Topical Discussions, June, 2024

Topical Discussions, June, 2024

Having just completed the Genesis commentary, I thought I might have a few weeks of distractions as I ponder a long journey into a commentary on Isaiah. So while I do not know how long this will last, there are quite a few things I have had on my mind. Perhaps I may further develop my Genesis chronology, at least so far as to bring it down to the period of the Kingdom of David, and perhaps I might have an addendum or two for Genesis, because I have already had some afterthoughts on subjects in that area which seem to merit elaboration, and which may be further discussed. If I ever do anything with Exodus through Joshua, it would probably only be highlights illustrating certain events, or certain important aspects of the law, because I am not persuaded that anything more is necessary.

This week, Melissa and I had traveled to see some of our friends in Central Florida, and we had a great time for four days. However if anyone has been visiting the main Christogenea website, they might have noticed that earlier this week, it was often slow, or would not even load properly. This problem has actually been persisting sporadically throughout the past six months. It is being caused by rather discrete DOS (Denial of Service) attacks intended to overload the server and prevent access to the site, which have been executed in several different forms for which reason each new attack requires a different solution. The latest culprit is some sort of application on Facebook, and for the past week or so the website has been getting several tens of thousands of hits per day from Facebook servers. Upon investigation, I have found that this is a known issue with Facebook, and that unsavory app developers use Facebook apps for such nefarious purposes. Evidently, many people have complained about this, and in Meta forums it is said that Facebook will not take action in such cases (Meta is the relatively new parent company of Facebook and Instagram).

However this has not been the only avenue from which we have had such troubles these past six months, and it probably won’t be the last. It seems that every time I resolve one issue, a new issue arises. Our enemies never sleep, they outnumber us and they have much more plentiful resources. But if anyone has noticed, earlier this year I began updating Christogenea websites to much newer software, and while the underlying technology is greatly improved, it is also much more complex. However it is a necessity that I do this to all of our websites by this coming winter, 2025, as the software that I began using in 2012 is now obsolete, and meets its end of life at that time. The software which we have used for our servers, Centos 7, is also obsolete as of the end of this month, and I still have three servers to replace. I had already replaced three servers back in February and March.

So in addition to our travels, with all of the short-term issues which had distracted me this week I thought that I would not have had much time to prepare a very lengthy podcast for this evening, although after I finished writing it was much longer than I thought it would be. But in any event, it may be a few weeks before I can begin an Isaiah commentary. Yesterday I spent at least four or five hours resolving the Facebook DOS issue alone, since several solutions which were supposed to be effective had failed, until I finally found something which did work.

For the long term, since I am updating servers and websites and need to focus on that, anything I must do to fend off the attacks on my old websites is a necessary distraction. Once I can update the main website later this year, I think there should be drastic improvements. If anyone has visited the sites I have already updated, they should find that they are much more accessible than the old sites, and especially for the ever-growing number of visitors who only use mobile phones or tablets.

Therefore this evening, I have several topics which I have been storing up for such an occasion, because none of them really require an entire presentation of their own. First I will discuss the story of Jephthah, which I have addressed in brief in the past, but always mixed in as a digression with some other subject. For the Jephthah account and the presumed fate of his daughter, the Bible is often assailed by critics. Then another incident upon which our critics dwell is where Saul had commanded David to bring two hundred foreskins from the Philistines. After that, I hope to discuss the Ethiopian eunuch, and whether it is necessary for Christians.

The Story of Jephthah

I want to read and discuss the story of the daughter of Jephthah, which is found in Judges chapter 11, because it is almost always misunderstood even in Christian Identity circles. But even worse, it is often thrown at Identity Christians by their critics, and quite often Identity Christians do not properly know how to answer the charges.

