be evident that Yahshua had not read that portion of the passage in Isaiah simply because its fulfillment was beyond the scope and purpose of His first earthly ministry. Later, after the return of Christ prophesied in Revelation chapter 19, after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb described in that chapter, in which all of His enemies are destroyed, after the Beast, the False Prophet, Hell, Death, and ostensibly, all of the goat nations are cast into the Lake of Fire, in Revelation chapter 21 we read: “4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Then will the words be fulfilled which He had spoken in the Sermon on the Mount which say, in part: “3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

Now there is another assurance, that this passage certainly does correlate to the ministry of Christ, where we continue with Isaiah chapter 35 and we read:

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. 

This concept of the blindness of Israel has become something of an underlying theme in Isaiah, and it first appeared in Isaiah chapter 6, where the people are prophesied to be blind and deaf, and again in Isaiah chapter 29, which contains the first prophecy of their ultimate recovery and we read: “ 18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.” This theme of the meek, the poor and the blind also coalesces with the words which we have cited from the Sermon on the Mount, so there should be no doubt that this is a prophecy of the purpose of Christ. Later in Isaiah, in chapters 42, 43, 56 and 59, there are other similar messages in recurring prophecies of Christ. So once again, the whole purpose of Isaiah is to announce and record the captivities of Israel for their punishment for their sins, and also to prophecy of how they shall ultimately be saved, redeemed and reconciled to their God.

Referring back to Isaiah chapter 6, the people were to remain blind “Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,” which was the purpose of God for ancient Israel and Judah at that time. But now that the Camp of the Saints is surrounded by the enemies of God, a prophecy which we may read in Revelation chapter 20, and Babylon is already fallen, as we read in Revelation chapter 18, and which shall soon be apparent, it is near the time that the blindness must also be removed, so that the children of God may hearken to the call to come out of Babylon. Then there is another promise:

7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

As for the parched ground which would become a pool, and the thirsty land which would become springs of water, Christ had told the woman at the well in Samaria, in a conversation which is recorded in John chapter 4: “13 … Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” While Palestine was indeed left inhabited by dragons, after they had come out, or returned, from ancient Babylon the children of God once again dwelt in the land. So they received water, the water of the Gospel of Christ, and the Edomite Jews, who are indeed representatives of the dragon as it is described in Revelation chapter 12, were there to lay in the reeds and the rushes. However they had actually laid in ambush, which may be a correlation taken one step too far but the shoe certainly seems to fit. So the highway which is described next is also not a literal highway, but an allegory:

8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. 

This highway must be an allegory for the path to reconciliation with God which was first paved in the ministry of John the Baptist. So we read in Isaiah chapter 40: “40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. 2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins. 3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.” Then, in Luke chapter 3 in reference to John the Baptist: “4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; 6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

The “wayfaring men” here are those who had broken the covenant, as we read in Isaiah chapter 33 speaking of the children of Israel: “8 The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man. 9 The earth mourneth and languisheth: Lebanon is ashamed and hewn down: Sharon is like a wilderness; and Bashan and Carmel shake off their fruits.” So these men are fools, because they had broken the covenant, and for that their land had become a desolation. But now, once they are brought back to the way of holiness in the Gospel of Christ, they shall not err therein. Neither shall they any longer have to encounter wild beasts:

9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there: 

These beasts certainly are allegories for certain presumed people, like the wild beasts, the satyrs and the unclean birds of Isaiah chapter 34. So in 1 Peter chapter 5, we read an admonition for Christians which urges them to: “8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.” Today, in our modern world, Christians are besieged by such lions and ravenous beasts.

Now for the final verse of this chapter:

10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. 

The theme of redemption is also found throughout Isaiah, and redemption is promised only to the children of Israel. So as early as Isaiah chapter 1 we read: “27 Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.” The “converts” are those who repent, or return, which is what the Hebrew word means, and not aliens who could somehow become Israelites. Later in Isaiah, in chapter 43 we read: “1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.” This theme then recurs through the balance of the writings of the prophet. Then in Luke chapter 1, among many other places in the New Testament, there is an affirmation that this is the purpose of the Gospel where we read, in part: “ 68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people”.

This concludes our commentary for Isaiah chapter 35, and now we shall present our recent interview with Jeremy, where we discuss the consequences of this Controversy of Zion which had first been seen here in Isaiah chapter 34.

Footnotes:

1 Origenis Hexaplorum, Fridericus Field, AA. M., Volume II, Clarendon Press, 1875, p. 499.

The following is a transcript of a recent interview of William Finck by Jeremy of Jerm Warfare. This was originally published in video format for Jeremy’s podcast at UKColumn.org. The original title of the podcast interview is “Are the Jews God’s ‘Chosen’ People?” This transcript was created by Speech Note software, and edited for software errors, especially where ancient names are concerned, so I hope I did not miss anything.

Jeremy:

The second question that I have for you is, was Jesus a Jew? But my first question actually is, why does it matter?

William:

Why does it matter? It matters because for 1,700, 1,800 years, men have believed that Jesus was just a Judaean, or as we say it today, a Jew, even though men didn't look at the word Jew 1,800 years ago as we do today. It's a very complex issue. So if we believe Jesus was a Jew, then we believe that Jews were his people. If we believe the Jews were his people, then we believe that we must treat Jews well because of the promises to Abraham that “those who will bless you, I will bless” and Christians today believe that Jews are his people, so if they bless Jews, God will bless them. So they're blessing Jews, hoping to get something from God.

But in reality, Jews are not his people, and they're his enemies. Christ told them, John chapter 10 verse 26, you do not believe me, because you are not my sheep. It's plain and simple that they were not his people. And there is much more evidence in the New Testament that agrees with that, they are not his people. So this is why it matters, because Jews are not his people, but Jews are given free license and preeminence in our Christian society based on the lie that they're his people.

