- Christogenea Internet Radio
White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance, Part 4: Jacob and Esau for Dummies
There are one of two ways by which most people approach Scripture, and the first I will mention is the path taken by only a very small minority. One may study the entire Scripture, and eventually take the time to examine the original languages and the context of every passage, noticing who is speaking about whom and to whom it is that the words are directed. The second path is taken by the vast majority, even scholars in other or related fields who are not theologians. On that path, one reads the Scripture superficially, picking out verses or phrases that can be fit into one agenda or the other, because it seems to support some particular assertion or belief.
This past weekend, and for the first time ever, I was able to have a long conversation with a man with whom I have always been in conflict, whom I will not name here since he had indicated, even after we spoke for over an hour, that the conversation is not yet completed. So since I am not going to name him this evening, even if many of our listeners may recognize who it is to whom I am referring, and even if he is actually an acquaintance and not a personal friend, I will simply refer to him as a friend for our purposes here. I know that there are some listeners who will not even like that, but kindness and civility should be returned, and our conversation was conducted with mutual respect and free of any hostility or arrogance.
While our friend is a long-time White Nationalist, and he seems to have good intentions regardless of what some Identity Christians think of him, it is readily evident to us that he is certainly not a student of Scripture, and therefore he unwittingly promotes Jewish lies concerning Scripture. But here I am not going to get into his history or background, as all of that is irrelevant to this topic. I want to address the issues themselves, and this is the beginning of that endeavor, Jacob and Esau for Dummies. The use of the popular phraseology is not to ridicule our friend, but rather because I hope this presentation helps many other such friends or seekers in the future.
So to begin, we are going to recollect and address many of the claims which our friend had made in the course of our discussion. Not all of these claims are in the order in which we had discussed them, but rather, I will place them in the order relevant to the Scriptures which I may cite in order to support our positions. This friend had claimed that in the Bible, the oldest son must receive the inheritance, and therefore Jacob violated that custom because he had both stolen it from his brother and deceived his father in order to receive it for himself. But none of this is true.
While we do not accept as fact the notion that Adam was the natural father of Cain, when Adam accepted Eve in her sin he did become the father of Cain technically, from a worldly perspective, as he accepted Cain as he was birthed by Eve, and Cain was therefore raised as Adam’s eldest son. Nevertheless, Yahweh God Himself had rejected Cain, and Cain was never considered for any birthright either before or after he was expelled for having killed his brother. Seth, who was yet unborn, had received the birthright in place of Abel, as it is in Genesis chapter 4: “25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” The Hebrew word seth means compensation, so if Cain had a birthright and lost it, Seth would have been compensation for Cain rather than for Abel. This proves that Abel had the birthright, and that it did not belong to Cain.
Furthermore, even an eldest son can lose his birthright for some sin, as was the case of Jacob’s eldest son Reuben. This is clear in the final blessings of Jacob for his sons as they are recorded in Genesis chapters 48 and 49. In chapter 48 it is apparent that Joseph received the double-portion of the inheritance which is evident in the blessings of Ephraim and Manasseh, which was a privilege of the eldest son. After blessing the sons of Joseph, in the final verse of that chapter Jacob said to Joseph, who was the eleventh of his twelve sons, “Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren”.
Joseph was the eldest son of the beloved wife, Rachel. However the son of a beloved wife was not to have precedence over the son of a despised wife who was born first. This we read in the law, in Deuteronomy chapter 21, we read: “15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”
So it would not have been right for Jacob to give Joseph any share of the birthright that belonged to the eldest son Reuben unless Jacob had some reason to deprive Reuben. That he did, as Reuben had slept with one of Jacob’s wives, Bilhah the mother of Dan and Naphtali (Genesis 35:22). So for that, when Jacob blessed his sons, Reuben received nothing, and Jacob only said: “3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: 4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.” Joseph received the double portion, but Joseph did not receive all of what should have gone to Reuben. The other ancient birthright privileges of the eldest son, the priesthood and the sceptre, were later divided between Judah and Levi.