In the opening verses of the chapter, it is explained that Jephthah was the son of Gilead by a harlot, and that he was despised when Gilead’s wife had legitimate sons, who had run him off once they were grown. Accepting that the mother of Jephthah was indeed a harlot, as the Hebrew word זונה or zownah (# 2181) and the context in which it is used seems to indicate, that does not mean that she was not a woman of Israel. The word translated as stranger which was used to describe her in verse 2 is אחר or acher (# 312), which simply means another, and it should have been read “for thou art the son of another woman”, a woman other than their own mother, the wife of Gilead. The Septuagint Greek has the phrase to read “a companion woman”, but Brenton chose to translate that as concubine.

Regardless of this situation, for some unknown reason Jephthah must have been respected by the men of Gilead, because when they were oppressed by the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead had begged for him to come out of Tob, the land in which he settled after he had fled from his brethren, and to lead them to make war against their enemies. Because the name Tob is only mentioned here in this chapter, it is presumed to have been outside of Israel, and it was most likely to the north or northeast of Gilead.

At this point it is fitting to mention that Gilead, which was east of the River Jordan and inherited by the tribe of Manasseh, had been taken by Manasseh from the Amorites in the early stages of the conquest of Canaan. The land had once belonged to the Ammonites, who were the descendants of Lot and one of his daughters, but some time before the Exodus the Amorites had dispossessed the Ammonites of the land. So in Numbers chapter 32 we read: “39 And the children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it.”

Now, here in Judges chapter 11, the Ammonites are described as having ventured to take back their old land from Israel, which they had lost to the Amorites, and we read: “4 And it came to pass in process of time, that the children of Ammon made war against Israel. 5 And it was so, that when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob: 6 And they said unto Jephthah, Come, and be our captain, that we may fight with the children of Ammon.”

We are not told why these men had sought Jephthah to lead them, except that perhaps that the parable of the trees of the forest which was recorded earlier, in Judges chapter 9, was recorded at that point for good reason and serves as an indication of their motives. So with a significant degree of incredulity, the same incredulity which the bramble had expressed in that parable, Jephthah replied: “7 And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, Did not ye hate me, and expel me out of my father's house? and why are ye come unto me now when ye are in distress? 8 And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Therefore we turn again to thee now, that thou mayest go with us, and fight against the children of Ammon, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead. 9 And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the LORD deliver them before me, shall I be your head? 10 And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, The LORD be witness between us, if we do not so according to thy words.”

We can only conjecture, that where they had said to Jephthah “we turn again to thee now”, perhaps he had been valiant in either leading or defending the Gileadites in the past, or maybe they only thought that he was expendable. The actions described in the subsequent verses seem to elucidate his experience as a leader, and also as a man with at least some degree of piety: “11 Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh. 12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?”

Now where the Ammonites answer, they had been dishonest: “13 And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably.”

So when Jephthah answered in turn, he corrected them, and he displayed a fair knowledge of the history of events since the Exodus: “14 And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon: 15 And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon: 16 But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red sea, and came to Kadesh; 17 Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh. 18 Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. 19 And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. 20 But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. 21 And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. 22 And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. 23 So now the LORD God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it? 24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. 25 And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, 26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? 27 Wherefore I have not sinned against thee, but thou doest me wrong to war against me: the LORD the Judge be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon.”

This history is interesting, Jephthah is portrayed as having known it very well, and quite importantly, we see that at this time of Judges chapter 11, the Israelites had possessed the land for three hundred years. The possession of Gilead by the tribe of Manasseh which is described in Numbers chapter 32 happened shortly after the forty years’ wandering in the desert, which happened not too long after the giving of the law at Sinai, and the first numbering of Israel on the plains of Moab. So these three hundred years had begun not much longer than forty years after the Exodus, during which Israel had wandered in the desert, and therefore it was probably only a short time before 1400 BC. So now here in Judges chapter 11, it must be a short time before 1100 BC. But Gilead was actually possessed by Manasseh (Deuteronomy chapter 3) even before the death of Moses (Deuteronomy chapter 34) so if three hundred years is not a rounded number, the events of this chapter may be dated to have occurred some short time before 1110 BC.