Jeremy:

What is your background, William?

William:

I'm a 10th grade dropout. I'm an apostate Roman Catholic. I was raised Catholic. I dropped out of high school after 10th grade. I went to work loading trucks, things like that, got my equivalency diploma, went into law enforcement, spent 12 years in law enforcement, caught a civil rights case, spent 12 years in federal prison, spent my time in federal prison reading Scripture and classical history, and I could spend half an hour explaining the things that I read, and studied in those 12 years, over the course of which I had translated the New Testament and written many of the historical papers that are available at Christogenea today. So I've done nothing but study since 1996, and I'm still doing that.

Jeremy:

Yeah, so you're effectively a biblical scholar.

William:

Yes. and that's not the background that people would expect that I have when they speak to me or hear me, but that's my background. I'm totally self-educated. But everything that I tell you, I can show you in an old book. That's what's important.

Jeremy:

So going back to Jesus being a Jew. Now, I think it's quite important to premise this discussion by saying none of this is about hatred.

William:

No, it's not about hatred. It's about truth. It's simply about truth. It's about truth, but it's also about behavior. Because Jews have exploited Christians with this idea that they are God's chosen people. And I don't know if you can see me, but I'm using quote marks for my hands. They're God's chosen people, and they get away with practically anything they want to, any political agenda that they deem as moral becomes the prevailing political agenda across all peoples. They are controlling the world through the lie that they are God's chosen people. They have in their Talmud a concept called Tikkun Olam, which means to remold the world, to heal the world, to correct the world, as if we need correction. It's really an agenda for Jews to mold the world in their own image. They have another agenda with these Noahide laws, which are a lie, which are a fraud, and they want us all to accept these Noahide laws as the laws of our nations, and that would effectively ban Christianity the way that Jews interpret Christianity, which is the real end goal. So Jews are truly trying to control the world, and there's tons of evidence about this in their own writings.

Jeremy:

And in a way, you're also speaking about Zionism, and by extension, evangelical Christianity is an even bigger proponent.

William:

Yes, the Jews sold them the rope that they'll hang themselves with. That's exactly what's happened. Evangelical Christians blindly believe that the Jews are God's chosen people, and they blindly believe in those promises to Abraham that they will be blessed if they bless the Jews. So the bottom line is that they are operating out of greed, basically. And they really believe, they really believe that they can convert the Jews somehow. That somehow, in the last days, Christ will convert the Jews to Christianity. But that's not what Christ said. Christ said, you do not believe me because you're not my sheep. The Catholic Church has taught for centuries that they're not a sheep because they don't believe him. They've inverted the sayings of Christ in many areas in scripture. They've inverted it and they teach exactly the opposite of what He said.

Jeremy:

In order to understand And whether or not Jesus was a Jew, you have to take me back to the beginning.

William:

Yes, at least to the time of Isaiah and Ezekiel, but that'll be brief, and then we'll jump to the second century BC. In Isaiah chapter 34, there's something called the controversy of Zion. And for the controversy of Zion, Yahweh, the God of Israel, has a cause against Idumaea. Why? Because He knew in His Providence what was going to happen in the future. Let's jump forward now from Isaiah, which is -- those words were probably written around 705 BC, perhaps, or thereabouts. Let's jump to about 600, maybe 590 BC to Ezekiel, the prophet, who had written, in Ezekiel chapter 34, 35, I believe it's Ezekiel chapter 35, probably versus 8 through 10 or around there, he had written that the Edomites, that Esau, or Edom would say … would take these two countries and these two nations for themselves. And that's a reference to Judah and Israel, most of whom by that time had already gone off into the Assyrian captivity, and only the inhabitants of Jerusalem were left. And according to those words in Ezekiel, the Edomites were already moving north to take the lands that formerly belonged to Judah and Israel, which had been, for the most part, left desolate by the Assyrians.

So by the time that the Second Temple, that the First Temple is destroyed, and the Edomites were responsible for the destruction of the First Temple. It's in the Psalms, and it's in second Esdras, it's in first Esdras, which is an apocryphal copy of the book of Ezra that has more material in it than the book of Ezra has. It's probably a better, more original copy of Ezra than what we know from the canonical Ezra. They both placed the destruction of the temple, the first temple, on the shoulders of the Edomites, because the Edomites were subject to the Babylonian Empire and therefore provided soldiers to the Babylonians at the siege of Jerusalem.

So that being said, by the end of the Persian period, into the Hellenistic period, the land of Idumaea had actually moved north, and Strabo of Cappadocia, Strabo the Geographer, actually described this in a sort of odd way when he said that the Edomites or Idumaeans were originally Nabataeans, who are Arabs in the south lands in Arabia, and that the Nabataeans drove them out of their original country, and they came into Judaea. So Strabo, a Greek pagan geographer, who died around 25 AD, understood that the Edomites had relocated from the desert lands to the south into Judea. In the first book of Maccabees -- now, the books of Maccabees start about 160 BC, when the Judaeans were able to free themselves from the rule of these Seleucid Greek kings. Now, these Judaeans are only, they're the descendants of 40,000 people, that when all of Jerusalem was taken captive by the Assyrians around 701 BC, all of Judah, and then Jerusalem itself was taken captive by the Babylonians, and whoever remained in 585 BC, 70 years later, in 520 BC, or thereabouts, only 42,000 Judaeans returned. 42,000 people of Judah, with some Benjamin and Levi among them, returned to Jerusalem. That's it, none of the others ever returned … until the time of Ezra, when a few thousand more returned with him some years later. So basically, less than 45,000 people ever returned to Jerusalem. And those people actually became a pretty powerful nation, so that by 160 BC, they could defeat the Greek Seleucid Empire and remain an independent nation for almost 100 years until the coming of the Romans.