Neither is the oldest son always the favored. Evidence for this is found in the selection of David to be king in Israel, as David was the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16). In turn, Solomon inherited the throne of David, but Solomon was the tenth of the many sons of David (1 Chronicles 3). So Reuben having forfeited his birthright for his transgression, and Solomon inheriting the throne of David in spite of having had nine older brothers, only a few of whom were dead, the argument that the eldest son must always receive the birthright is not upheld by Scripture. Our friend failed on that point.
The claim that Jacob had defrauded Esau his brother is primarily made on the basis of Jacob’s offer of food to a hungry Esau in exchange for his birthright. This is found in Genesis chapter 25, and we shall begin where the twin boys are born, whereupon we read: “27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. 28 And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob. 29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.”
We should not be quick to consider Jacob as any sort of so-called “mamma's boy” since Rebekah must have preferred him for a reason. That reason is found in a promise which Yahweh God had made to Rebekah earlier, just before the boys were born, where we read: “23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. 24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.” So this must be the reason why Rebekah had favored Jacob, in accordance with this promise.
As a digression, throughout the account Isaac seems like the typical modern father of an athletic son, who glorifies the son for his accomplishments in the field without much care for the son’s other activities. The American football father would be oblivious to all of the beasts with whom his football-lettered son would associate, and evidence supporting that is found throughout our modern society. So it is with Jacob and Esau, that Esau was a race-mixer and until Rebekah corrected him Isaac seemed oblivious, so as we had read in that chapter of Genesis “28 … Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison.” Esau may have been a mighty hunter, but where he hungered and had so readily sold his birthright for some food, we should see just how lightly he had actually thought of his birthright, something which a man should esteem seriously and protect earnestly. So without placing any guilt upon Jacob, the text informs us that “thus Esau despised his birthright.”
Coupled with this last claim that Jacob stole his brother’s birthright, is the claim that it was unrighteous for Jacob to deceive his father. Moreover, there are accompanying assertions that this is so-called “Jewish” behavior. But in order to even dare to request of his brother his birthright in exchange for a pittance, which is the value of a bowl of porridge, Jacob must have already known that his brother despised the value of his birthright in the first place. So Jacob was safeguarding his father’s birthright. This is evident at the end of the next chapter, Genesis chapter 26, where we read: “34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: 35 Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.” So Esau despised his birthright where he had sold it for a pittance, and here it is evident that he would have ruined it if he had not sold it, where being a race-mixer he certainly did not deserve it because he would not preserve it.
When we told our friend that Esau did not deserve the birthright because he was a race-mixer, the friend denied our assertion. Yet here we see that Esau had taken wives of the Hittites. The Hittites are the descendants of Heth, whose name we first read in Genesis chapter 10: “15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.” Of course, all the Canaanites were cursed by Noah, without exception, in Genesis chapter 9.
The patriarch Abraham, after he was sent to the land of Canaan, settled among the Hittites, so we read in Genesis chapter 23, upon the death of Sarah: “3 And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, 4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.” When Isaac came of age, Abraham was careful to send a trusted servant to his family in Padanaram to procure for Isaac a wife. Abraham instructed his servant, and we read in part from where it is recorded in Genesis chapter 24: “1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.” Esau must have known this as he was educated by his parents, the marriage of his parents were the result of this promise, and in spite of this he had nevertheless taken his own wives from among those accursed Canaanites, something that Abraham would not do.
Immediately after the account of Esau taking wives of the Hittites in Genesis chapter 26, we read in Genesis chapter 27: “1 And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I. 2 And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death: 3 Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; 4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die. 5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.”
The record of the sequence of events cannot be coincidental. Esau had already taken Canaanite wives, and now he is about to receive the blessing of his father. So in reaction to this circumstance, taking advantage of the failed eyesight of Isaac, we read: “6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying, 7 Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death. 8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee. 9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth: 10 And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death. 11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man: 12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. 13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.”
Here it is clear that Jacob was afraid to attempt to deceive his father, and his mother had insisted. His mother also accepted any curse if the deception was discovered. The deception was successful, and Jacob received the blessing of Isaac which he had intended for Esau. When this was discovered, Isaac would not retract it, and we read, after Esau returns from his hunt: “32 And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau. 33 And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed. 34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father. 35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing. 36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me? 37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?”
