- Christogenea Internet Radio
This week, YouTube has abruptly deleted the channels of the League of the South, Dennis Wise – who had at least four different channels, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent, Rosette Delacroix, and many others who we would consider to be a part of what we may call the hard right. They even deleted some channels operated by people and organizations who we may think are actually rather innocuous and centrist mainstream Christians. As of this writing, the Christogenea and William Finck channels on YouTube have not been canceled, only because I generally do not publish any of my content there. However the accounts of several others who had published a significant amount of material from Christogenea have also been canceled.
Hard right thought, which is to us pure Christian Nationalist thought, tempers centrists and those marginal Christians who are willing to compromise with evil by reminding them continually of what is sin, and that alone helps to keep them from drifting even further to the left. Hard right thought helps to keep the perceived political center from sliding off into Sodom and Gomorrah. When such thought is removed from public view, when it is barred from public forums, especially because it is labeled as so-called “hate speech”, then the centrists and the compromisers feel more comfortable in tolerating the sins of the devil for the sake of their own peace and comfort. The devil knows what he is doing. Now a relatively small handful of internet media companies have become so big that they are the de facto public forums of the modern world. But because they are privately owned, they reserve a right to determine what is acceptable on their property. So they are slowly shutting all expression of traditional Christian thought and morality out of public view.
Imagine the local farmer with a large farm down the road who allows anyone that passes by to take a shortcut through his field in order to save a large portion of the distance off an otherwise long walk into town. But the farmer won't let the local faggot pass through his field, because like most good Christian farmers, he hates faggots. The faggot may not like it, but the farmer has the right to decide how his personal property is used. So he is not compelled to let the faggot onto his personal property, and traditionally, our laws do not compel him because our laws respect private property rights.
But while YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are all private property, owned by shareholders, they and a few other large companies are now so popular and so big that they have become the new public forum, or public square, in this so-called information age. When the roads all wash away and the farmer's field becomes the only way to get to town for a large portion of the population, that is why we have the concept of eminent domain in our law. So there is a possibility of relief, that since some private internet properties are so big that they have monopolized the roads connecting the so-called information highway, therefore they should also be susceptible to interpretations of the law of public domain. But that will only happen if and when politicians are courageous enough to employ such an avenue. However, since these companies are so big that the politicians themselves are at their mercy, there is virtually no chance of that ever happening.
Of course, today the faggots, the so-called LGBTQ community, would freely and openly use Facebook and YouTube to rally the troops in order to demonize the poor Christian farmer who wouldn’t allow sodomites to romp around in his field, and as a result he would probably lose his sales contracts with any large companies to which he sells his produce. That would all be acceptable to the lords of commerce. It is not an accident, that the concept of Mystery Babylon as it is described in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is directly linked to the phenomenon of global trade. But this is what Christians must face if they are to be found worthy of their God.
I really never posted much of anything on YouTube, and I do not care to post much there. The recent purges have shown me that I made the right decision by not wasting my time, resources and bandwidth posting content there. If I had posted there, I am certain I would have been deleted a long time ago. Eventually, the left will begin pressuring Bitchute, Gab and other alternative platform providers, and they will pressure any company they can to shut Christians out of the public discourse.
So at the Christogenea YouTube channel, there are only a handful of videos, perhaps ten, and most of them are short. The channel only has 190 subscribers, which is certainly a reflection of what little I bother to post there. I also have a YouTube channel under my own name, but that one has only two videos posted to it, both of which are older podcasts, and it only has 106 subscribers. Maybe when I get some time, I will find some of the more innocuous material on my site and post it there, just to maintain a small presence, regardless of the poor exposure.
But YouTube is a private company with its own private resources, and unless the public domain aspect of law becomes an issue on the Internet, it has a right to dictate what it wants or does not want to see on its private servers. Even if it opens its storage capacity and its bandwidth to the public, it is still their own choice as to how those assets are used. If we on the hard right want others to respect our property rights, we must respect theirs even when it is to our personal disadvantage.
This only exemplifies the fact that Christian Nationalists must use their own resources to get their message to the public. This should underscore the importance of my own effort to host all of my own writings, media and resources, as well as the works of other like-minded individuals, without relying on 3rd-party media companies. That has been my philosophy since the day that I started Christogenea.
But it also comes at great cost, since my monthly internet hosting expenses are nearing $1200, not counting what I must spend to stay connected at home. By this time next year, I will have outgrown the two servers I use to host Christogenea, and upgrades will be required that will further increase expenses. My internet expenses exceed my household expenses, unless I factor in beer. (Okay, that is a joke.) For that $1200 I also host nearly 30 other Christian Identity or Nationalist websites, two-thirds of which I do not own, without charging any of the people I host those sites for as most of them probably could not afford it anyway. Of course, some of them cover their expenses voluntarily through contributions.
I also spend at least one entire day each week, and sometimes two days, doing the technical work necessary to keep my websites and servers up-to-date, preventing them from being DDOS'd or hacked, or building new websites and services. Even with that, there is no guarantee that we won’t have calamity tomorrow. So this is also just a kindly reminder, that Christogenea needs financial support if it is going to continue, and there is a lot more effort and expense behind it than what is required to produce a couple of podcasts or articles each week.