Next, the king of Ammon reacted with hostility to the words of Jephthah: “28 Howbeit the king of the children of Ammon hearkened not unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him. 29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.” At this point, Jephthah made his fateful vow: “30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

The phrase “burnt offering” here is quite unfortunate, since there is no word meaning burnt in the Hebrew of this verse. The Hebrew word עלוה or עלה, olawh or olah (# 5930) literally only means an ascent. The verb (# 5927) is spelled the same way, it is defined as to go up, or ascend, and it was used in that manner in a broad number of contexts. While Gesenius in his lexicon had included the phrase "whole burnt offering" in his definition of the noun, he also included "ascent". However the root meaning of the word has nothing to do with fire, altars, or sacrifices. The definition of the noun in our lexicons is only from the frequent use of it in that context in Scripture, but it is not the true meaning of the word. It is only defined as "whole burnt offering" because the smoke from such an offering ascends. The word literally means ascent, and that is all it means. [1] In a non-literal sense, I suppose that it may be translated as “whole burnt offering” only if the context itself makes that indication with certainty, and here it does not. In reality, Jephthah only stated that he would “offer up” whoever, not whatever, came out of his doors to meet him. The first example of the use and meaning of this word is in Genesis chapter 2, where we read “there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” There are many other such examples of the meaning of this word in Scripture, so the word certainly does not mean “burnt offering”.

Next, Jephthah’s prayer is answered: “32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.”

But now he would regret his vow, although he kept his word, which is a further display of his piety and his fear of God: “34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.”

Where the daughter’s response is recorded, she is proven to have been at least as pious as her father: “36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.” Then where she continued to respond, it is apparent that even if the text does not describe where Jephthah had conveyed the details of his oath to his daughter, he must have done so: “37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.”

Here it is apparent, that if Jephthah had been obliged to actually kill his daughter in an act of human sacrifice, in a whole burnt offering, and if she had any thought that he would kill her, he certainly would not have trusted her to go wandering off into the mountains for two months, and it is quite likely that she would not have returned if he had allowed her. Furthermore, it is evident that over these three hundred years since Manasseh occupied this land, they must have developed a high-trust, orderly society, and therefore they must have been a generally pious people. A maiden and her companions would not survive unmolested if they wandered the hillsides alone in a lawless pagan society or a society which was in rebellion to God. Such a thing would only have been possible in a Christian society in which everyone feared God.

Now in the conclusion of the chapter, the daughter returns: “39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.”

Here we must note that Jephthah’s daughter never sought to lament her life, but only her virginity. So the sacrifice in her father’s oath must be related to her virginity. If she were going to die, it would be unlikely that Jephthah would have so easily allowed her to go off into the mountains for two months with her friends, and still expect her to ever return. And when she returned it does not say anything about her being slaughtered in sacrifice, but only that “she knew no man.” So she had actually lamented the fact that on account of the oath of her father, she would remain in her virginity. Here is one example where the concise nature of the Scriptures and the lack of understanding of the complete cultural context in which these events had occurred cause a division of opinions among both Christians and non-Christians which are difficult to reconcile.

It is highly unlikely from the language here that Jephthah’s daughter was to be put to death. It is much more likely that she was dedicated to the service of Yahweh for the community, the Levites and the Tabernacle, and therefore she would have never married, and would have been expected to remain in perpetual virginity. So “she knew no man” after she returned from her lamentation over her virginity.

Among the ancient pagan nations, this practice was common, as it is manifest in the Greek Pythia, the virgin priestess of Apollo, or in the Roman Vestal Virgins. There are interesting parallels to this story in Greek literature, especially involving the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon before the siege of Troy. Early Greek writers sought to revise the story by claiming that Iphigenia was snatched away at the last minute, and replaced with a stag, so that she could serve the virgin goddess Athena as a perpetual virgin in one of her temples, a later tale which also parallels the sacrifice of Isaac. In any event, Paul of Tarsus in his epistle to the Hebrews had accounted Jephthah as a man of faith who predicated his actions on his faith, and certainly not as a child-killer, and the daughter must have been raised in that faith, since she certainly seems to have had at least as much faith as her father. Perhaps Jephthah wasn’t a bramble after all.