While Isaac would not take back his blessing of Jacob, Isaac nevertheless blessed Esau, and further upheld his blessing of Jacob, where in part he said to Esau: “40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” That time in which Esau would have the dominion is now, but that account is for a later discussion. Now is the first time in history in which Esau has ever ruled over Jacob.
We made the assertion to our friend that Rebekah was only seeking to preserve her own race, and therefore Esau could not inherit the blessing. Even after he was blessed, in the very next verse of that chapter we read of Esau’s jealousy and his desire to slay Jacob. When Rebekah heard of Esau’s anger, she worried for Jacob and sought to send him away to Padanaram, where it would also be safe for him to find a wife. So she also confronted Isaac with the fact that Esau was a race-mixer, and in the closing verse of the chapter we read: “46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” Of course, the daughters of Heth were the Hittites from whom Esau had procured his own wives, which were described at the end of Genesis chapter 26.
Then in the opening verses of Genesis chapter 28, it is evident that Isaac finally realized the righteousness of what had happened, where we read: “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.”
One cannot say that Rebekah despised the daughters of Heth for merely religious reasons. The whole house of Laban were pagans, so the wives of Jacob were pagans, Abraham was a pagan before his call, and all of the kindred of Abraham were pagans. In Joshua chapter 24 we are informed of this where “2 … Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time [a reference to the river Euphrates], even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. 3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.” So Abraham left his homeland to leave this paganism behind him. But Jacob’s wives, taken from there, were pagan and Rachel even stole her father’s household idols, as we read in Genesis chapter 31. So the reason for Rebekah’s having despised the daughters of Heth must have been on account of their race, and not their religion. Baal worship was commonplace throughout Mesopotamia and Syria, where Abraham’s kindred had lived.
Later in that same chapter, Genesis 28, after Isaac had sent Jacob away we read that “6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; 7 And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram; 8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; 9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” So Esau had seen that he had done wrong, but he still did not consult with his father, and he continued to err, because Ishmael had already been excluded from the promises by Yahweh God Himself in the days of Isaac’s youth.
Then even later, in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis chapter 36, we see that Esau dwelt in Mount Seir, which is also called Mount Hor, and consequently the sons of Seir the Horite are included in the genealogy of Esau described in that chapter. The Horites were also Canaanites, but the fact is obscured because of confusion between two Hebrew letters, the vav (ו) and the resh (ר), so for that reason sometimes the word is translated as Hivite, as it is in Genesis chapter 10. Therefore the Edomites have the name of Esau, but they are predominantly Canaanites. In Genesis chapter 15, it is evident that the Canaanites had mingled with the Kenites, the descendants of Cain, the Rephaim who were Nephilim, or fallen angels, and with several other races which have no genealogy from Noah. So there should be no reasonable doubt that Esau was a race-mixer.
Later in our discussion, our friend had claimed that if the blessing of Jacob were legitimate, it would have been upheld by his father and throughout the Bible. So I had immediately answered him by informing him that he had just proved himself to be wrong about Jacob. If Rebekah and Jacob were unrighteous, why would Isaac tell Jacob that he would indeed inherit the blessing of Abraham provided that he took a wife from his own kin? But that is what he did, that is what the Scripture records to have happened, that is what the Scriptures describe throughout the rest of the Bible, and that is how Jacob is justified. Our friend rejected the charge that Esau was a race-mixer, but this simple account in Genesis chapters 26 through 28 proves beyond all doubt that Esau was a race-mixer, and that Jacob did well to listen to his mother and deceive Isaac into giving him the blessing. So our friend has also failed in all of these points.
Paul of Tarsus also upheld this as being the reason for Esau’s rejection not only by his parents, but by Yahweh God Himself. However before we explain this, we shall address one more of our friend’s claims. During the course of our conversation he had said several times to me that Paul of Tarsus had written admitting that he was “accursed for his race”. Of course, I rejected this claim as often as he repeated it because I knew that it was not true. When I asked him where Paul had written that, he replied only that it was “somewhere in Hebrews”, and neither of us had an open Bible when we spoke that evening.