There is a video of a 2016 National Action speech posted at Christogenea’s Saxon Messenger website. The day before Hurricane Michael, I received a threatening email from British police attempting to intimidate me into removing it. The email and a description of my response is now published along with the video. Now just this week I have received a similar email from British authorities, demanding that I remove a copy of the video of the Brenton Tarrant shooting in New Zealand that is posted at our media site. That video is only semi-public. It can only be easily found if someone knows precisely how to get to it. It is posted so that parties interested in the matter can determine for themselves the legitimacy of the action, in the face of Internet rumors and theories questioning whether it was authentic. This is America, and thus far I still have a right to maintain and share information for documentary purposes, and to openly inquire as to the truth of that information. The British are the perfect example of a self-destructing nation that insists on committing suicide while making certain that no single Brit can possibly resist the insanity. I will publish this latest email threat soon. I would not doubt that the British continue to harass me and even attempt to take action against me, but fortunately I am not under British law. As I said in my first response to them, some of my ancestors helped kick their asses out of these colonies for very similar reasons, and I would be willing to help do it again.
For these same reasons, when I presented Part 20 of this series On the Gospel of John, which was subtitled For Fear of the Jews, I could not help but compare the challenges which Christ and the apostles had faced in the political climate of first-century Judaea to the emerging political climate which we face today, where all perceivably acceptable thought and speech were controlled and had to be approved of by a peculiar group of individuals who had appropriated for themselves the position of high priests, for which reason good Christians were afraid to walk in Judaea, “for fear of the Jews”. For that same reason, once Paul of Tarsus realized the truth of Christianity, he described that same peculiar group of individuals, in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, as “the man of lawlessness… the son of destruction… who is opposing and exalting himself above everything said to be a god or an object of worship, and so he is seated in the temple of Yahweh, representing himself that he is a god.” This same thing the Jews are doing once again today, where being seated in all of the temples of power they imagine for themselves to be god, attempting to dictate and impose their own corrupt morality on the rest of us. Their day is coming, as it says in Isaiah chapter 5, “20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!”
So with that we shall now present
On the Gospel of John, Part 23: The Devil has Children
In our last presentation On the Gospel of John, Part 22, which was subtitled Best Witness, we explained that Yahshua could not appeal to the witness of men to prove that He was indeed the Messiah, so He only appealed to the best witness, which is God Himself, the testimony of whom was manifest by the great works which He did. On this basis His claims were proven, but His enemies nevertheless refused to acknowledge such proof. Here in this last portion of John we shall find out why they refused, which is because they themselves were truly the children of the devil. The devil has children, and some of them are among us to this very day, and they act in the very same manner that they once had acted towards Christ Himself, having the same attitudes that their ancestors and forebears had two thousand years ago.
As we have shown in our commentary on the so-called pericope of the woman caught in adultery, which is a spurious interpolation that does not belong in Scripture, it is still the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles upon which Yahshua Christ had begun teaching in the temple, as John started to describe the events of that day in chapter 7 where we read “37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” So discussing John chapter 8, which continues to describe the events of that same day, we left off where Christ had addressed those of the Judaeans who did believe Him, and He told them that “If you abide in My Word, truly you are My students, 32 and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” With this His adversaries were all the more offended, because it triggered a response wherein they thought that they had to defend themselves, and John described their defense:
33 They replied to Him: “We are offspring of Abraham, and to no one have we been in bondage ever yet! How [P66 has “And how”] do you say that we shall be made free?”
It is evident in Scripture, that in the ancient Hebrew Weltanschauung, or worldview, one has suffered equally the experiences of one’s ancestors, whether near or remote. So for example, we read in Deuteronomy, after all of the children of Israel who were actually in Egypt had died off after forty years of wandering in the desert, “19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” In Isaiah chapter 61, we read a Messianic prophecy to be fulfilled in Christ 700 years later, where He Himself, citing that passage, had proclaimed that He came “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”. In the context of Isaiah, that refers to the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity, and they are still “captives” long after Assyria itself was destroyed. Another example, a third, Paul makes an analogy of Levi in Hebrews chapter 7: “9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” So just as the Levites, in the loins of Abraham, had paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham, all Israel were captives in Egypt, being in the loins of their fathers in the Exodus.
Again, in Joshua chapter 24, speaking to the same Israelites who were not in Egypt themselves, but through their fathers, we read “7 And when they cried unto the LORD, he put darkness between you and the Egyptians, and brought the sea upon them, and covered them; and your eyes have seen what I have done in Egypt: and ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season.” It was not necessarily they themselves who saw anything in Egypt, but they were in the loins of their fathers, and therefore the experience of their fathers was also reckoned as their experience.
So with that understanding, it is seen that no Israelite could have claimed never to have been in bondage to any man, yet these adversaries of Christ, standing in the temple, make that very claim. Some Christian Identity commentators assert that this alone proves that these adversaries were Edomites, and we are inclined to agree, even though at least many of the Edomites had also been in bondage, to Israel from the time of David, as we read in 1 Chronicles chapter 18: “12 Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah slew of the Edomites in the valley of salt eighteen thousand. 13 And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David's servants. Thus the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.”
This is a digression: this account first appears in 2 Samuel chapter 8, where in verse 13 the text of the King James Version confuses Syrians for Edomites, just as we would also assert that Edomites are confused for Syrians in Deuteronomy 23:7. Verse 14 of 2 Samuel 8 is correct where it speaks of David and says “14 And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.” Verse 14, along with 1 Chronicles 18, shows that the word for Syrians in 2 Samuel 8:13 should have been read as Edomites, as the words Edomite (אדמי) and Syrian or properly, Aramean (ארמי), are practically indistinguishable in Hebrew script, the letters for ‘d’ and ‘r’ being nearly the same.