During that time when Jerusalem was an independent kingdom, not Judea, but Jerusalem, the kings called the Maccabees, Maccabee means hammer, it's really a nickname for the first high priest of the dynasty from the time that they gained their independence, Judas Maccabee. So the real family name was Hasmonaean. So the Hasmonaeans began to attempt to burn out all of the Edomites from the cities of Judah, the former cities of Judah and Israel that they had come to occupy. And they'd burn them out, but they didn't have the population necessary to keep those cities. So they'd burn out the Edomites and they'd leave the cities empty and the Edomites would move right back in. The policy was failing. It failed for thirty years, until the time of John Hyrcanus II. Now when, I'm sorry, John Hyrcanus I, John Hyrcanus, about 129 BC, comes to be the high priest in Judea. And that's where the Book of Maccabees ends. And you can see the policy that I had just discussed in the Book of Maccabees, the first book of Maccabees, the second book of Maccabees.

Jeremy:

Can I just jump in just for a moment? I hope you don't mind. But when we talk about Judah and Judea, what is the difference?

William:

The difference is that Judah was a kingdom, and the only legitimate inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, or citizens, if you will, were people of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi or the tribe of Benjamin that was joined to the kingdom of Judah in the days of the divided kingdom, so that 10 tribes were ruled by Jeroboam I, and this is from the time of Solomon, this is the end of the 10th century BC, or the beginning of the 10th century BC, I'm sorry, no, this is about 900 BC that this happened, maybe a little later at the death of Solomon, that the kingdom was divided, and it remained that way, and Israel went off into paganism, and I could talk about that history at great length, if you're ever want to discuss that, with citations. And Judah became known as the kingdom of Judah, the land of Judah. And it properly should be Judah or Judahite, if you refer to an individual, all throughout the Old Testament. But Judea was never Judah. Judea was always a mixed-race population. Which I'm about to explain, and it was never properly Judah.

And the people, some of them were Judah. Some of them were the descendants of those 45,000 or so Judahites and Levites and Benjaminites that returned, so they could be properly considered Judah. But as I'm about to explain, they didn't stay Judah. So if you're, now this is going on today in America, if you're Anglo-Irish, a predominant number of people in America, white people, are either German or English or Irish in descent. And I happen to be German and Irish on my father's side and English on my mother's side. So can I claim to be German? Not really, because I'm three-quarters British. Can I claim to be English? Not really because I'm a quarter Irish and I'm a quarter German. So I can't claim to be German, Irish, or English. I'm just an Amerimutt, but at least all of my ancestry is from those places in Europe. So, the English and the Germans are really a related people, and so are the Irish, but just a little more distantly. So I'm not really a mixed-race individual, so far as I can determine, of course, from my genealogy. [I'm sorry, a wasp just flew by. Happens all the time here where I live.] The truth is that I can't be a German, I couldn't go back to the Rhineland, I know the exact village where my Finck ancestors came from, and say, I'm German too, because they're going to look me and say, you Mick, get out of here, because I probably look more Irish and I do German. I don't know, right? So they're going to say, no, you're an American. Beat it, you're not German. If I tried to present myself as German to them, that are 100% German, right? It’s just not going to work.

So what is a Judaean is determined by the history, which I'm about to present, from the time of John Hyrcanus, about 125 BC. And this is explained in Book 13 of Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Judaeans. His original title in Greek is Antiquities of the Judaeans. I don't like to call it Antiquities of the Jews because that's not true. It's only true from a certain point. So in 125 BC, John Hyrcanus, who was the high priest for a good deal of time, I don't remember the exact duration, probably about 20 years. [Hyrcanus was actually high priest for about thirty years.]

So he decided that he was going to convert these people in these cities that formerly belonged to Judah and Israel. He was going to convert them to Judaism and tell them that if they converted to Judaism, that they would no longer be attacked and they would be one nation with the people of Jerusalem, and everything would be cool, and they'd be able to live in peace together. And basically, that's the overtures that were made to them at that time, and they accepted that. And Josephus, Flavius Josephus wrote that from that time, they were known as, none other than Judaeans. 125 BC.

Now, most people that can explain when I'm explaining, they stop there, but they shouldn't stop there, because a little later, another high priest, a grandson, I believe, of John Hyrcanus, I think, came to the throne, another Hasmonean high priest, and he was the first high priest of Judea who called himself a king, and his name was Alexander Jannaeus, and he ruled from about 103 BC until about 76 BC. And Flavius Josephus explains that he went out and converted the people who were Edomites and Canaanites and others in about 30 different regions of Judea, forcibly converted them into Judaism, and made them citizens with the people of Jerusalem. So basically, all of Edomite Judea was forcibly converted them into Judaism.

Jeremy:

Judaism the correct term?

William:

Well, it depends on how you want to see it. It depends on whether or not you're considering Judaism to be the Talmud. Right? The Talmud began to be recorded a couple of centuries after Christ. But the process started in the second century BC. And at that time...

Jeremy:

Sorry, and it was, was it a... an extension, a corrupted extension of Hebraism, if I'm going to be correct?

William:

Yes, because as soon as you can imagine that people of other races can be converted into Hebraism, then you've already violated the laws of God, right? And who cursed those people, and his law forbids those people, there are instances where certain people, the kindred Genesis 10 nations, can join themselves to Israel, and after three generations, they can be considered Israelites as long as they're conforming to all the laws, and they could be intermarried with, after three generations. There are circumstances for that in law, but it's speaking about other kindred people. It's not speaking about the Canaanites and the Edomites who were explicitly eliminated. They were explicitly forbidden by the law. They were castigated.