But while I withheld it from him, I knew the passage which he was referencing very well, and I withheld it also hoping to exploit it at a time which did not come in our conversation. Actually Paul only said that he wished that he was accursed for the sake of his kinsmen, in Romans chapter 9, and the balance of the chapter reveals why he said that, where he goes on to contrast Jacob and Esau. This is found where Paul wrote “3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
While the King James translation is not ideal, there is a very significant difference between being accursed for one’s race, as our friend had claimed, and merely wishing to be accursed on behalf of one’s kinsmen. But where Paul wrote in verse 6 that “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” he explains why as he proceeds, and we read in the verses which follow: “7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. [This eliminates the children of Hagar and Keturah from consideration.] 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. [As we saw in the words of Isaac in Genesis chapter 28, the promise was inherited by Jacob alone, which further excludes Esau. In Jacob are the children of the promise, while Abraham’s other children are merely children of the flesh. So Paul continues:] 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Paul had cited that last passage from the opening verses of the prophet Malachi, and Paul upholds it here in the New Testament. So Yahweh hates Esau in both testaments, Old and New.
Now in Romans chapter 9, in relation to Jacob and Esau and in relation to the true Israelites in Judaea as opposed to the Edomites in Judaea, Paul had first spoken of the promise to Sarah, and then concerning a similar promise to Rebecca, he said that “10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Therefore seeing that the election of God is not by works, but by God who does the calling, then the election is not by any decision of man as to whether or not to believe, but rather it is defined as being for those whom God had called. The belief is only for those whom God has called. For that reason, because only the children of Israel and their seed are the called of God, election is by birth and not by choice, and Paul is explaining that the Edomites are excluded while praying for his own fleshly kinsmen that they turn to Christ in repentance.
Our friend seemed ignorant of the fact that Jacob’s having been blessed is indeed upheld by the prophets and by Christ and throughout the New Testament. All of this displays a lack of knowledge of the Biblical narrative on his part. It was upheld from two perspectives, as hatred for Esau and Esau’s race-mixing are both expressed in the New Testament. We have just seen where Paul had cited the words of Malachi, who wrote “saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau,” in the opening verses of his prophecy. Then later, in Hebrews chapter 12, Paul had professed that men should keep themselves undefiled, “15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.”
The root of bitterness is an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, where we read in part of the Canaanites and their gods: “32 For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:” But where it says “fornicator, or profane person”, the particle translated as or does not mean that Esau was not both of those things.
The Greek phrase μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαυ is literally “not any fornicator or profane as Esau”, but simply because the ἤ basically means or does not mean that the noun for fornicator does not apply to Esau as well as the adjective, profane. Look at Paul's words to Philemon concerning the escaped slave Onesimus in Philemon 18: "18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account". The operative phrase here is τι ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει... If Onesimus owed his owner anything when he escaped, then of course that would have wronged him. So owing him anything does not preclude the fact that he would have also wronged him. In Titus 1:6, instructing Titus on how a man should raise his children: "... having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." If the children rioted, that would be unruly. But being unruly by itself is bad enough.
In Greek, ἢ is a conjunction which often also serves as a comparative. If it occurs twice in the clause, for example ἢ πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος, then it is disjunctive and perhaps in English it would be translated as "either... or...". However it is not always disjunctive, and also serves to join comparatives that refer to the same subject. This use is more difficult to express in English. In my opinion, the commas in the King James translation also indicate that the translators understood that both πόρνος and βέβηλος were meant to describe Esau, so they wrote "fornicator, or profane person, as Esau…" One form of fornication is race-mixing, and Paul used the word to describe a race-mixing event found in Numbers chapter 25 in his epistle in 1 Corinthians chapter 10. In his own short epistle, Jude equates fornication to the “going after of strange [or different] flesh.”