Then as the Edomites were in bondage to Israel from the time of David, much later we read in 2 Kings chapter 8: “16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.” Then a little later in that chapter, speaking of that same Jehoram: “20 In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves.” This account was repeated in 2 Chronicles chapter 21. At this time, the Edomites were in bondage to Israel for at least as many as 160 years, from the time of David to the time of Jehoram. Later, they were in bondage as tributaries to the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians. Of course, the adversaries of Christ who were speaking these things were subjected by Rome, where the Romans themselves considered all men as being in bondage to Caesar.
In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 3, we see the following exchange between Casca and Cassius:
Casca: Indeed, they say the senators tomorrow mean to establish Caesar as a king, and he shall wear his crown by sea and land in every place save here in Italy.
Cassius: I know where I will wear this dagger then. Cassius from bondage will deliver Cassius…
In other words, Cassius is saying that he would kill himself before submitting as a slave to Caesar. This same attitude was reflected by many of the historians of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods. They understood that if one man were king or emperor, all men under his rule were in bondage to him. Under the Roman emperors, the Romans themselves professed the understanding that the emperor was the only man who was truly free. Julius Caesar brought an end to the Roman Republic, wherein all Romans imagined themselves as being free, as governing themselves under a rule of law. According to the 2nd century historian Plutarch, after the assassination of Julius Caesar, thereby preventing one man from ruling all of Rome, Brutus had proclaimed “People of Rome, we are once again free!”
Writing of the actions of Octavian, who later became Augustus Caesar, in the aftermath of Julius Caesar’s assassination, Tacitus wrote the following in his Annals of Imperial Rome, Book 1, Chapter 2:
2 1When the killing of Brutus and Cassius had disarmed the Republic; when Pompey had been crushed in Sicily, and, with Lepidus thrown aside and Antony slain, even the Julian party was leaderless but for the Caesar; after laying down his triumviral title and proclaiming himself a simple consul content with tribunician authority to safeguard the commons, he first conciliated the army by gratuities, the populace by cheapened corn, the world by the amenities of peace, then step by step began to make his ascent and to unite in his own person the functions of the senate, the magistracy, and the legislature. Opposition there was none: the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription-lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and adventure. Nor was the state of affairs unpopular in the provinces, where administration by the Senate and People had been discredited by the feuds of the magnates and the greed of the officials, against which there was but frail protection in a legal system for ever deranged by force, by favouritism, or (in the last resort) by gold.
Where he wrote of the nobility finding “a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office”, he meant that by accepting the ascension of Octavian to the rank and position of emperor, they were all conceding to be his slaves. So these Judaeans, who were also subjects of Rome, nevertheless reflected an attitude contrary to that of the Romans, or of the ancients before them, as they claimed to never have been in bondage to any man regardless of their immediate bondage to Caesar, and regardless of the historical bondage of the Israelites not only in Egypt, but also in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, and later to both Persians and Greeks before the coming of the Romans.
In Nehemiah chapter 5, Nehemiah wrote of the Judaeans who had returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and the city, and upon being appointed their governor, he wrote “15 But the former governors that had been before me were chargeable unto the people, and had taken of them bread and wine, beside forty shekels of silver; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people: but so did not I, because of the fear of God.” Then a little further on in the chapter he said “18… yet for all this required not I the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon this people.” In other words, the people were already in bondage to the Persians and to those whom the Persians had appointed over them, and Nehemiah himself would not burden them any further.
Of the same situation, we read of a time just a few decades later, as it is recorded in Ezra chapter 9: “8 And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. 9 For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem. 7 Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.” Nehemiah had rebuilt that wall for which Ezra was expressing his gratitude, Zerubbabel had rebuilt the temple before him, while Ezra was also professing that they were still in bondage. So the Israelites who returned to Jerusalem to rebuild what would ultimately become the Jerusalem of the time of Christ had professed that they themselves remained in bondage, because they continued to be ruled over by foreign kings. All of the legitimate Judaeans of the time of Christ had ancestors who had been in this bondage of which Nehemiah and Ezra had written.
So here it is evident, that the adversaries of Christ truly defied any authority but their own, whether it was of men or of God. They also essentially denied having any part in the historical experiences of the people of Israel, although they evidently thought nothing of such a denial. So now Christ ignores the folly and fallacy of their claims, and instead He accuses them of being in bondage to sin:
34 Yahshua replied to them [P75 wants “to them”] “Truly, truly I say to you that he causing wrongdoing is a servant of wrongdoing [D wants “of wrongdoing”].
The word sin, as it appears in the King James Version, is more literally translated here as wrongdoing, while in other contexts we might translate it as error, or guilt. This was done in the Christogenea New Testament in order to help demystify the concept of sin. Where, for example, Roman Catholics see sin as some invisible stigma upon one’s soul, as a moral evil having definite metaphysical properties, in reality sin is merely transgression of the law, which is wrongdoing, or error, or guilt for an act of transgression.
In reference to the words of Christ here, Paul of Tarsus later made this very same profession, in reference to those who had departed from paganism and apostasy and had turned to Christ, in chapter 6 of his epistle to the Romans, where we will use the term sin rather than error or guilt: “16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves as bondmen to obey, bondmen you are to whom you obey, truly either of sin for death, or of obedience for righteousness? 17 But feel grateful to Yahweh, that you were bondmen [or servants] of sin, but you obeyed from the heart, into which a form of instruction was transmitted. 18 And having been liberated from sin, you have become bondmen to righteousness.”