So, it was prohibited to have relations with them, explicitly in law. And this is what Hyrcanus did. He went and joined all of these Edomites and other Canaanites who were people of unknown origin who were dwelling in the former lands of Israel and Judah, he began that policy of converting them into the Hebrew religion. And at that point, I can no longer call it Hebraism. It's no longer the religion of Moses and the prophets. Now, it's a corruption, and Judaism is probably the best term we have for it. And Judaism is actually, Ioudaios is the what a Greek would call Judaean.

Ioudaios, and Judaism and the word Judea, as we know it, come from those Greek terms. So they don't come from Judah, they come indirectly through those Greek terms. Now, Alexander Jannaeus converted over 30 districts and areas of Judea into Judaism. and he died in 76 BC. And I believe at that time, it might have been one later. John Hyrcanus II became the high priest, another man named John Hyrcanus, a little later. So the Romans, the Romans come to conquer the world. In the process of conquering the world, they come to Judea, of course. It's going to happen eventually. And the Romans besieged Judea, and there's a lot of internal political strife among the Judaeans. And there was a notable Edomite named Archelaus, I believe, and he had two sons, one named Herod and one named Antipas. And John Hyrcanus II was very friendly to these Idumaeans, they were Edomites and he appointed Herod as the governor of Galilee, and Antipas' other son as the governor of Jerusalem. And I might have those three names inverted, Archelaus and Antipas, but it really doesn't matter for the point of this conversation. I have all of this in articles at my website, but I'm not sitting here trying to read them on you.

So anyway, Herod ended up siding with the Romans, and he married John Hyrcanus' niece, so they were intermarrying with these Edomites, the people of Judah were intermarrying with the Idumaeans because they were all the same religion, so it didn't matter. God loves everybody, I guess, started back then. So Herod had a woman of Judah, the niece of the high priest for a wife, and he nevertheless turned traitor, sided with the Romans, Judaea was defeated, it fell to Roman rule, and Herod was appointed as king. When he was appointed as king, he wiped out the nobility of Judah. He wiped out the family of the high priest. He killed his own wife. Now, I'm condensing about 25 years of history here, right? He killed his own wife. That daughter … the niece of the high priest that he married, he killed her. He killed the sons that he had with her. He wiped out the entire nobility, and he, an Idumaean, became the king of Judea. Judea was the Roman name for the province, that's what they called it. They called it Judea, and it incorporated Galilee and Judah proper, and the coasts that belonged formerly to Israel and to the Philistines in ancient times, and also Idumaea. And you could look up Judea, on Wikipedia, and even Wikipedia admits That Idumaea is part of Judea.

So at what point, did my ancestors stop being German? I would probably say when my German grandfather married my Irish grandmother, and they weren't really German. My father's not really German, because he's half Irish. So at what point does a Judahite no longer be a Judahite? Because he's mixed with all these other races, and they've mixed with the Idumaeans, and they've mixed with a lot of other races since the fall of Jerusalem, which isn't even really pertinent to this conversation. When does a Judahite stop being a Judahite? How many times does he have to race mix? Of course there aren't any Jews that are Judah. There aren't any Jews that are Judah. None. Zero. Not one of them can claim I'm of Judah because he's a bastard. He’s mixed in with not only Idumaeans, but all of these other races along the way. How could he be of Judah? How could Christians think they're of Judah? They're not.

So, Christ, the ministry of Christ comes, Christ and all of his apostles are born into this new, multicultural Roman province of Judea, where you have Edomites in the south…

Jeremy:

Just before you continue, William, if you don't mind, at this point, you're talking about the various people groups. How did they look? Did they all look similar? Or did they look quite different?

William:

They all looked very similar. The apostles couldn't tell them apart. John marvelled at Christ for being able to know what was in a man. He knew what they were. He could tell them apart, He's God. The apostles couldn't tell them apart. Even Judas, at the night of the last supper, Christ told Judas, go do what you have to do, because Christ knows he's going to betray Him and bring the high priests and the armies of Jerusalem in on Him. He knows it's going to happen. It doesn't happen until they get to the Garden of Gethsemane, but Judas is there and he brings these armies with him. Christ knew what he was going to do. But if you read the Gospel of John, when Christ told that to Judas, the apostles imagined that Judas was going to give money to the poor or to do something good.

[At this point I wanted to mention John 6:70 and discuss that, but it had gotten away from me.]

And John discusses this in his gospel. I think it might be in chapter 14, chapter 15, I forget, chapter 17 maybe. I really don't remember where stuff is in the Bible as well as I remember what's in the Bible. So I think it's chapter 17 or 18, the scene at the garden. Just before … well, it's in chapter 14, perhaps, the Last Supper scene where the apostles imagined that Judas was going to do good things, and instead, he went to betray Christ, but the apostles didn't see that coming. Right.

So, that being said, Christ and the apostles were born into this multicultural Judea, which was now a Roman province, and the Romans drew the lines and said, this is Judea, and everybody that lives in here is a Judaean. and all the people that lived in there, whether they converted to Hebrewism or not, they eventually became associated with all of these other Judaeans who were mixed races. There were still some pure Judahites at the time of Christ, and there were a lot of Edomites in Judaea, probably a predominant population of Edomites in Judaea at the time of Christ, along with other Ishmaelites, Canaanites, people from other ancient tribes that themselves by that time were mixed.

Jeremy:

So did they look different, like the Edomites and the Ishmaelites, etc?