So going back to Hebrews chapter 12 where we read: "not any fornicator or profane as Esau", the word βέβηλος,which is profane is – for good reason – defined by Liddell & Scott as "allowable to be trodden, permitted to human use." That means human use as opposed to something sacred, which is something that is reserved for use by God. The word βέβηλος often stands in opposition to something which is ἅγιος, or holy. So what does that mean regarding Esau? When we look at the life of Esau described in Genesis chapter 27, we see that he took wives of the Hittites. Abraham would not do that. That troubled his mother enough to make her risk her own well-being with an oath, and arrange for Jacob to receive the blessing rather than Esau. So being profane, allowing himself to be trampled upon by the enemies of God, which the Canaanites had become, Esau also committed fornication by taking Hittite wives. When Isaac discovered what had happened, his wife voiced her concern and he realized that his wife was justified.
Christ Himself upheld the blessing of Jacob, but never mentioned Esau or Edom by name. He mentioned Jacob in Mark chapter 8 where He said, in part: “ 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” He mentioned Jacob again in Matthew chapter 22 where He said “31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” That account is repeated in Mark chapter 12 and Luke chapter 20. A similar expression is found in Luke chapter 13. Then in Luke chapter 1, in the words of the angel who speaks to the virgin Mary, we read where it speaks of His purpose and says in part: “33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Jacob is mentioned over a dozen times by the apostles, and twice in John. But Esau is only mentioned by Paul of Tarsus three times, and in a negative context, and never by the name Edom. Therefore, putting Esau ahead of Jacob is anti-christian, as that is something that Christ Himself did not do. In this our friend fails miserably.
Paul of Tarsus, having been a student of prophecy, knew that the Edomites would never accept Christ, and that judgement was about to come upon them, which Daniel and other prophets had foretold. So in Romans chapter 16 Paul informed the Romans that “20 … the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly…” Therefore here in Romans chapter 9, he is praying for his Israelite kinsman while reckoning them according to the flesh, that they would turn to Christ and be spared, but he compares Jacob and Esau because he is not praying for the Edomites in Judaea. Later in that same chapter, Paul referred to the Israelites in Judaea as vessels of mercy, and to the Edomites as vessels of destruction.
But now we may wonder why Paul would be so concerned with Edomites in the Judaea of the time of Christ, and this question is answered by prophecy and history. In prophecy, in Ezekiel chapter 35, it is explained that the two lands which had been left vacant by Israel and Judah would be taken by Esau. So we read in a prophecy against Mount Seir, the ancient home of Esau, where Yahweh said “ 9 I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not return: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 10 Because thou hast said, These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the LORD was there: 11 Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them; and I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee.”
While of course I did not have all of these Scriptural references opened in books so as to present them as proofs in a casual discussion with our friend, I was able to describe them to a great degree. But I also briefly described the history of how the Edomites came to dominate Judaea in the time of Christ, which for the sake of our purposes here I shall briefly describe in more detail. So the following is condensed from our article describing Exactly Why Jesus Christ is NOT a Jew:
The famous Greek geographer, Strabo of Cappadocia, who lived and wrote up to about 25 AD, attested that the Idumaeans, or Edomites, were “mixed up” with the Judaeans, and that they “joined the Judaeans, and shared in the same customs with them” (Strabo, Geography, Book 16, chapter 2 [16.2.34]). So it is evident that in the first century, Judaea was a Roman province of diverse races, and therefore Judaean, from which we have the modern term Jew, is not truly an ethnic description. The late first century Judaean historian Flavius Josephus, who was a Levite by race, provided the historic details which support Strabo’s statement. In Ezekiel chapter 35, in verse 10, we see a prophecy that Esau would take for himself the lands of Israel and Judah after the people were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Classical records tell us that this did indeed happen. Then, where Josephus discussed the period of the Hasmonaean dynasty, sometimes called the Maccabees, which ruled Judaea from about 156 BC to the time when Herod was made king around 36 BC, Josephus described how certain of them had forcibly converted to Judaism all of the Edomites of what later became known as Judaea.
In his Antiquities, Book 13, from line 257 Josephus described how the high priest John Hyrcanus, some time around 125 BC, had forced the conversion and circumcision of the Edomites of Dora and Marissa and their environs, where Josephus said that “they were hereafter considered to be Judaeans.” Then later, in that same book of Josephus' Antiquities, from line 393, we see the much greater extent of the conversion of the surrounding Edomite and other non-Israelite peoples to Judaism, which took place while Alexander Janneus was high priest and king, from 103 to 76 BC. Here Josephus described the conversion of at least 30 different cities and towns at this time, all of which places which were inhabited by Edomites and other Canaanites. Students of the Old Testament should understand that the Canaanites were a people accursed by God, that they were mixed with Kenites, Rephaim and other races, and that Esau really lost his birthright because he had taken Canaanite wives.