The whole world is corrupt. As John wrote later in his first epistle, in 1 John chapter 5, “19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” Being of God is the only way to escape the wickedness, and that is the freedom which Christians shall ultimately have in Christ. So Christ continues to contrast the servant in bondage to sin with the son who is free by the mercy of the Father, and then makes another allegory in reference to Himself:
35 Now a servant does not abide in the house forever. A son [P66, D and 070 have “But a son”] abides forever. [א and W want the clause “A son abides forever.”] 36 Therefore [P75 wants “Therefore”] if the Son shall set you free, you shall [P66 has “are”] certainly be free!
Turning to God in Christ, the children of Israel are set free from the punishment of sin, which is the analogy that Paul had made in Romans chapter 6. This is because their ancestors, and therefore they also, had sold themselves into sin when they forsook the law and were put off into captivity by God. This we read in Isiah chapter 50: “1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” Then again in Isaiah 52, where they are once again referred to as captives: “2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion. 3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.” That redemption, of course, is in Yahshua Christ.
For this same reason, in Galatians chapter 4 Paul described the redemption of those who were once bondmen, or servants of sin, into the position of the “adoption of sons”, as the King James Version has it, or properly, the status of sonship to which an obedient son or daughter may be entitled, where he wrote: “3 Just as we also, when we were infants, we were held subject under the elements of the Society [illustrating the need for the law]. 4 And when the fulfillment of the time had come, Yahweh had dispatched His Son, having been born of a woman, having been subject to law, 5 in order that he would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons.”
No man is his own entity. He can be a slave to the world, or he can be a servant of God. This is because in reality, no man owns himself because no man created himself. Yahweh is the true Caesar, and all men are ultimately owned by Him, however the children of Israel are indeed promised liberty in Christ, if they keep His commandments. So Paul, speaking of those who were slaves to men in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, had written: “22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” Earlier, speaking once again of sin, he wrote in 1 Corinthians chapter 6: “17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [Fornication such as race-mixing destroys the Body of Christ.] 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”
Now Christ makes an admission which certainly does not mean that those who were opposed to Him were actually Israelites:
“37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham, but you seek to kill Me because My Word has no place in you [or perhaps “among you”].
Their claim to be offspring of Abraham is true if they are Israelites, but it is also true if they are Edomites, and it is evident in the history of Judaea over the two centuries before Christ that many of the men in Judaea, and especially those in positions of power, were indeed Edomites, and not Israelites.
As we have documented in many commentaries, such as those on Romans chapter 9 and the prophecy of Malachi, when the Israelites had been removed from Palestine by the Assyrians and Chaldaeans, from over 600 years before the time of Christ, the Edomites had moved into the lands of Israel and Judah. The prophecy found in Ezekiel chapters 35 and 36 explains that this did indeed happen, as it addresses the Edomites and warns them of the desolation to come, “Because thou hast said, These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the LORD was there”, at Ezekiel 35:10. The subsequent historical record clearly shows that after the land was left mostly vacant, the Edomites moved north into Israel and Judah to have it for themselves. But they left Jerusalem in heaps, as Nehemiah had found it when his own commission began around 502 BC. In spite of the claims of the Jews, Nehemiah’s commission ends in 490 BC, but his book relates several accounts which happened after that. The parts of the book of Ezra which describe his own activities in Jerusalem begin around 458 BC, and end some time around 455 BC.
In the subsequent Biblical records, following the return of perhaps 42,000 or so Israelites to Jerusalem when the second temple was built and the city was restored, after the end of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra and a few of the Minor Prophets, there is nothing for over four hundred years, until the opening of the Gospel accounts. Only some of the gaps in the Bible are filled in by apocryphal writings. The Wisdom of Sirach, which was written at the very end of the 3rd century before Christ, informs us that at least some pious Israelites were indeed dwelling in Judaea. Then the book known as 1 Maccabees begins with accounts from about 170 BC and contains a chronicle of the activities of a liberated Jerusalem under the Hasmonean dynasty of high priests down to about 130 BC and the succession to the high priesthood of John Hyrcanus. Another apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, is only a different account of this same period from the viewpoint of a different compiler and editor, most likely using at least mostly the same sources.
During this period, it is evident that the Hasmonean policy was to exterminate the Edomites and Canaanites and drive them out from the cities around Jerusalem, in order to reacquire the land of Judaea and Israel for the Israelite inhabitants of the rebuilt Jerusalem. But where the accounts in the books of the Maccabees end, in order to understand what followed we must resort to the later Judaean historian, Flavius Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities at the end of the first century AD.
Josephus, in Antiquities Book 13, described that under John Hyrcanus, the policy changed, and rather than attempt to exterminate the more-numerous surrounding populations, a program of forced conversion to Judaism was implemented. So at first Hyrcanus forced the conversion of the inhabitants of Dora and Marissa, who were all Edomites. Dora was the Biblical Dor of the Israelite land of Manasseh, formerly a city of the Philistines, and Marissa was the Biblical Mareshah of the land of Judah. A short time after that, Hyrcanus led a military campaign which stretched from Gaza to Galilee, where he forcibly converted the mostly Edomite and Canaanite inhabitants of thirty other towns and districts, where only the inhabitants of Pella refused to accept the religion and rights of Jerusalem which by this time can be known as Judaism. According to Josephus, the sects known as Pharisees and Sadducees also came into being in the years leading up to the time of John Hyrcanus. Josephus then described the continuation of this policy of Hyrcanus in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, who was high priest from about 103 to 76 BC. Never at any time did anyone reverse this policy.