William:

The Edomites and the Ishmaelites of that time would have been virtually indistinguishable from the Judahites. In that time, they were still white. There were no big infusions of blood from sub-Saharan Africa that had come into the Arab world, not until the rise of Islam. And that's what a lot of people don't understand, is that the ancient Near East and the ancient Middle East were white, predominantly white, until the rise of Islam. Egypt and Ethiopia were originally white, but they went darker a lot sooner, that they had large influxes of Nubian blood, probably as soon as the … well, Ethiopia even sooner, but Egypt, during the reign of the 25th dynasty, the Kushite dynasty. The Kushites were originally white, they were from Mesopotamia. They mixed themselves with the Nubians and invaded Egypt, and they were both Kushite and Nubian soldiers in Egypt under the 25th dynasty. So that brought a lot of black blood into Egypt, probably in the 7th century BC.

Jeremy

And can I just quickly add to what you're saying? In terms of how demographics can change, my own country, South Africa, 500 years ago, had no white people, and now it has a substantial white population. So it's very easy for this kind of thing to happen.

William:

Right. Going back to the first century, Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 9, he's writing that in 57 AD. Yes, I can date it pretty accurately. He writes in chapter 9 … in chapter 4 he writes about the promises to Abraham, and he explains that the promises to Abraham that his seed would become a multitude of nations was already fulfilled by his time, “as it is written”. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that people of other nations can become Abraham's seed if they believe in Jesus. But that's not what Paul said. Paul said in Romans chapter 4 that the promises are fulfilled “as it is written”, which means that there are no substitutes for Abraham's seed. Abraham himself tried to substitute for a seed by one of his own wider kinsman, and he was rejected. So, “as it is written” means that the people who are Christians today, true Christians, are Abraham's physical seed, and Paul was writing to Romans. And I could discuss a great length how that happens in history. But that's definitely a topic for another time.

In Romans chapter 9, Paul said that he prays for his brethren, for his kinsman according to the flesh. His kinsman according to the flesh, or his brethren, the people of his same race and family are his brethren, that they would accept Christianity, and basically, I'm summarizing, and then he went on in the same place to discuss the promises, and he said they are not all Israel who are in or of Israel. And he went on to compare Jacob and Esau. Why would Paul compare Jacob and Esau, in that context, praying for his kinsman according to the flesh, and the answers are found in not only Flavius Josephus, but also in Strabo of Cappadocia.

Strabo of Cappadocia was a Greek geographer, and he has no axe to grind. Strabo died in 25 AD. He was a pagan Greek. He was a Stoic. He had nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, he had no dog in a race, and he explained that Edomites and Judaeans were all living in Judea, sharing the same customs. Ptolemy, I have a citation here, but I only have the citation in Greek. I don't know if it exists in any English work. I don't know if there's an extant translation in English, so I had to translate it myself, but people who know me would understand that I could do that, right? So Ptolemy … I don't have a degree, I'm sorry … Ptolemy said Idumaeans and Judaeans are different. At first concerning Herod the king, he said that. Because Herod, when he became king, took all of his own cronies and appointed them into all the positions of power. After he wiped out the nobility, he appointed all of his Edomite buddies into all the positions of power. They became the first black nobility? They became the new nobility of Judaea, and they were the nobility from that time forward.

So, Ptolemy recognized the differences here, understood there were historical differences in these people in Judea. The Christians don't consider, even though these things are mentioned in encyclopedias, on Wikipedia even, Christians don't consider the consequences. When it comes to the Jews being God's chosen people, they just accept that blindly, as if all Jews are Judah. It's not true. “Idumaeans and Judaeans are different. At first concerning Herod the king, indeed there are Judaeans who, from the beginning, are natives…” Now, Ptolemy is writing before the time of Christ. “However, Idumaeans in the beginning are certainly not Judaeans, but Phoenicians and Syrians.” Now, Ptolemy was confused about the identity of the Idumaeans, and he tried to describe them in Greek terms from a Greek outsider's perspective, but he recognized that they weren't Judaeans. And it goes on to say that “they had been ruled over by them”, meaning by the Judaeans, “and compelled to be circumcised, and to enjoin in the customs, and having been raised in these practices, they are called Judaeans.”

That's very similar to what Strabo of Cappadocia had written concerning the Idumaeans and the Judaeans, all living in Judea, dwelling and sharing in the same customs. And that's in Strabo's Geography in Book 16. There are two passages that say essentially the same thing. So there's all sorts of historical witnesses to this, but Flavius Josephus gives us all of the historical details. He doesn't discuss the politics behind the scenes as to how those policies evolved. He does say that at the time of John Hyrcanus, that that's where he puts the beginning of the parties, of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. That's when political parties arose in Judea, at the same time that this was going on. And in my opinion, the word Pharisee means separatist. That's what it means. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. and in my opinion, they took that name because they were originally the racial purists, the separatists, to stay separate from the Edomites. And eventually they only became religious purists, kind of like American politicians do, they change their fundamentals to adapt to the situation instead of keeping their principles. They just change them to adapt to a historical situation. They, they, that is basically negotiating with the world. It's caving in to the, to the, what's going on in the world. It's not Christian at all. So Christians should not consider these Jews who are primarily Edomites. And Christ spoke in Revelation chapter two, chapter three, these quotes are very common in our circles. Those who say they are Judaeans, but not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Jeremy:

But William, this is a hard sell because just about every single Bible has the word Jew in it.

William:

Yes, and it's wrong. It should never be there. It is true that Jew is sort of a slang shortening of the word Judaean. That's how that worked out in history. But the Jews aren't Judah. Judea was the name of a multicultural Roman province.

Jeremy:

And Jesus was the king of the Judaeans.

William:

Yes. He was the king of the Judaeans because that was also the word used for Judah. But He was, He never called himself the king of the Judaeans. He never called himself that. None of his disciples called him that. His enemies called him that. Pilate called him that, Pilate was a Roman, based on the claims of his enemies.

Jeremy:

So where does the word Jew come from then? And how long has it been in the English language?

