TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 41: 53, The Nature of Esau in the New Testament

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20210619-100Proofs-41.mp3 — Downloaded 5697 times


TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 41

In our last few presentations in this series, we have already discussed many aspects of Jacob and Esau in prophecy. There and earlier in this series we had also discussed how it was that many of the Judaeans of the time of Christ were actually Edomites, and not Israelites. We also discussed the first two chapters of the prophecy of Malachi at length, and how Malachi begins with a comparison of Jacob and Esau before spending the rest of those two chapters admonishing the priests for their corruption of the priesthood. Without a doubt, Malachi helps to put into a proper Biblical perspective both the history of the period and the composition of the people of Judaea as it was recorded by Flavius Josephus and mentioned by Strabo of Cappadocia, and also the contention between Christ and His adversaries as it was recorded in John chapter 8. This in turn is all supported by the explanation of the divisions among the Judaeans by Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 9, where he compared Jacob and Esau and cited the opening verses of Malachi. Now we shall see the nature and characteristics of Esau which are evident in the New Testament. All of this background history is seen to fulfill the words of Isaac in the blessings which he granted to both Jacob and Esau, and the related circumstances which we see in the accounts of the lives of those patriarchs in the Book of Genesis. The background history, as well as the prophecy, is also the only valid way with which to view the cause of the divisions among first-century Judaeans in respect to Christ, as that is also the explanation of the apostles themselves.

53) The Nature of Esau in the New Testament

In Matthew chapter 2, there is an account of certain Magi who had come from the East, which is almost certainly the Parthian Empire as the Magi were a priestly caste found among the Medes, in the words of the 5th century BC Greek historian Herodotus. So it is likely that these Magi were descendants of the ancient Israelites, many of whom had been resettled “in the cities of the Medes”, according to both Assyrian inscriptions and the Biblical accounts found in 2 Kings chapters 17 and 18. Herodotus had also written that the Magi were a tribe, or race, among the Medes (The Histories, 1.101, 140) and that “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians” (The Histories 7.62). So we see that the Magi came from ancient Medea, and even if the words of Herodotus do not prove conclusively that they were ancient Israelites, of whom Herodotus seemed to be ignorant, the fact that these Magi were awaiting a Messiah in Israel around this time certainly does make that indication. There is no doubt, however, that being Medes they were White men.

In Medieval art, all three Magi were continuously depicted as having been White men. But in the 15th century some Italian and Dutch artists, as the Muslim and African world began to become open to European trade, exploration and colonization, began depicting one of the Magi as a negro, or elements of the Magi and their entourage as Negros or Arabs, as we have shown in an article at Christogenea titled Who Painted the Wise Man Black? Who made the Magus a Negro? But artists of the period were divided, and many of them continued to portray all of them as White, which is historically accurate since they must have come from ancient Parthia, which was White and was never Arabized until after the Muslim conquests of the 7th century AD. Generally speaking, Negros were introduced into the Middle and Near East from the time of the Muslim conquests, by Arabs who had employed them as soldiers and servants, whether or not they were slaves.

So in Matthew chapter 2, when the Magi came to Jerusalem it was because they understood the time of the birth of the Messiah from the appearance of a certain star, evidently from some ancient knowledge which is not recorded in the Old Testament. The Magi, being joyful of this, must have expected the Judaeans in Jerusalem to also be joyful. But, as we read in verse 3, “3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.” From there, Herod had only sought to find and to kill the child, and he is recorded as having had killed many children in the region when he could not find the specific infant whom he sought. In contrast, we read of the Magi that departing from Herod to seek the child, “10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.”

So Herod had never learned from them the location of the child whom he sought to destroy. Thus we read later in the chapter: “16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” The Christ child survived because He had already been brought to Egypt by His parents. So we must ask, if the Magi and many others in Judaea had anticipated and rejoiced at the prospect of the birth and coming of the Messiah, something which is apparent throughout the New Testament, why would Herod be so troubled, “and all Jerusalem with him”?

That question is answered in the pages of Flavius Josephus. Herod was quite old at the time, and had already been King of Judaea under the Romans for over thirty years. An infant thought by the Magi to have been born king would have been no real threat to Herod, at least for a long time. Josephus informs us, however, that Herod was an Edomite, and therefore he was not an Israelite. The Roman conquest of Judaea was quite tumultuous, and well over twenty years of rebellion on the part of the Judaeans ensued. Herod, whose father was an Edomite and a general in the Judaean army, was married into the Hasmonaean dynasty, but he turned against his wife’s family and sided with the Romans for his own advantage. Ultimately, he ingratiated Antony and Caesar, and offered bribes to be made king.