As he gave these accounts, Josephus attested that from this point the Edomites became “none other than Judaeans” (Antiquities, 13:257-258, 13:395-397 et al.). Therefore we can see with certainty the fulfillment of the words of Ezekiel chapter 35, that the Edomites had taken the lands of both Israel and Judah for themselves. In the Greek and Roman records it is also evident that from the Hellenistic period all of the southern portions of the land once known as Judah and Israel were called Idumaea, after the Edomites. Strabo of Cappadocia, the early first century Greek geographer, fully corroborates the accounts of Josephus where he attested that the Idumaeans were “mixed up” with the Judaeans, and that they “shared in the same customs with them” (Book 16).
After 130 BC, Judaea was a multi-ethnic political entity where race no longer mattered, but only religion. The Edomites quickly became entrenched in Judaean politics, to the extent that after the coming of the Romans in 63 BC, the Edomite father of the first Herod was able to have two of his own sons appointed as governors over Jerusalem and Galilee. The first Herod, whom on four occasions Josephus attests to have been an Idumaean by race, was one of these sons, and he eventually usurped power from the Maccabees, bribed the Romans to be made king, achieved complete political control of Judaea by 37 BC, and had all the princes of Jerusalem and the survivors of the Hasmonean dynasty put to death. This last deed included his own wife, who was the daughter of a former high priest, and the sister of the last high priest of the line of Aaron, named Aristobulus III, whom Herod also had killed.
From that time the temple priesthood at Jerusalem was used as a political tool. Both Josephus and the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius admit that many of the priests were not worthy of the distinction under the former Levitical traditions, and here with their testimony the veracity of Malachi’s prophecy concerning the corruption of the priesthood becomes quite clear. Among other things, the prophet Malachi is the prophet of this very interaction between Yahshua Christ and the rulers of Judaea here in the temple at Jerusalem. First, in chapter 2 of his writing, Malachi prophecies that the priests had corrupted the covenant of Levi, which suggests that they let men into the priesthood who were not of Levi. For that Yahweh warns through the prophet them that He would corrupt their seed, and spread dung upon their faces.
Then the prophet declares that the people of Jerusalem would deal treacherously with one another because “an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.” This was a fact about the patriarch himself which Malachi was using to illustrate what would become of Judaea. The patriarch Judah had a Canaanite wife, and the children of the one surviving son which he had with her had dwelt in southern Judah, near the border of ancient Edom. But this is being used as an example of Judaea, the Judah of Malachi’s time, which would marry itself to the Canaanites in the time of the Maccabees. Other elements of this same prophecy of Malachi become manifest as we progress through this discourse between Christ and His adversaries here in John chapter 8.
The preponderant Edomite presence among the population and the usurpation of political control in Jerusalem is the primary reason for all of the division recorded in the New Testament. In Romans 16:20 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, Paul alludes to the temple priesthood and rulers of Judaea as “satan” (which means “the adversary”), and this is also attested to in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Yahshua Christ informs the priests and other leaders in many places that they are the children of the adversary, and that they are not His people, i.e. Luke 11:47-51, here in John chapter 8, and again at John 10:26. In Romans chapter 9, Paul makes a clear distinction between the Israelites of Judaea and the Edomites of Judaea, calling the one “vessels of mercy” and the other “vessels of destruction”. It is further evident from the New Testament that many of the original Israelites of Judaea converted to Christianity during the ensuing years, thereby losing their identity as Judaeans. The Edomites never converted, clinging to their traditions which are later found in the Talmud – which has absolutely no authentic connection to the ancient Hebrew religion. Today these people, and all of their many proselytes and those whom they have intermarried with, are known as Jews.
So now Christ informs them, that even though they are offspring of Abraham, they somehow have a different father than He Himself has:
38 The things which [070 and the MT have “That which”; the text follows P66, P75, א, B, C and W, and D which varies in word order] I have seen from My [P66, P75, B, C and 070 have “the”; the text follows א, D, W and the MT (in my handwritten notes, I meant to follow the first group)] Father [D and W insert “these things”] I speak; so also you, the things which [070 and the MT have “that which”; the text follows P66, P75, א, B, C, D and W] you have heard [P66, א, D, 070 and the MT have “seen”; the text follows P75, B, C and W] from your father you do.”
From verse 33 there are many minor differences among the manuscripts, and several here in verse 38 alone. At the end of this verse, rather than “from your father you do”, the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th and 28th editions, following the 3rd century papyrus P66 and the Codices Vaticanus (B), Washingtonensis (W) and 070, have “from the Father you do”; the 3rd century papyrus P75 has “from the Father you speak”; the Codex Bezae (D) has “with your father, these things you do”; the Majority Text has “with your father, you do”; our translation follows the Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Ephraemi Syri (C). Context is a factor in choosing which manuscripts to follow (i.e. verses 39 and 44), sometimes more than the antiquity and reliability of the manuscripts in other areas. The papyri are the oldest witnesses here, yet in two of the differences in this one verse, they do not agree, showing that neither are they entirely reliable.
In the book of Genesis, Yahweh created an Adamic race, and the first corruption of that race was found in Cain, who was a devil. The text of Genesis 4:1, the only verse which ever suggests that Cain was a son of Adam, is itself corrupt, meaning that the grammar of the Hebrew language of the original is demonstrably corrupt, and therefore it is not a valid witness.
From Clifton Emahiser’s The Problem with Genesis 4:1:
The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘consulting editors’, plus 124 other ‘contributors’, makes the following observation on this verse, vol. 1, page 517:
“Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ – one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis – hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. ‘From the Lord’ (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulgate, of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss ...”