Like the later Greeks and Romans, earlier Mesopotamian cultures often dedicated people to the service of temples. In an inscription which belonged to the reign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who ruled for twenty six years from about 556 BC, in a description of his rise to power we read that:

I am (also) a caretaker who brings large gifts to the great gods. In the month of Nisanu, the 10th day, when Marduk, the king of the gods, as well as (all) the (other) gods from the upper and the nether world were seated in the … the chapel of the offerings, the … chapel of the "Lord of Justice," I brought in for them 100 talents (and) 21 minas of silver (corresponding in value to) 5 talents and 17 minas of gold, in (addition) to the annual … offerings which (come) from tokens of homage," from the excessive abundance of the (flat) lands, the rich yield of the mountain regions, the incoming taxes of all inhabited regions, (from) tokens of esteem (given) by kings, (from) the vast treasures which the prince Marduk has entrusted to me, (all) as perpetual (and) voluntary gurru-offerings for Bel, Nebo and Nergal, the great gods who love my rule and watch over my life. To Nebo and Nergal, my divine helpers, I (also) dedicated as temple slaves 2,850 men of the prisoners from the country Hume to carry the (earth) baskets (because) Marduk, my lord, has given more (prisoners) into my hands than to (any of) my royal predecessors. [2]

The devotion of slaves to temples was common in antiquity, and often the slaves were even used as prostitutes to raise money for the temples, but often they were employed in other enterprises, even in agriculture or husbandry. So in a much earlier Akkadian proverb, we read:

‘The household which a slave girl rules, she disrupts.’

Do not marry a prostitute, whose husbands are legion,

An ishtaritu-woman who is dedicated to a god,

A kulmashitu-woman whose … is much.

When you have trouble, she will not support you,

When you have a dispute she will be a mocker.

There is no reverence or submissiveness in her.

Even if she is powerful in the household, get rid of her,

For she pricks up her ears for the footsteps of another man.

There is a variant translation of those last two lines, which seems better:

Whatever household she enters (as wife) will be scattered and the one who marries her will not be stable. [3]

In that inscription, not all of the words used to describe such a woman are understood, so they were only transliterated. The word ishtaritu certainly seems related to the idol Ishtar. However there certainly is enough to see that in the ancient world, women were also dedicated to temples, and served as prostitutes. So were young boys, however we do not have to demonstrate that here.

Later in Scripture, there is a word נתינים or nethinim (# 5411) which evidently describes a temple slave, but which was not translated in the King James Version, where it is Nethinims instead. The word is derived from a verb which primarily means to give (# 5414), but which had a wide range of applications. These nethinim were evidently not ordained in the law, but there are over a dozen late references to them, the earliest being in 1 Chronicles chapter 9, where we read: “2 Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims.” While the word may have had another meaning, it seems that this one is accurate, because the nethinims are associated with Solomon’s servants in Ezra chapter 2 where we read that “58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants [slaves], were three hundred ninety and two.” There are about fifteen other mentions of nethinim, all in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra. This nevertheless indicates that the Israelites had temple slaves, who were employed in some capacity within the temple but certainly not as prostitutes, and it is very likely that the daughter of Jephthah had also served the Levites in this manner, having been dedicated by her father to Yahweh God Himself. In that manner “she knew no man”, as it was professed in verse 39, but she was never a “whole burnt offering”.

Footnotes

1 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, pp. 630-631.

2 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, pp. 308-311.

3 ibid., p. 595.

The foreskins of the Philistines, 1 Samuel 18:25-27

This subject came up in a Christogenea Chat discussion some months ago. Many critics of Christian Identity, and especially among the pagans, criticize this incident as being and indication that David and Saul were “Jewish”, but the truth is quite the opposite. Actually, Saul's having told David to go get a hundred foreskins from the Philistines in order to have his daughter’s hand in marriage, and David’s willingness to do it, is a very European tradition, and it exhibits a degree of bravery and chivalry on David’s part which is far beyond that which any Jew has ever displayed.