William:

It's been in the English language since the first Bibles. It was I-E-W-E-S, Jews, and if you open a Geneva Bible or an older Bible than that, because there were some English Bibles before the Geneva Bible in 1560, I-E-W-E-S is Jews, Iewes, and it's a contraction for Ioudaios, which is what the text says, Ioudaia for Judaean, or for Judaea, Ioudaios for Judaean, for a Judaean man. So, Ioudaios was sort of contracted into Iewes or Jews, what we say as “Jews”. Back in, in German, a J, when it appears at the beginning of a word, is an I sound, or a Y, if it's followed by a vowel, right? And that's also the case in English. The J letter didn't appear in printing until the 16th century, I believe, and before that, it was always an I. So, Judaea…

Jeremy:

So, but why did they use the word Jew? Was it sloppy translation work?

William:

Yeah, you know, ever since the second century, the apostles did not teach that the Jews were God's chosen people. They never taught that. They only were sent to the people of Judaea, in general, and to the European world. So that's another long story, but the people of Judea were Israelites and Edomites, and the apostles didn't have the ability to tell them apart. If an Edomite said, “I’m a Judaean”, it was commonly accepted, because that was the political circumstance of the time. And if you can't prove he's not an Edomite, then you just have to accept him as a fellow Judaean. So the apostles preach to everybody, but Christ said, My sheep hear my voice, in John chapter 10, and He told His adversaries, who rejected Him, You do not believe Me because you're not My sheep. So we have to … if you go through the book of Acts, you'll see in Acts chapter 20, or 21, when James is talking to Paul of Tarsus, it's in Acts chapter 21, he says, look at how many converts there are, meaning Christians. And speaking of Jerusalem, he explained them as myriads, there were myriads of Christians in Judea, in 58. AD, which is when that conversation happened. Myriads are 10,000’s, in the plural, so it's 10,000’s and then some. There was a very large following, there were very many thousands of Christians. The Jews want to obscure this history, they don't want you to know this. They were in the minority for a great number of years in the Christian period. And the Jews had used the Romans to persecute Christians. And early Christian apologists had written that the Roman persecutions of Christians were all instigated by the Jews. And that's written in Tertullian, in his apology, and by Minucius Felix, in his apology. And that's two Christian writers of the late 3rd century AD, I believe.

Jeremy:

If Jesus was not a Jew, what was He?

William:

Christ was of Judah, but you can't say that he was a Jew because the people that we identify as Jews are from that mixed race polyglot. And, okay, right now, I was born in Virginia Beach. Okay, I grew up in Jersey City. I spent most of my life in Jersey City, New Jersey. The first … most of my first 36 years of life. So maybe I would have associated myself as a New Jerseyan in the 1960s. Jersey City was almost all white, there was only one small little section of Negroes. So when you said, “I'm from Jersey City”, back then, most people would assume that you're white. But today, Jersey City is like predominantly black and Hispanic, and the whites are a minority. So if I say “from Jersey City”, you might say, “Well, what are you?” If you wanted to know what my background was, or who I was, and you didn't see me, you'd say, “Well, what are you?” I’d have to say, well, I'm hispanic, or I'm black, or I'm Irish, or whatever.

And the word Jew should not be in the Bible. All throughout the Old Testament, wherever the word Jew appears, it should be Judahite or Judea. And all throughout the New Testament, wherever the word Jew appears, it should be Judaean. That's the meaning of the original Greek term, which is simply, at that time, in its proper historical context, a multicultural Roman province. That's what Judaea was.

Jeremy:

Now, I've got a Bible. It's an interlinear Bible, and a lot of people don't know what that is, but it's effectively a very direct translation of Hebrew and Greek. And it doesn't have the word Jew in it anywhere, in the Old Testament or the New Testament. It uses, as you just said, Judahite, Judaean, Edomite even.

William:

Right, and that's a better Bible, it really is, because it doesn't create a lie, that these Jews are God's chosen people, they're not. And they've mixed with many other people along the way. Jews were in Arabia, mixing with Arabs. Jews were in Khazaria, mixing with Khazars and Turks and people of other races. Jews race mixed wherever they went. How many times over how many centuries can you race mix and get away with identifying yourself as a Judaean, as a Judahite, as a child of Abraham? When the Bible forbids that race mixing. They're not Judah.

Jeremy:

So you mentioned Jacob, you mentioned Jacob and Esau earlier, and in the Bible, it says that God loved Jacob and hated Esau?

William:

Yes. Because God knew Esau was a race mixer, that he would marry Canaanite woman. So he hated him even while he was in the womb. Now, Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob for a pot of porridge, and that might be true, but that's not why he lost his inheritance. It says very explicitly, in Genesis, and this is in Genesis chapters 26, 27, and 28. I believe from the end of 26 to the beginning of chapter 28, and I'm going to check myself on that, real quick. Well, not on that screen, I'm sorry. Well, anyway, in scripture, Rebecca explains that her heart is troubled on account of the daughters of Heth. I'm sorry, that's at the very end of Genesis chapter 27.

And her heart was troubled on account of the daughters of Heth, “if Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heath, such as these which are daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” She despaired of her own life if Jacob took wives of the Canaanites. The daughters of Heth were Hittites. They were a branch of the Canaanites. If you go back to Genesis chapters 26, 27, you'll see that Esau took his wives of the Hittites, and that troubled his mother, Rebecca, who thought that her life was good for nothing if Jacob did the same thing. So Rebecca compelled Jacob to steal his brother's blessing when his father, who was old and frail and blind, went to bless his sons. Jacob got the blessing because Rebecca wanted Jacob to have the blessing because Esau was a race mixer, period.