The editors of The Interpreter’s Bible are only guessing as to what the gloss should say, but they nevertheless understood that the text is corrupt. Clifton continues:
Secondly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: “... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word for breath.”
Three years ago I had made an addendum to that paper for Clifton, where I explained that in Origen’s Hexapla, which is an ancient comparison of different translations of Scripture in Greek and Latin with the Hebrew, while the first half of the verse apparently did not survive, there are several different interpretations of the second part of Genesis 4:1 which certainly suggest that Adam was not the father of Cain. There is no second witness that Adam was his natural father, and where there is no second witness, the testimony is not acceptable. But there are many witnesses in Scripture that attest that Adam was not the father of Cain. This exchange in John chapter 8 is one of them.
Yahweh created the Adamic race, but the serpent and the fallen angels were already here in the earth, which is manifest in Revelation chapter 12. Then when Cain was expelled from the presence of God, he went and found a wife elsewhere, and had even built a city. By this, we know that there are people here who are not of Adam, and who are not considered to be the children of God, as Yahweh was not their Father, which Malachi had attested of the wife of Judah, and which Christ shall attest here of His adversaries.
39 They replied and said to Him: “Our father is Abraham!” [P66 and D insert “Then”] Yahshua says to them: “If you are [C, W and the MT have “were”; the text follows P66, P75, א, B, D and 070] children of Abraham, you would have done [P66 and B have “you would do”; the text follows P75, א, D, W, and C which varies slightly] the works of Abraham!
Paul had written in Titus chapter 1 that “15 All things are clean to the clean. But to those defiled and faithless nothing is clean, but even their minds and consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know Yahweh, but in deeds they deny, being abominable and disobedient and rejected for all good works.”
They may have had Abraham as a male ancestor, but if they were bastards, then they were not legitimate children of Abraham. Yahshua informs us here that if they were legitimate children of Abraham, their inherent nature would have been like that of Abraham, and doing the works of Abraham they would have believed Him as Abraham had believed Yahweh. As we read in Galatians chapter 3: “6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” In this same manner Christ continues:
40 But now you seek to kill Me, a man whom has spoken to you the truth which I have heard from Yahweh. This Abraham has not done.
Adam was to have dominion over the world, and the serpent of Genesis engineered his fall from grace. Christ is to judge the world, as in John chapter 5 He had already told His adversaries that He is the Son of the 2nd Psalm, so the Judaeans wanted to kill Him. Just as we had seen in the response of Herod the Great to the news concerning the birth of the Messiah, in Matthew chapter 2, “3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.” Here, Yahshua Christ Himself is experiencing the same thing which He had prophesied for the children of Israel in Isaiah chapter 51: “7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.” The entire chapter describes the state of Jerusalem in the time of Christ.
Now Christ begins to exclaim to them whose works they do, if not those of Abraham:
41 [D inserts “But”] You do the works of your father!”
Now in their answer, they reveal the fact that they knew exactly what He meant:
Then [א, B, W and 070 want “Then”; the text follows P66, P75, C, D and the MT] they said to Him: “We were not born of fornication! We have one father, Yahweh!”
The first thing to note here is the hypocrisy of the Jews, who in chapter 5 wanted to kill Yahshua expressly for the claim which He made, that God was his Father. This is found in John 5:18: “18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
The modern churches attempt to spiritualize this word father, to insist that it means something other than an actual father, which is a perversion of the truth and a dishonest tactic which they had adopted from the ancient Gnostics and Neoplatonists. The reference to fornication in relation to the accusation that God was not their father (verse 38) proves that they knew exactly what Christ had meant: that they descended from someone of another race. Jude explained that fornication was the “going after of strange flesh”, and Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 used the same word to describe the race-mixing event of Numbers chapter 25, where the children of Israel “began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” In Revelation chapter 2, Yahshua Christ attests that He will kill the children of fornication, ostensibly the products of such race-mixing.
The Greek word πορνεία, which is fornication in the New Testament, was frequently used to translate a Hebrew word meaning harlotry or whoredom in the Old Testament, which was used to describe the race-mixing of the children of Israel with those of other races, for which they were punished. Among many other passages in the prophets, this sin is described in Hosea chapter 5: “4 They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not known the LORD. 5 And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them. 6 They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the LORD; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them. 7 They have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions.” Strange children can only be the result of their fornication, or whoredom, and by that we know what the prophet had meant.
Without doubt, Malachi chapter 2 is a precise prophecy of this situtaion in later Judaea and this interchange between Christ and His adversaries. Understanding Malachi and the history of Judaea leading up to the time of Christ, we can also better understand what is transpiring here between Christ and His adversaries. In Malachi chapter 2, first the priests were admonished for corrupting the covenant with Levi, which is described in Deuteronomy chapter 10, and which can only mean that they had admitted into the priesthood men who were not actually Levites.
Then the validity of this interpretation is assured later in that same chapter, in a dialogue where the priests are portrayed as having asked “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” But as the answer is given, it becomes clear that they did not all have one father, and that one God had not created all of them, as the repsonse is that “11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”
Looking back into Genesis, we find that Judah had at first taken a wife of the accursed Canaanites, and the sons of Shelah had always been attached to Judah from that time. His legitimate sons, those of Pharez and Zarah, were only later born of Tamar as she played the harlot and took advantage of Judah’s own incontinency in order to attain what was rightfully hers. But Malachi is using this analogy as an element of his prophecy, because in the centuries to come Judaea would once again do that same thing on a greater scale: the people of Judah bringing the Canaanites and Edomites of Palestine into the citizenship of Jerusalem, attempting to make them partners in the covenants of God. So Paul reminds us in Romans chapter 9 of the prophet’s own profession in Malachi chapter 1: “13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
Race not being a factor, but only religion, these men could claim not to have been children of fornication, but according to the law as it was followed by the apostles of Christ, being mixed with the Edomites and Canaanites they were indeed bastards, and not sons. Later, in chapter 12 of his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul described Esau as a profane man and a fornicator, for which reason he could not find room for repentance. So Christ continues to deny to His adversaries here that God was their Father:
42 [א, D, 070 and the MT insert “Then”] Yahshua said to them: “If Yahweh was your father you would have loved Me, for I have come from of Yahweh and am here. I have not come by Myself, but He has sent Me. 43 For what reason do you not perceive My speech [D has ‘truth’]? Because you are not able to hear My Word!