In 1 Samuel chapter 18, Saul had wanted to give his daughter to David as a wife, but not for honest purposes. Rather, because he was an insecure man who had felt threatened by David, he hoped to offer his daughter on terms by which he believed that David would be killed.

So we read: “17 And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD'S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. 18 And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? 19 But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife. 20 And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain. 22 And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law. 23 And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed? 24 And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David.”

Hearing this, Saul did not speak to David himself, but once again sent his servants: “25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired. [The last clause of that verse seems out-of-place in any translation, and is not found in the Septuagint.] 27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”

As it is explained in subsequent verses, on account of this Saul had become even more afraid of David, as his plan failed and David’s reputation was further augmented. He had already slain Goliath, which merited him the attention of Saul in the first place.

The Philistines were the most threatening enemy of Israel at the time, and David not only brought back the hundred foreskins which Saul had demanded, but two hundred, which displayed his eagerness to both please the king and to serve the people of the kingdom. If Saul were a Jew, he would have wanted shekels from the Philistines rather than foreskins. Or if Saul were a Jew, he would have wanted to go with David so that he could play the role of the mohel (the rabbi who sucks the blood from the penises of the circumcised). If David were a Jew, perhaps he would have brought back fifty foreskins and cut each of them in half so they would appear to be a hundred. If David were a Jew, perhaps he would have went into the land of the Philistines as a physician rather than as a warrior, whereby he could deceive those fifty Philistines out of their foreskins. Or perhaps David could have started a bank, gotten the Philistines into debt, and let them off the hook in exchange for their foreskins. The fact is that neither of them were Jews, and although Saul was dishonest, there were no particularly Jewish perversions in his motives.

In medieval times, men had often vied for the hand of a princess on the field, jousting and in other martial competitions, or they won the hand of a princess on the field of battle, through heroic deeds which had been performed on behalf of the kingdom. This is also how titles of nobility had been earned. Only a man with proven ability and prowess could become a knight, and maybe work his way up in the ranks of nobility. That is exactly what David did for the hand of Michal, to marry the king's daughter. Now today, faggots sing pretty songs and they are knighted by some Jew pretending to be a king, or a queen.

David could not have deceived Saul by taking foreskins from among the Israelites, since they were all already circumcised and there were no foreskins to be found. Saul could not have expected him to bring back the heads of his enemies, since conveying a wagon-load of skulls would have been burdensome while conducting an operation in enemy territory. A finger, a hand or a foot could have come from any man, or multiple fingers from the same man, and not necessarily from a Philistine. So the insistence on foreskins would have kept David honest, if he had ever had any thoughts of dishonesty. The Philistines were the most threatening enemy in the time of Saul, David went out and killed a hundred of them, and then a hundred more than what was required of him, and he brought their foreskins back as proof. That is a heroic deed which would have elevated a man to knighthood in medieval Europe. That is an exhibition of a noble Aryan character, which no Jew could ever possess.

Linen in Biblical Times

Now I am compelled to speak briefly on a very different subject, which is linen. The motivation for this is a recent discussion in the Christogenea chat, and also because I have heard it in the past, from people whom I call “old school” Identity Christians. I use that term as a polite euphemism for older followers of Wesley Swift, Sheldon Emry and other Christian Identity teachers or pastors of the past, who were often quite fascinated with mysteries and other enigmas which I generally perceive as being exotic, in a theological sense.