So when Herod was made king, discussing the circumstances of that event and its aftermath, Josephus, writing in Antiquities Book 14 about the reaction of Antigonus, one of the last surviving Hasmonaeans, wrote in part: “403 but Antigonus, by way of reply to what Herod had caused to be proclaimed, and this before the Romans, and before Silo also, said that they would not do justly if they gave the kingdom to Herod, who was no more than a private man, and an Idumean, i.e. a half Jew, whereas they ought to bestow it on one of the royal family, as their custom was; 404 for, that in case they at present bear an ill will to him, and had resolved to deprive him of the kingdom, as having received it from the Parthians, yet were there many others of his family that might by their law take it, and these, such as had no way offended the Romans; and being of the priestly family, it would be an unworthy thing to pass them by.”

After Herod became king he killed most of his wife’s family, destroying practically all of the chief men in Jerusalem and the surviving Hasmonaeans, and even killed his own wife, who was a daughter of that family, and the children which he had with her. From then, as Josephus also described in Antiquities Book 20, he used the offices of the priests as a political tool, and appointed men as high priest who were not even qualified to be priests.

However Herod was not considered a “half Jew” because any of his ancestors were Judaean. Rather, he was considered as a “half Jew” because he was a convert. In Antiquities Book 14 Josephus had spoken of Herod’s father, Antipater, speaking of a time around 70 BC, and he wrote: “8 But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his goodwill to Hyrcanus.” This is not John Hyrcanus, but Hyrcanus II, the son of Alexander Janneus who ruled Judaea as high priest after him. Later in the the same book Josephus wrote of Antipater and said that he “121… was at that time in great repute with the Idumeans also: out of which nation he married a wife, who was the daughter of one of their eminent men, and her name was Cypros, by whom he had four sons, Phasael, and Herod, who was afterward made king, and Joseph, and Pheroras; and a daughter, named Salome.” There are other testimonies in Antiquities and in Book 1 of Wars of the Judaeans and elsewhere, that Herod was a full Edomite by blood.

So in Revelation chapter 12 we see a description of this same Herod and his attempt to kill the Christ child which says: “1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. [This relates the Satanic entity to the world empires as they are described elsewhere in the Revelation and int the prophecies of Daniel.] 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. [This child can be no other than the Christ.] 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

Here it is evident that this entity, “that old serpent called the Devil and Satan” is a collective entity which transcends the narrow context of ancient Judaea, and which has endured throughout a great length of past history, all the way back to the days of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. So Herod is not the Great Red Dragon himself, but Herod, the Edomite, was a representative of that dragon, and through Herod was fulfilled the role of he who had “stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.” Only Herod had fulfilled that role, so in that regard this must be a reference to him, but overall it does not describe him alone. Collectively, the Edomite Jews, of which Herod was one, had throughout history fulfilled the role where it says later on in this chapter “13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.” That woman, first seen “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars”, represents the twelve tribes of Israel which is also a vision very similar to Joseph’s vision of his brothers in Genesis chapter 37.

The early Christian writers Tertullian and Minucius Felix, both of whom had written in the 3rd century, had directly blamed the Jews for the persecution of Christians by the Romans, and the New Testament portrays that very same thing in the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. So in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2 Paul wrote speaking of them and said that it was they “15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles [Nations] that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” The King James Version has “their own prophets”, which is not true, it is a proven interpolation in later manuscripts. Three times in his Gospel, in chapters 7, 19 and 20, the apostle John mentioned the fact that certain men were afraid to speak of Christ “for fear of the Jews”. But the hatred which these Jews had for Christianity was far greater than the immediate circumstances in Judaea, as in Acts chapter 22 the Jews are portrayed as wanting to kill Paul of Tarsus as soon as he declared to them that he would bring the Gospel of Christ to distant nations (Acts 22:21-22), nations which were also descended from of the twelve tribes of Israel, as Paul later attested before Herod Agrippa II in Acts chapter 26 (Acts 26:6-7).