He Himself referred back to this dispute when He spoke with them again perhaps two months later, where we read in John 10:26 “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” The children of Israel being the sheep of Yahweh’s pasture, as it is attested in the Psalms and the prophets, His adversaries did not believe Him because they were not His sheep in the first place. So in first century Judaea, if they were not Israelites, they must have been Edomites since their claim to be offspring of Abraham was accepted by Christ as being valid.
For this same reason, Paul of Tarsus later wrote in Galatians chapter 3: “15 Brethren, (I speak as befits a man,) even a validated covenant of man no one sets aside, or makes additions to for himself. 16 Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his offspring. It does not say “and to offsprings”, as of many; but as of one: “and to your offspring,” which are anointed. 17 Now this I say, a covenant validated beforehand by Yahweh, the law which arrived after four hundred and thirty years does not invalidate, by which the promise is left idle. 18 For if from law, the inheritance is no longer from promise, but to Abraham through a promise Yahweh has given it freely.”
Here Paul makes an analogy, that the promise was made to Abraham’s offspring, using the singular, but not to all of them; not to offsprings, such as Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, but only to one of them, which was Isaac. To this same thing he again refers in Romans chapter 9 where he compares the sons of Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and informing us who the offspring of the promise are, he says: “6 Not, however, that the word of Yahweh has failed; since not all those who are from Israel are those of Israel: 7 nor because they are offspring of Abraham all children: but, ‘In Isaac will your offspring be called.’ 8 That is to say, the children of the flesh [the other physical children], these are not children of Yahweh, but the children of the promise [which Paul is about to describe] are counted as offspring. 9 Indeed this word of promise: ‘At the appointed time I will come, and there will be a son for Sarah.’ 10 And not only, but Rebekka also had conceived from one, by Isaak our father. 11 Then not yet having been born, nor having performed any good or evil, (that the purpose of Yahweh concerning the chosen endures, not from rituals, but from the calling,) 12 to her it was said, ‘the elder will serve the younger:’ 13 just as it is written, ‘Jakob I love, and Esau I hated.’” So the children of the promise are defined by Paul himself as being the children of Jacob, and the children of the flesh which he refers to here are the other descendants of the offspring of Abraham that are not from Jacob, but from Esau, or Ishmael, or Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, Shuah, Sheba, or Dedan, all the sons of Keturah. This also disproves the contention that Christ Himself is the only “seed” of the promise, and the single “seed” of Galatians chapter 3, which is a blatant lie. Here in Romans chapter 9 Paul says that there are children of the promise counted as the seed, children, plural, which are the children of Jacob as opposed to the others.
Of all these, only Jacob was the heir to the promise, as Isaac himself also said in Genesis chapter 28: “1 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. 2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; 4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.” Both Yahshua Christ and Paul were teaching only what had already transpired and had been promised in the Old Testament. Esau forfeited the inheritance of the promise by taking wives of the daughters of Canaan. Judah did the same thing, but Yahweh had mercy on him for the sake of the promises to his father. However Esau was not granted such mercy, and he was rather used as an example. Esau’s selling of his birthright was a necessity which paved the way for the preservation of legitimate seed so that Yahweh could keep the promises which He had made to both Abraham and Sarah. In the Scriptures, and in the promises of God, children are true genetic pure physical children, and a father is an ancestor of those children, whether near or remote.
Since Yahweh keeps His Own law, and therefore He cannot be the Father of bastards, Yahshua Christ now tells His adversaries who their true father is:
44 You are the sons of a father: the False Accuser [or Devil]! And you wish to do the desires of your father! He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him! When he speaks a lie, he speaks from of his own devices, because he is a liar and the father of it!
If this conversation had transpired today, right about this time, when Christ had told them who their real father was, they would have canceled his Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts.
In verse 44, the phrase the sons is inferred in the Greek of the passage. As the Genitive article is also interpreted in the genealogies of Christ and in many other places in Scripture. In their definition of the definite article, Liddell & Scott in their Intermediate lexicon state at B. II. 1. that “before the genitive of a proper name, to express descent, son or daughter...” giving examples similar to the text here from Luke 3:23-38. In the Supplement to the Moulton-Geden Concordance to the Greek Testament, the Greek word ἐκ is classified by the editor as denoting “Paternal origin” in a series of New Testament passages, including here in John 8:44, and twice in John 8:47.
The phrase ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων is metaphorically “from of his own devices”. Liddell & Scott define ἴδιος to mean “… one's own, pertaining to oneself: and so, private, personal… private affairs, private interests, or one's own property, one's own affairs….”
There is only one “murderer from the beginning”, and that is Cain. So these Judaeans must have somehow been descended from him. In Luke chapter 11, Christ once again told His adversaries that they were the offspring of Cain, since He told them that their race was responsible for the blood of all the prophets beginning with Abel, and only Cain could be held responsible for the blood of Abel.