In the Gospel accounts, the body of Christ was wrapped in linen before it was set into the tomb. But earlier, the young man in the garden of Gethsemane had a linen cloth, and even earlier, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was described as having been “clothed in purple and fine linen”, in Luke chapter 16. There it is evident that linen was expensive, and therefore it was dear. That is also indicated throughout the Old Testament. While it was indeed employed in making the garments of the priests, other than that it was generally a luxury. So, for example, in Genesis chapter 41 we read where the pharaoh had elevated Joseph that “42 … Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck…” Later, in the closing verses of 1 Kings chapter 10, linen was included along with silver and other precious commodities as symbols of the wealth of Solomon. In the books of the prophets, the messengers of Yahweh are often portrayed as wearing linen.

In the Book of Revelation, linen is described as the material in the garments of the angels, of the resurrected, and of those in the company of the triumphant Christ. Perhaps it is for that reason that many of the Identity Christians which I have described here imagine that it has some sort of special, spiritual qualities, and even mystical or magical properties. But that is not true, and there is no real basis for that in either reality or in Scripture. People who judge Scripture based on feelings may get their feelings hurt, but that does not give linen magical properties. It is the approach to Scripture more than anything else which may separate Christogenea from at least many of the Christian Identity ministries of the past.

At the website of a company named Hawthorne, a British clothing manufacturer, is an informative page titled A Beginners Guide to Fabric Types. On this page, thirty-five fabric types from which clothing is typically made are pictured and described. Among them are felt, flannel, poplin, tweed, corduroy, and others. When all of these descriptions are read, it is evident that nearly all fabric which is useful for clothing is made from one or more of what are essentially only a few materials: linen, cotton, silk, animal skins or the fur or hair of animals, such as wool, or some synthetic material recently invented in modern times, such as nylon, rayon or polyester. Many of the fabrics are made from combinations of these in the weaving process, which is generally contrary to Biblical law, although Biblical law does not consider the synthetic materials. Although it is not used by the British, and it has become politically unacceptable to grow for commercial purposes throughout the nations of the West, to this list we may add hemp, and in the medieval period through the 19th century, hemp was a popular fiber used in the manufacture of textiles for clothing.

Of these materials, in the ancient Near East it is evident that leather was used for certain clothing, or especially for the protective gear of soldiers, and the hair of goats and the wool of sheep were frequently used for clothing. For example, in Numbers chapter 31 we read in an account where the men of Israel were compelled to cleanse themselves and their belongings, in part: “19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. 20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood. 21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses”.

In Revelation chapter 6 it is evident that sackcloth, a material often used for clothing especially while repenting or mourning, was made of hair. So in addition to their raiment, which may have been made from wool or from linen, they had evidently worn things made from leather and goat’s hair. The use of camel hair as a fabric is also mentioned in Scripture, in Matthew chapter 3 and Mark chapter 1, where John the Baptist was described as having worn garments of that material. The use of wool as a fabric for clothing is also evident in Scripture, for example in Ezekiel chapter 34 where the Word of Yahweh chastises the shepherds of the people and says in part: “3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.”

At a website called Fibershed there is an article titled Native Plants for Textiles: 3 Bast Fibers to Know Beyond Hemp and Flax, however none of the alternatives to Hemp and Flax are native in the Near East, which are dogbane, nettle and milkweed, although another variety of nettle is native to east Asia. Hemp was originally native only to Eurasia, or eastern Europe, and Asia. Cotton was only native to the Americas. Therefore the flax plant from which comes linen was the only plant fiber which was available in the world of the Bible, and especially in any reliable and sustainable quantities. For that reason alone, flax and the resulting linen were very popular, because they were available in the world of the Bible, although they were apparently much more expensive than animal hair or wool, on account of the labor involved in production. The flax was grown, uprooted, left in the fields to dry, during which it fades to its traditional light color, boiled and washed, dried and then spun into yarn, and woven into cloth.

I will include two videos which demonstrate the process of making linen from flax: How Flax is transformed into Linen Fabric, and Flax to linen: from sowing to sewing. The first video shows how the process works using modern equipment, and the second using old-fashioned, or at least, more antiquated equipment such as may have been used in the 19th century.