So, when that's all said and done, and this is not Genesis 28, I believe it's at the beginning of Genesis chapter 29. No, I'm sorry, it is 28. I don't remember this right, I can't remember where stuff is in the Bible, I just remember the Bible. So I'm sorry. At the beginning of Genesis chapter 28, “And Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him and said unto him, thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan”. because Esau had done that. Jacob was getting this instruction from his father, but his mother was the one that realized it and said, hey, Jacob can't do this like Esau did. His mother, his mother, basically saved the family.

“Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father and take a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.” And they were … Laban in scriptures is called Laban the Syrian. The Syrians were kindred people to the Hebrews. But Laban was really only a Syrian by geography because they lived in the far north in Padanaram which is on the other side of the Euphrates River. It's quite far north in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains and not too far from the Black Sea. Padanaram was a plane. It's called [means] Plain of Aram. And it was a plain just south of the foothills of the Caucasus mountains, and that's where Abraham was from.

That was where a lot of the Hebrews dwelt that didn't have like a demarcated country of their own, right? Not every tribe gets their own nation, right? You should know that being South African and European, that even in Europe, not every tribe got its own nation. They were folded in a lot of them to other bigger tribes, more powerful tribes. Like the Germans are Saxons and Suebi and several other tribes all allied in Germany and under one culture and language, basically. Well, the language thing’s a complicated story, but…

Jeremy:

But what about all the customs that you read about in the Bible?

William:

Circumcision was a way to preserve the race. Circumcision ensured that when a woman became a man's wife, that she knew she was marrying in Israelite and not an Edomite, or somebody of a Canaanite or somebody of another race. The Egyptians were already practicing circumcision, even before Moses had it as a law. So circumcision, and circumcision wasn't the circumcision that we have today. I don't want to get too much into the anatomy of a man's penis. But circumcision, the way the Hebrews had practiced it, only cut the skin from the tip of the foreskin that extends beyond the head of the penis. You only cut that off. And Josephus wrote that Judaeans were able to pull down the foreskin to appear as if they were not circumcised. Because a lot of the Judaeans wanted, in the first century BC, a lot of the Judaeans had Hellenized and wanted to appear to be Greeks. And you can see that in the New Testament. There's a lot of figures in the New Testament who have Greek names. Mark, the Apostle Mark, that's a Greek name. And Mark was a cousin of, Peter and his original name was Simon, which was a Hebrew name, and [the name] Simon eventually got into Greece too, actually, in BC a long time ago. But Simon was originally a Hebrew name, Simeon, and Mark was a Greek name. A lot of the people in the New Testament, who were Hebrews, had Greek names, and were Hellenized to a degree. So Josephus wrote that Judaean men can draw down their foreskin to appear not to be circumcised. [Mark is actually a Latin name, I chose a bad example! Andrew or Stephen or Philip or Timothy, among others, would have been better.]

Jeremy:

But what about the other customs that you often get told about?

William:

Well, I mean, the animal sacrifice and just about everything else the Hebrews did, were also extant in the wider Mesopotamian and Greek world. The Greeks sacrificed animals. The Greeks did a lot of those same pagan practices, which had come from Mesopotamia, because that's where they came from. The Greeks came from Mesopotamians and from Israelites, depending on which tribe of Greek we're talking about. So they kept a lot of those same customs. The Romans kept a lot of those customs, the pagan customs. Most of those customs are not peculiar to Hebrews. The circumcision custom was peculiar to Hebrews and to ancient Egyptians. That is true. So Herodotus explains, and this is also found elsewhere, especially in Josephus, that the Tyrians practiced circumcision. The Tyrians were the famous mother city of the Phoenicians. They had colonies all throughout the Mediterranean. They were Israelites. That's why they practiced circumcision. The Canaanites didn't practice circumcision.

Yeah, you know, it's amazing to me that for 300 years, Jews persecuted Christianity. And then as soon as the persecutions ended, Christians esteemed the Jews as authorities on Scripture. How could that be? But they did. Because most Christians couldn't read Hebrew, they turned to the Jews as authorities on scripture and the meanings of the Hebrew words. And speaking to those Jews, you would believe that the Jews were God's chosen people. The church has held that view for 1,700, and in some cases, 1,800 years, and it's not the view of the original apostles of Christ, who understood that Judaea was a mixed-race society.

Jeremy:

Wasn't Jesus also referred to as rabbi?

William:

Yeah, but that's an old Hebrew term that means teacher. The Jews, the Edomites, I can't say that they adopted the Hebrew language. In ancient Mesopotamia, there was something called the Akkadian Empire, in the third millennium BC. I'm going back to about 2400, 2500 BC, and the kings of the Akkadian Empire compelled all of their subjects to speak Akkadian. So all of the Canaanite tribes, who had their own languages, native languages that are now, for the most part, lost, there are some remnants of the Hittite language that had been discovered in inscriptions, but for the most part the Canaanite languages are lost to history. The Syrians, which is primarily the tribe of Aram from Scripture, and Aram is translated Syria in English Bibles, which is wrong to do, but they've done it, and that's common.

So the Syrians and the Assyrians and the Hebrews and the Canaanite tribes and the Edomites and even some of the Ishmaelite tribes were all at one time or another subjects of the Akkadian Empire. Akkadian became the lingua franca of the ancient world, and it remained the lingua franca, meaning the language of trade and diplomacy, from perhaps 2,500 BC, all the way to the end of the Assyrian period, and the 8th and 7th centuries BC, when Aramaic eclipsed it. But Aramaic was just another dialect of Akkadian. They have a plethora of common words, common roots, they have common grammar. So Hebrew is a dialect of Akkadian. The original Edomite language was a dialect of Akkadian, and they spoke Aramaic.

And that's why from the Jewish period, Hebrew had phased itself out, and the rabbis of the Talmud wrote in Aramaic. They don't write in Hebrew.