In chapter 12 of the Revelation, there is a description of a war in heaven, and the devil and his angels were cast out, after which time their place was no longer found in heaven. That devil was described as a “great dragon”, and as “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world”. Later he is also called “the accuser of our brethren”, using a different and more explicit word for accuser than we have here.
Here the word διάβολος is false accuser, and the King James Version usually translates the term as devil. The word is an adjective, basically meaning slanderous. But in the New Testament, the term is usually used as a Substantive, a word or phrase which is not a noun but which in certain grammatical constructs is employed to function as a noun. So it may have been translated as slanderer rather than false accuser. In Revelation chapter 12, the devil is described as “the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.”
Cain may have been the first literal murderer, but Cain was the son of the serpent who seduced Eve, and who by that seduction had sought to destroy the Adamic race as soon as it was established. So in 2 Corinthians chapter 11, Paul contrasted the seduction of Eve to chastity and the jealousy of a husband over a virgin. So Cain did the works of his own father, the serpent, by killing Abel, as these Jews who oppose Christ were also following that same pattern by wanting to kill Him. They were following their own inherent nature, because they were indeed the children of the Devil.
As a friend recently elucidated for us, Esau forfeited his birthright because he was a fornicator, but he nevertheless had to offer it up willingly for Jacob to obtain it legitmately, so he sold it for a mess of pottage. Cain never had a birthright in the first place, and when he tried to claim one, his sacrifice was rejected. Since Cain was not entitled, Seth obtained the birthright not from forfeiture, but by default, because it had originally had belonged to Abel, whom Seth had replaced.
The Devil does indeed have children, as Christ professes here. In the garden of Eden, there were two trees which Yahweh did not plant in the ground. They are the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life. In the Gospel and Revelation of Christ, we learn that He is the tree of life, and the children of the twelve tribes of Israel are the branches and the fruit on that tree. Ostensibly, the Tree of Life is Yahweh and His Adamic race, the only race of men which He has taken credit for having created. While there were other Adamic nations, since the time of Isaac Yahweh had chosen Israel alone as the vessel through which He would execute His purpose in the world.
In the Revelation, it is revealed that the Devil, who is “that old serpent”, and his angels were cast out into the earth, and that they would make war with the woman who represents the children of Israel. That serves to explain the Genesis account of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the other tree that Yahweh did not plant in the ground, and in the end, all of the so-called goat nations, all of the non-Adamic races, have the same fate as the devil and his angels, in the lake of fire. The Devil has children, and these are all his children, as they also share his fate. The Jews remain prominent among them as the foremost adversaries of Christ. In the end, in Revelation chapter 22, there is only a Tree of Life, and there is no more Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The children of Cain were called Kenites in Genesis, a word which first appears in Genesis chapter 15. In that same place, among the tribes of the Canaanites, we see the Rephaim, from a word which means giant. In 2 Samuel chapter 21 and 1 Chronicles chapter 20 there are references to those Rephaim of the family of Goliath, and they are described as the sons of the giant. Other so-called giants mentioned in Scripture are the Anakim, the sons of Anak. Og of Bashan was another giant, and he ruled over a city of the Canaanites. From ancient Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions, some of which are at least as old as the time of Abraham, we know the Epic of Gilgamesh, a giant who ruled over the ancient city of Uruk, which is called Erech in Genesis chapter 10. Gilgamesh is also mentioned as a giant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So in the ancient world, there were indeed “giants in the earth” who gave brith to “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”.
But unlike 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, the word for giant in Genesis chapter 6 is nephiyl (Strong’s # 5303) rather than rapha (Storng’s # 7497), and it may be more properly interpreted as fallen one, which is another indication of where they had originated – they were the fallen angels, or, at least, descended from them. Anak was also one of the Nephilim, as the word was translated giant once again where the Anakim are described in Numbers chapter 13.
A common misperception of Scripture is that the giants of Genesis 6 were the result of the union of angels and women which is described in Genesis chapter 6, but that is not true. In Genesis 6:4 we read “4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” So there were giants in the earth before the events described in Genesis 6, and Genesis chapter 6 never told us where they came from. The only plausible explanation is that they too were the product of the corruptions which were perpetrated by the devil and his angels, corruptions such as we see described in the Enoch literature.
So the Kenites and Rephaim were among the Canaanites, and notable men among them were giants, who also ruled over at least some of their cities. As it is evident in several places in Scripture, a common Canaanite practice was to intermarry with neighboring tribes in order to form unions and alliances. This is evident, for example, in the approach of the Shechemites to Jacob in Genesis chapter 33: “6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done. 8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife. 9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.”
The Canaanites, mixed with the Kenites and the Rephaim, from among whom Esau had taken his own wives, his descendants the Edomites were indeed of children also of Cain, and therefore they were also children of the Devil. These were the enemies of our race from the beginning, they were the enemies of Christ, and they are the enemies of all White Christians today. Palestine was only a microcosm of the ancient world, as the so-called “seed of the serpent” or the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” had spread itself abroad in ancient times. Now, they once again rule over the world, and the evil is once again coming to its fullness.
Making an analogy of the Jews in Jeruslaem, we read in Matthew chapter 21 where it speaks of Christ: “19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” So we read a reference to this event, later, in Luke chapter 21: “29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.” The fig tree which He had cursed is now the fig tree which shoots forth its branches, and is presently ruling the world, so we know that the harvest is near.
If we will have no more “hate speech” to publish on our Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts, we can be content with that.