So linen is not coveted in Scripture for any magical or mystical qualities, but rather, because in ancient times people did not have a lot of choices. There was no cotton and no hemp, but only flax. Clothing made from wool or from the hair of goats or camels is rough and itchy, or scratchy, and the lower the quality, the itchier it is, as we may learn from a website called Woolroom. Clothing made from leather would be difficult to wear in the heat of the ancient Near East. Therefore, since it is apparent that there were only two choices for fabric in the Biblical world: either linen, or clothing made from animal hair such as camel hair, goat hair or sheep's wool.

But while linen made from flax provided much more luxuriant clothing than animal hair or wool, it was also much more expensive. So in the Biblical language of the Revelation, it was the ideal fabric for clothing, and the privilege of wearing it is representative of the heavenly rewards which shall be reaped by the saints of Yahweh God. Some of our listeners will think that this interpretation is overly pragmatic, and that there must be something more than that, but there is not. This interpretation is fully in line with the economy of the Biblical world, as well as the alternative materials which were available at the time, so it is both Biblically and historically accurate. We do not have to invent things to enrich Scripture, the Word of Yahweh is rich enough, and sufficiently interesting without the devices of men.

The Ethiopian Eunuch

Now I want to say a few words about another very poorly understood subject, which is the Ethiopian Eunuch. This is a subject hotly debated between Identity Christians and denominational Christians, and the denominational Christians continually insist that the so-called Ethiopian Eunuch was some sort of negro, which is certainly not true.

The account of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch by the apostle Philip is found in the final passages of Acts chapter 8. There, we read, beginning from verse 26: “26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.”

Egypt was under the control of the Macedonian Greeks, and a large population of Greeks had come to dwell in Egypt during the Hellenistic period which followed the time of Alexander, and until the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the subsequent suicides of Antony and Cleopatra, the Macedonian queen of Egypt, when it fell into the hands of the Romans. The queen of Ethiopia was called Candace, or Κανδάκη in Greek, which was a title for many women who held the office, and there are ten of them who are known in history who had ruled between 260 BC and 320 AD. At least one of them herself had made war with the Romans. [1]

The eunuch was not necessarily a literal eunuch, as there are many examples in history that the ancient title had, in later times, continued to be used to describe court officers, who were no longer literal eunuchs. Neither did the eunuch necessarily work in Meroë, the capital of the Kingdom of Kush located on the east bank of the Nile River in modern Sudan. It is plausible that the Ethiopian Eunuch represented the queen in the port cities of Gaza, or perhaps in Egypt. But Gaza is said to have been named from a Persian word for treasury, so perhaps there is also a historic connection there, that we have not yet been able to discover with certainty.

Here we read that the eunuch had been to Jerusalem to worship. It is highly unlikely that a native Ethiopian would have done such a thing, since they would not even have been permitted to enter into the temple. During the period of the New Testament, there were warning signs posted around the perimeter of the temple in Jerusalem, threatening death to anyone who was not a Judaean and who dared to enter. All or part of at least such two inscriptions have been found, which stated in Greek that “No foreigner may enter within the railing and enclosure that surround the Temple. Anyone apprehended shall have himself to blame for his consequent death!” (There is a copy of an article explaining this temple warning posted at Christogenea.org.) Later in Scripture, Paul of Tarsus had been falsely charged by the Judaeans with having brought a Greek into the temple, Trophimus the Ephesian, in Acts chapter 21.

But having been found reading Isaiah, as well as having gone to Jerusalem to worship, it is far more likely that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a Judaean, and that he was fluent in Greek or perhaps even in Hebrew. So when Philip found him, we read: “29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”

It is not that the eunuch did not understand the language of the Scripture, since he was clearly reading it. But he did not understand the meaning of the prophecy, so he needed a more learned guide, which is a circumstance that we all still experience today. So continuing, we read that “32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

The words are indeed a prophesy of Christ. But in the context where they appear in Isaiah, it is stated rather explicitly that the suffering which Christ had undergone was meant specifically for the children of Israel. So in the verses which immediately precede the one which the eunuch had read, we read: “4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” These words were uttered on behalf of the children of Israel in captivity, and neither the eunuch, nor Philip, nor Yahweh God Himself would change the meaning of the words of Isaiah.