Jeremy:

And isn't ancient Celtic quite similar to ancient Hebrew?

William:

I've never studied ancient Celtic, but a lot of other Identity Christians have, and they've drawn a lot of parallels, and I have some of that literature on my website, books written in the 1800’s, several of them, comparing Celtic to Hebrew, the ancient Gaelic languages, or the Welsh language, to Hebrew.

Jeremy:

Yes, but why would that then be significant?

William:

Why would it be significant is because, as I had said, the Tyrians were circumcised, they were Israelites. They weren't Canaanites, which is what the Jews want you to believe, because the Phoenicians had settled, not only the islands of the Mediterranean and the coasts of Africa, they settled a great part of the river valleys in modern France, the Iberian Peninsula, Ireland, and Cornwall in Wales, and probably points beyond that were all established by the Phoenicians. The ancient Greek writers wrote of the Phoenician tin mines in Cornwall and the islands off the coast of Britain.

So it could be established pretty well in history that the Phoenicians had settlements in all of those places. Once you make that realization, you must conclude that the people that are known as proto-Celts by anthropologists today were Phoenicians and Israelites. The Kimmerians, the word for Kimmerian is Kimmeroi in Greek, and it was Khumri in Assyrian. and Khumri is the identification, the Assyrian identification of the Israelites they took into captivity. The Kimmerians are Israelites, and they were the first of the Germanic tribes to cross into Europe and settled in Germany. And they didn't only settle in Germany. They also went to Britain and points beyond Germany. The Romans were fighting the Cimmerians in Germany in the first century, second century, A.D. I’m sorry, maybe the first century BC, the Romans were fighting the Cimmerians, and Livy and other Roman historians record those battles, and they identify them as Cimmerians. They're the Khumri. Later waves were called Saka and Scythians, of Israelites from the captivities into Europe. But the first wave was called the Khumri or the Cimmerians.

Jeremy:

How is this relevant today?

William:

It's relevant today because most of the white evangelicals who think that Jews are God's chosen people, and thereby the enemies of Christ have political preeminence in the entire world today, must understand that they [themselves] are actually God's chosen people, and that the enemies of Christ were considered by Christ himself to be devils. And these Edomite Jews who have rejected Christ for 80 generations are never going to be converted to Christ because they're not his sheep, as He had told them. He was never intent on converting them. He confronted them and made an example of them, as Paul of Tarsus explains, but he was never intent on converting them. They can't be converted.

Jeremy:

Does that therefore suggest that Israel today doesn't have a... The Jews don't have a claim to Israel today?

William:

No, not on the basis of Scripture. No, they have no claim. Because Esau shouldn't have been there in the first place. But there is a prophecy in Malachi chapter 1, which is really, really interesting. And I would like to take a moment with that, if you don't mind. Because this describes what we know as Christian. in Zionism perfectly. It describes it perfectly.

Malachi chapter one: “The burden of the word of Yahweh to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, sayeth Yahweh. Yet you say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Sayeth Yahweh, yet I love Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness”, speaking about the original land of Edom.

What's going on there? What's going on there is Yahweh God telling Israel, that he loves Israel, and Israel saying, hey, what about Esau? Wasn't he Israel's brother? And that's exactly what's going on in the world today. Where these unwittingly unknowing Israelites, descendants of the true Israelites, are pointing at these Jews, descendants of Esau, and saying, don't you love them? God loves them. There is chosen people.

Malachi, Malachi right there describes that situation. And then it goes on, “whereas Edom says, we are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places, sayeth Yahweh of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down.” What's that talking about? There were no desolate places ever rebuilt since Malachi's time, except for the desolate places that Christ said, to the Jews, His enemies, your house is left to you desolate. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, the modern cities of today, are the desolate places rebuilt by these Edomite Jews. In Malachi chapter one. Malachi explains exactly what's going on in the world today in those few short verses.

Jeremy:

Do you think that some Christian and Jewish elite know this?

William:

I think they do. I think they do. Jews write in their own publications, I'm going to, I can't have this like, in my wallet, I could pull it out. In the 1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, there's an article, and it says, Edom is found in modern Jewry. Well, I would agree with that, but I would also say that modern Jewry is basically Edom, mixed with a lot of other races that aren't Israel. Yeah, there's some Judahite in there. Some Judahites, as I had discussed with the family of John Hyrcanus II, some Judahites intermingled with the Edomites to become Jews. So they had some Judahite blood among them, but there were a majority at that time of these Edomite mongrels.

So now today, I can't imagine any of them are pure Judahites. My most rational conclusion is Jesus was not a Jew for all those reasons. He was not a Jew because he's not a mixed-race Edomite, He is a true Judaean or Judahite. He's a pure member of the tribe of Judah as opposed to these mixed people of the Roman Judea.

Jeremy:

His parents too, obviously.

William:

Right, he's not a Jew, and he's certainly not a Jew at heart. Everything in the Talmud is 100% diametrically opposed to everything in the Torah.

The entire spirit of the Talmud is diabolical. People could actually go to Sefaria.org and read it, anybody could read it for themselves. The Talmud is a complete perversion of the law of God that actually inverts it in many ways where the rabbis are actually justifying sin, and some heinous sins, and using their perceived position as the people of God, they want to use that position in the Talmud, to rule over all the nations. Every Jew is going to have hundreds or thousands of goyim slaves, and it's horrible.

Jeremy:

What is your website, William? How can I follow your work? Christogenea.org. That's Christ, C-H-R-I-S-T, O-G-E-N-E-A, Christogenea. And that word has three different meanings. It means... It can mean race of Christ, it can mean birth of Christ, or it can mean anointed race.

Jeremy:

Okay, well, on that note, William Finck. Thank you. Thank you for joining me in the trenches.