From this point,36 BC, under Herod the Edomite, the Edomites eventually came to dominate all of Jerusalem and Judaea, including the Temple, of which they had full control by the time of Christ. Herod was an Edomite, as Josephus also attested on as many as four occasions in his writing, and having killed off all of the family of the Hasmonaeans he began to appoint his own cronies and partisans to positions of authority in the Temple and in his administration. This is why Paul compared Jacob and Esau in reference to Judaea in Romans chapter 9, and in Hebrews chapter 12 Paul described Esau as a “fornicator, or profane person” because he was a race-mixer who had no legitimate offspring.
In our conversation I also made a modern analogy, and while I do not remember exactly how I explained it to our friend last weekend, the truth is that insisting that the modern day Jews are the ancient Israelites is exactly equivalent to believing that the modern-day inhabitants of American cities such as New York, Philadelphia or Washington, DC, which are all now predominantly inhabited by Jews, Negroes and Hispanics, are the founding stock of this nation today, although we also know that it is not truly a nation. America is not an ethnicity, and neither was ancient Judaea. Looking at the monuments of Washington DC, an ignorant visitor seeing the negroes dwelling all around them may be led to believe that the negroes had built them, and had created the government which controls the rest of America. It is no different with New York and the other major cities, but it is certainly not true.
In addition to all of this, I made a few assertions in our conversation which went unanswered. The first is that the ancient Israelites were promised a land of milk and honey. Yet approximately 75% of the world’s modern Jews are lactose intolerant. The assertion I made during our discussion was 90%, so perhaps I exaggerated somewhat, but the point is still valid. With such a high percentage of lactose intolerance, how could Jews have ever enjoyed a land of milk and honey? Why would milk be considered a blessing, when it could not even be consumed by most of the people? Even Haaretz, the popular Israeli Jewish newspaper, admits that 75% of Jews are lactose intolerant. Today the Edomite Jews are more heavily mixed with White Europeans, so perhaps in the time of Christ the figure was higher. In addition to this, I made the assertion that the Israelites had an agrarian society, and a calendar in which all of their feasts were organized around agricultural events, something which is not and has not ever been in the nature of most Jews. Claiming that these Edomite Jews are ancient Israelites fails at every turn.
Our friend, speaking about the Jews in a more formal setting earlier that day, had described an eternal race war which they have waged against us for many centuries. This was shortly after he had cited John 8:44 in reference to Jews, which certainly is proper. But he seems ignorant of the fact that the Jewish war against White Christian society really began with the declaration of enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and it was that to which Christ had referred in John 8:44. That eternal race war has continued in Abraham’s seed. Evidently the concept of keeping one’s friends close, but one’s enemies even closer, is first found in the Bible. Yahweh said there would be enmity, and the rivalry between Jacob and Esau, the forefathers of today’s Christians and Jews, are a continued manifestation of that enmity.
As for modern Jews, we see throughout the world today the promotion of pornography, Sodomy, transsexualism and gender fluidity, sorcery, abortion, race-mixing fornication and many other grievous sins, and that Jews are always among the most prominent proponents of all of them. They are the descendants of the ancient Canaanites, the producers of Sodom, and Christ had warned us to know them by their fruits. We have also seen their proclivity in history to wander, and that is the curse of Cain, who was sent to the land of wandering. They are completely contrary to the creation of Yahweh in all their ways and they are eternally opposed to it. But the laws and customs of ancient Israel were always contrary to all of these sins, and demanded death for those who committed them.