However the signal proof that the eunuch was a Judaean in the employ of the Ethiopians is this: that the apostle Peter was the first to convert non-Judaeans to Christ, as Peter himself had attested, in Acts chapters 10 and 11.

But first, in Acts chapter 9 Luke had changed the narrative and turned his attention to Paul of Tarsus, who had been left watching the garments of the men who stoned the martyr Stephen at the end of chapter 7. So Paul’s persecution of Christians and his Road to Damascus event are recorded, and after some time Paul had begun preaching the Gospel in Damascus, where he had formerly persecuted the Christians. When “after many days” the Jews had sought to kill him, he escaped and went to Jerusalem, and joined himself to the apostles there, although at first they were reluctant to have him, knowing his former history.

In Jerusalem, Paul eventually gained the trust of the apostles, and also preached with them in Galilee and Samaria, until certain Hellenists among the Judaeans wanted to slay him (Acts 9:29), and the apostles sent him off to Tarsus. From there it is recorded that Peter had “passed throughout all quarters”, went to Lydda where he had spent some days, and then went to nearby Joppa where he had stayed with Simon the Tanner up to the time when he had seen the vision of the sheet, in Acts chapter 10, and went to the house of Cornelius to convert him and his Roman household to Christ. So all of these events, which must have taken quite some time to fulfill, must have all happened long after the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch by Philip.

While Philip is not mentioned by name after the conversion of the eunuch in Acts chapter 8, in this regard in Acts chapter 9 we read that when the apostles were skeptical of Paul, “27 … Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.” It is very likely that Philip was among these apostles who are otherwise unnamed, as was Peter who was named.

If Peter preached the gospel to Romans in Acts chapter 10, and he was criticized for it in Acts 11:2-3 where he had to defend himself, and if he was the first to do such a thing among the apostles, as he himself had professed before all the other apostles in Acts 15:7, then how is the "Ethiopian Eunuch" not a Judaean? The term "Ethiopian Eunuch" describes a government appointment, an office, and it is not an indicator of race. There were many “Roman soldiers” in Judaea, whom Roman history informs us had been Gauls, Iberians, Germans, or British conscripts from Roman-controlled provinces elsewhere in the Empire, but they were not necessarily Romans.

After Peter converted the household of Cornelius the Roman in Acts chapter 10, which he had only done reluctantly, having seen the vision of the sheet three times, he reported it to the other apostles, and we read in Acts chapter 11: “1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” If the Ethiopian Eunuch was a “Gentile”, the apostles would have also taken issue with Philip, but Luke made no such record, so there must have been no such contention. Later in Acts chapter 11, after Peter had fully related his experience in defense of his actions, we read: “15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

Of course, Paul of Tarsus would later identify those so-called “Gentiles” for whom the Gospel had come as the nations of the scattered “lost sheep” of the house of Israel, as it is also found in the prophets. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The word “Gentile” itself is problematic, since in Latin the word gentilis described someone of the same clan or race, and not someone of a different clan or race.

Much later, as the apostles gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the contention over circumcision and other rituals in relation to the uncircumcised being converted to Christ, in Acts chapter 15 we read: “7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Later in the chapter, the apostle James referred to the experience of Peter at the household of Cornelius where he said: “14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.”

So the process of converting the “Gentiles”, or properly, the Nations, to the Gospel of Christ began with Peter, and not with Philip, and anyone who insists that the Ethiopian Eunuch was an Ethiopian, a negro rather than a Judaean, not only denies the obvious context within the account of the eunuch, but also considers Peter, and James, to have been liars. It cannot be asserted, that the eunuch could have been a "gentile" and an Ethiopian without accusing Peter of having lied. Peter

Footnotes

1 Kandake, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandake, accessed June 21st, 2024.