But even in Judaea in the time of Christ, language was employed by John the Baptist and then by Christ Himself which described their adversaries in the same manner which we see in the Revelation, as serpents, vipers, as a race of serpents, as the offspring of serpents or vipers, and with other related terms. Then in John chapter 8, when Christ told His adversaries that they were not true children of Abraham, they responded by saying “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God” (John 8:41), which is a fulfillment of Malachi chapter 2 where the corrupted priests are portrayed as having asked “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” Of course the answer is no, since in that same place it is then explained that Judah had married the daughter of a strange god. So the results of the struggle between Jacob and Esau for the birthright and blessings, as if they could possibly be contended, are fully manifest in the New Testament between the Israelites of Judaea and the Edomites of Judaea, from whom are the modern Jews.

In John chapter 8, the Edomite Jews knew precisely what Christ had meant when He told them that God was not their father, and that they were not true children of Abraham. So they responded immediately and said “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God”, asserting that they were not bastards. They themselves may have believed that, as they ostensibly did not see marriage in the same fashion as the God of the Bible, but it is nevertheless true that they were bastards, as all of the children of Esau were bastards.

So in the Revelation, “that old serpent” from the garden of Eden is “called the Devil and Satan” and as an entity it is associated throughout the New Testament with the Edomite Jewish adversaries of Christ and the apostles. To this we must compare Revelation chapter 20, which describes Satan as gathering all the nations from the four corners of the earth against the Camp of the Saints, and to that we must also compare the prophecies in Isaiah 34 and Obadiah where the indignation of Yahweh is against all nations, but in which Edom is the central focus of His wrath. We discussed all of these things in our last presentation of these 100 Proofs. Therefore Esau, the collective of his Edomite descendants, represents the Satan of Revelation chapter 20.

Throughout history, there is no other possible fulfillment of all of these circumstances. It was Edomite Jews who were responsible for persecuting early Christians in both the Middle East and in Europe. It was Edomite Jews who developed Islam, and had then brought the Arabs in the name of Islam to conquer the Christian lands of North Africa, Spain, Portugal and parts of Italy, and the whole Middle East. It was Edomite Jews in Khazaria who brought the Turks from Asia, who were also converted to Islam, against the Christians of the Byzantine Empire. Now today there are the same Edomite Jews who have admittedly been at the vanguard of non-White immigration from all of the nations of the four corners of the earth into all of the formerly, or now at least marginally, White Christian nations. This is the serpent making war with the remnant of the seed of the woman, as it is described in Revelation 12:17: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

As we have also already explained here in previous presentations, Paul had used present tense verbs where he described Satan in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and said: “3 You should not be deceived by anyone, in any way, because if apostasy had not come first, and the man of lawlessness been revealed; the son of destruction [Esau], 4 he 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. 5 Do you not remember that, yet being with you I had told these things to you? 6 And you know that which now prevails, for him to be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already operating, he prevailing only presently, until he should be out of the way, 8 and then will the lawless be revealed, whom Prince Yahshua will destroy with the breath of His mouth, and abolish at the manifestation of His presence. 9 Whose presence is in accordance with the operation of the Adversary in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, 10 and in every trick of unrighteousness in those who are perishing, because they accepted not the love of the truth, for them to be preserved.”

This is the Satan which Paul had said would be crushed under the feet of the Romans in chapter 16 of his epistle to the Romans, an event which would fulfill the Messianic prophecy of Daniel chapter 9, where it says that after Messiah the Prince would be cut off, the people of the Prince would come and destroy the city. So Paul had correctly interpreted that prophecy of Daniel, because that is what happened 13 years after Paul wrote that epistle. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, we see from 2 Thessalonians that the collective Satan had his abode in the temple of Jerusalem. Then, over 25 years after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, Yahshua Christ had said in the Revelation, in the message to the church at Pergamos found in Revelation chapter 2, that “13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.” Therefore we see that the Edomites had moved their operations to Pergamos after the destruction of Jerusalem. Evidently the one other problem in the church at Pergamos was the acceptance of fornication, something which is not far from every Jew.

Of course, all of this symbolism is purposeful, as it leads us back to the events which transpired in the garden of Eden and Genesis 3:15, where Yahweh had said to the serpent that: “15… I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” So as we have just explained, Paul of Tarsus writing in 57 AD had said to the Romans in the closing verses of his epistle that “20… the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Then 13 years later, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and perhaps as many as 1.1 million Edomite Jews, according to Josephus, or perhaps only 500,000 according to Tacitus, and whatever other Judaeans had remained along with them. But Rome did not destroy the Edomites completely, and they were already spread out well beyond Judaea. After Jerusalem was destroyed, Jewish revolts against the Romans would occur twice again in the early 2nd century AD, in Cyprus and in Egypt as well as in Palestine.