But these misunderstandings which we have described are not our friend’s only problems, and his cognitive dissonance runs quite deep. During our conversation he cited one Bible verse, and only one verse, to support a contention that while the Old Testament was only for Israelites, which he wrongly equates with Jews, that the New Testament is for anyone and everyone who chooses Jesus. I am paraphrasing, as I do not remember his exact comment, but that is the essential meaning of what he had said. So he speaks of a race war and quotes from John 8:44 out of one side of his mouth, and denies that Scripture in the New Testament has anything to do with race out of the other side of his mouth, which is an even worse position than that of the Judaized priests and pastors who completely deny that the Bible has anything at all to do with race.
The verse which he cited to support this contention is found in Romans chapter 9, and he only repeated a portion of it where in verse 25 we read “I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.” He really thought he had me with this one verse, and I did not even address it in our conversation except to tell him that he had taken it out of context. Here I will present and address that context. In Romans chapter 9, Paul is comparing Jacob and Esau, professes that the covenants and promises are only for Israel, and later in the chapter he likens them to vessels of mercy, which are the descendants of Jacob, and vessels of destruction, which are the descendants of Esau.
So from verse 22 we read: “22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory…” Now that mercy which is in Christ was many times promised to the ancient children of Israel in the words of the Old Testament prophets. The prophets also declare that Israel was “prepared unto glory”. One example is found in Isaiah chapter 60 where Yahweh speaks of Israel and says “I will glorify the house of my glory.” Another is from early in that same chapter where Yahweh promised Israel “to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.” But Israel, through the promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was to become many nations. Our friend denies it, but we can identify those nations, and so does Paul of Tarsus throughout his epistles, in spite of the ignorance of modern Christians. Paul explained who those nations were in places such as Romans chapters 1, 4 and 15, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and in Galatians chapters 3 and 4.
While we cannot possibly repeat it all here, we have discussed the historical proofs which support Paul’s assertions on many occasions. From the 16th century BC down through the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations of the children of Israel, the Trojans, Romans, Phoenicians, Iberians, Danaan and Dorian Greeks, Kimmerians, Sakae, Scythians, and Galatae had all descended from the ancient children of Israel. While there were other related tribes in Europe long before the children of Israel, the children of Israel can be traced into Europe with all confidence, both in Scripture and in classical history. But our friend clings to the Jewish claims concerning evolutionary biology, and therefore he is not even a true Christian. He is a pagan. The ridiculous expressions of evolutionary biology are first found in the inscriptions of the ancient Sumerians and the legends of Tiamat, the dragon of the underworld and the author of chaos. By that alone we know that they are Jewish, thousands of years before those same people were calling themselves Jews.
Going back to the passage from Romans, in the next verse, as the King James Version has it, in reference to the vessels of mercy we read: “24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” But the translation would be much more accurate if the word for Jews was translated properly as Judaeans, and if the word for Gentiles was translated properly as Nations. Paul began the chapter by praying for his kinsmen according to the flesh, “who are Israelites”, as opposed to the Edomites for which reason he goes on to compare Jacob and Esau. Yet the children of Israel were also to become many nations, and in Romans chapter 4 and again in Acts chapter 26 Paul explained that it is those nations to which he was sent.
So in the next verse, Paul cites the prophet Hosea, and in part this is the passage our friend had cited. But while he did not repeat the entire passage which Paul had cited from Hosea, we shall cite it fully: “25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.” Here it should be readily evident that the same people who were denied are also those who are later accepted and restored, that there is no mention of any substitution or third party here.
But let us go to Hosea to see precisely what was being said there, in order to better understand what is was which Paul was citing. We cannot imagine that Paul, who was trained in and frequently cited the prophets, was citing them out of context or in conflict with what the prophets had actually said. In fact, where Paul had attested to Herod Agrippa II, in Acts chapter 27, that “6 … now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” Then he challenged Agrippa and said “27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” But like a typical Edomite, which he was, Agrippa slithered away by saying “Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” So Paul certainly believed in the prophets, as they are what he taught in relation to the Gospel and to purpose of Christ.
In Hosea chapter 1 the prophet was sent by Yahweh God to marry a whore. It is evident in the text that the whore would become an allegory for the children of Israel, the nation which God considered to be His Own wife, but who had gone off into whoredom. So Hosea was told to have children with the whore, and he did. The first child, a son, Hosea was told to name Jezreel, which in Hebrew means God sows. This would be used to indicate that in spite of their sins and their rejection, God would sow His people in the places to which He was sending them in the Assyrian captivity.