While a race of serpents is not described in that manner in any direct language of the Old Testament, the serpent of Genesis was also the representative of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and reading the Revelation it is not a stretch to see that the third of the angels which fell with Satan had become established, as there were also people outside of Adam, people whom Yahweh had not taken credit for having created. Cain was sent off to the land of Nod, which means wandering and which is also an allegory for sin. There he found a wife, and built a city.

Later, in Genesis chapter 6, the Nephilim, or fallen ones, are described as having already been in the earth in those days, and they commit race-mixing fornication with the daughters of Adam. Even later, in Genesis chapter 15, we see that the descendants of Canaan, and the Kenites who are descendants of Cain, and the Rephaim, who are Nephilim, and several other races which did not descend from Adam are all living together in Palestine. In Genesis chapter 14 there is mentioned a people called Zuzim, a name which means roving creatures, so it is apparent that they did not even have a proper name. In extra-Biblical sources it is evident that the Rephaim, or Nephilim, also inhabit other lands in Mesopotamia. In the Book of Genesis, for example in the story of Dinah and Shechem, it is apparent that the races of Canaan were accustomed to inter-marrying with one another for the sake of peace and commerce, so it is not a stretch to imagine that they had been engaged in such practices for many many centuries, as it is also evident in the surviving archaeological records of those ancient nations.

As we have also already discussed, Esau took Canaanite wives, and his wives very likely had the blood of Cain and the Nephilim flowing in their veins. Esau then moved to Mt. Seir, which was also called Mt. Horus and was a settlement of the Hurrians or Horites, who were a Canaanite tribe. The Hebrew word is sometimes spelled as Hivites in Scripture, as the letter for Resh (r) is sometimes mistaken for the letter for Vav (v). So the descendants of Esau, as well as those of Ishmael, all mingled together with the Canaanites of the land which later became known as Edom. We read in Genesis chapter 14, before Esau was even born: “ 5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, 6 And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness. 7 And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.” The Israelites would later contend with all of these same people with whom Chedorlaomer had fought. Years later, as it is recorded in in Genesis chapter 32, Esau had taken his Hittite wives, and his one Ishmaelite wife, and settled in Mount Seir among the Horites. In Genesis chapter 36, “the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land” are included in the genealogy of Esau.

So the Edomites had been thoroughly mingled, and continued to mingle, with the Canaanites, Kenites, Nephilim or Rephaim, and whatever other races some of the otherwise unidentifiable tribes in Palestine may have originated from, such as the Zuzims, Kenizzites, Kadmonites and Perizzites mentioned in Genesis chapters 14 and 15, all of whom have no genealogy with Adam or Noah.

So John the Baptist, when certain of the Pharisees and Sadducees had come out to see what he was doing, had said to them, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 3, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” The wrath was coming upon these men regardless of what they did. John had called them a γέννημα of vipers, which is properly offspring of vipers. That is not a reference to the men, but rather, John asserted that their parents were vipers, so γέννημα may have been better translated as race. John went on to challenge them to do good, just as Yahweh had challenged Cain to do good, and as Paul of Tarsus and Christ Himself had each challenged these same adversaries to do good, but evidently they could never do good. So John said to them: “8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” This last line is also misunderstood. Of course God could bring forth children of Abraham from stones, and Edomites could also claim to be children of Abraham, but that would not make any of them children of the covenant promises, which are assured only to the children of Jacob. Paul explains that later in Romans chapter 9, and again in Galatians chapter 3.

So speaking further in that same place, John the Baptist warned them again and said “10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Later in Matthew, in chapter 15, referring to His adversaries Christ had the following exchange with His Own disciples: “12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Therefore the lines become evident, there are plants which God had planted, and they bring forth good fruit. But there are plants which Yahweh God did not plant, and they shall be rooted up, for which reason John the Baptist had attested that “… now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” The Edomites, being a bastard race, could not repent, had no opportunity to ever be Christians, although they were challenged to do good, and therefore their destiny is in the Lake of Fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels, because they are all bastards.

In Luke chapter 7, the apostle later explained that the Pharisees and lawyers did not come to John the Baptist to be baptized, but they had rejected his baptism. Rather, they wanted to inquire as to what authority it was by which he was baptizing. In Matthew chapter 23 for example, or in Mark chapter 7, Christ exposed the Pharisees as legalists who added many of their own regulations to the law so that they could tightly control the people. They still have that same trait today. As Christ had told them in Matthew chapter 23, giving one of the reasons for which they were hypocrites, “4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

So Christ spoke likewise, in Matthew chapter 12, speaking once again to His adversaries where he said: “33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” A man makes a tree corrupt by marrying outside of his race, but can keep it good if he himself is born of God and marries a woman who is of the same. So we read in 1 Peter chapter 1: “22 Your souls having been purified in the obedience of the truth for brotherly love without hypocrisy, from of a pure heart you should love one another earnestly, 23 being engendered from above not from corruptible parentage, but from incorruptible, by the Word of Yahweh who lives and abides, 24 since ‘All flesh is as grass and all of its glory as a flower of grass; the grass withers and the flower falls off, 25 but that which is spoken by Yahweh abides for eternity.’ Now this is that which is spoken, which is announced to you.” Of course, all flesh dies, but men with the spirit of Yahweh have everlasting spirits, while the others are “twice dead, plucked up by the roots” as Jude described them in his epistle, so when their tree is cut down they are just as dead in the spirit as they would be in the flesh.

The word which we translate as parentage in that passage from Peter is σπορά, where the usual word in the New Testament for seed, as the King James Version also translated σπορά, is σπέρμα. The difference is significant as in Greek, σπέρμα refers to offspring or descendants, while σπορά, according to Liddell & Scott, means “a sowing of seed… of children, from this originorigin, birth… procreation… begetting”, and therefore we prefer to translate the word as parentage in this context, as for people, their parents are their origin. While the Roman Catholic and other churches pervert the plain meanings of these words, we would assert that the apostles used them in the manner in which Greek readers of listeners understood them, to refer to actual parents and actual children. It is ridiculous to think that in the time of the apostles these words referred to believers of some religion or philosophy. Throughout Scripture the apostles used the word σπέρμα only in the sense of physical children or offspring, and the churches are lying whenever they claim otherwise. Paul makes that very clear in Romans chapter 4, chapter 9 and elsewhere in his epistles.

The word γέννημα is also offspring, when it is used of people, but in a different way than σπέρμα. While σπέρμα is seed, γέννημα is a term which describes that which is produced or born, a child, and its ultimate root word is the verb γίγνομαι, which is most literally to come into being. So where Christ asked of His adversaries, for example in Matthew chapter 23, “33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”, He was calling they themselves serpents, but by calling them the offspring of vipers, or that which is produced of vipers, He was calling their parents vipers, where generation may have been better translated as race.

The typical Greek word for race is γενεά, or its close synonym γένος, both of which primarily refer to a race, stock or family. These words are also related to γίγνομαι and γέννημα in their etymology, and are the ultimate sources for English words such as genus, gene, geneaology and genetic. Christ used these terms often, and He meant them in that same manner. So in Luke chapter 11 he told His adversaries “50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation [race]; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [race].” Of course, a generation in the sense in which we use that word today, cannot be held responsible for the death of a man thousands of years before that generation was born. But in Medieval English, the word generation was much closer in meaning to the Greek words γενεά and γέννημα, and did refer to a race, for which reason it is also similar in spelling, because it also came from those same Greek words. Only the race of Cain could be held responsible for the blood of Abel, and they are also responsible for the blood of the prophets down through Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and even the blood of Christ Himself.

In Luke chapter 10 we see Christ use the word serpent to describe His enemies once again, after He had sent out 70 disciples and they returned to Him: “17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Not only does this passage describe the enemies of Christ as serpents and scorpions, but it also connects them to the fall of Satan from heaven which is later described in more detail in Revelation chapter 12. So when the apostle Peter had warned in chapter 5 of his first epistle to “8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”, he was talking about Edomite Jews, and when the apostle James warned in chapter 4 of his epistle “7… Resist the devil, and he will flee from you”, he was also talking about Edomite Jews.

While the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil spread its branches far more widely in ancient times than the Bible even records, Esau was chosen to represent that tree from the time when Isaac was placed on the altar, just as Jacob was chosen to inherit the promises made to Abraham, through whom would also ultimately be fulfilled the very first promises made to Adam.