Shortly thereafter, Hosea had a second child and was told to name the daughter Loruhamah, which in Hebrew means no mercy. This would be used to indicate that Yahweh would have no mercy on the house of Israel as they were about to be overrun by the Assyrians and either killed or taken into captivity. The Assyrian records which have been discovered in inscriptions indicate that the number of captives taken over a forty year period was well over several hundred thousand.
After Loruhamah was weaned, the whore conceived once more and bore a son. Hosea was told to call his name Loammi, which in Hebrew means not my people. So the chapter concludes with the following words, referring to the children of Israel: “9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. 10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. 11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”
This is a parable of punishment and reconciliation. In the place where it was said to the children of Israel that they were not the people of Yahweh, going into punishment in captivity, there it would be said to them, and the promise is for them alone, that they are the sons of the living God. This was fulfilled in Christ, and the gospel coming out of ancient Israel is the announcement of the fulfillment. The passage cannot apply to anyone else, and Paul was not attempting to apply it to anyone else. These are the nations of those twelve tribes for whom Paul attested that he had labored. That assertion is ascertained in the very next verse of that same passage in Romans, where Paul said in reference to the prophet Isaiah that “Esaias also crieth concerning Israel”. In other words, if Isaiah also spoke out concerning Israel, then Hosea was speaking concerning Israel, and Paul was not taking the passage out of context. The government churches ever since the Council of Nicaea have never understood that, but we can read it clearly for ourselves.
So we shall read one more verse from Romans chapter 9: “27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” The work was the punishment and reconciliation which Yahweh had promised to Israel in Isaiah, which is mentioned explicitly in Isaiah chapter 28. But there Paul had initially cited Isaiah chapter 10, and we shall see the context in which he was speaking by turning to Isaiah. The ancient Israelites were prophesied to be taken into Assyrian captivity, and they were. Then in Isaiah chapter 10 it is prophesied that they would in turn destroy Assyria, and they did. But when they did, they were called by the names Khumri or Kimmeroi, the Assyrian name for them, and Sakae, from the Persian name for them, while in their own accounts the Greeks also called them Scythians. The Kimmerians and Scythians, with the help of the Medes, Persians and Babylonians, destroyed the cities of the Assyrians in 612 BC, perhaps 80 or so years after Isaiah’s passing. In Isaiah chapter 13 the Medes are also mentioned in this context.
Returning to Isaiah chapter 10, after these things are prophesied we read: “20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. 22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.” The remnant which was to be saved was the remnant of those who went into captivity, and it is that event to which those words apply. They would not return to Palestine, but to Yahweh their God, which they ultimately did in Christ. But in Romans chapter 9 Paul was employing this prophecy in reference to the Judaeans of his time, but only in reference to the Israelites of Judaea, his kinsmen according to the flesh, since their ancestors had once been captive in Babylon but had returned to Jerusalem, using it as an appeal that they should also turn to Christ and be saved. None of Paul’s words concerning these promises could possibly have anything to do with people who were not of Israel. Our friend is blind because he accepts the Judaized version of Christianity and takes it for granted that it is true, when it is the furthest thing from the truth.
The Bible does speak of a race war. In fact, the entire book is about a war against our White race, which is conducted by a more ancient race which had corrupted themselves and rebelled against our God before our time even began. For that purpose, references to the enemies of God, who are described collectively as the serpent or dragon, and also as the devil and satan, are found in Genesis 3:15, Matthew chapters 3, 12 and 23, Luke chapters 3 and 10, John chapter 8, and Revelation chapters 12 and 20. In the Old Testament they were identified only by tribes. The seed of the serpent would have enmity against the seed of the woman, in Genesis chapter 3, and in Revelation chapter 12, where “that old serpent” is identified with “the great dragon” and the Devil and Satan, we read that “when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child”, which is a reference to Christ and His enemies, and then, after the woman escapes into the wilderness: “15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 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.”
Our race is still facing that flood today, as once again we read in Revelation chapter 20 that “Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,” which we can establish actually happened with the emancipation of the Jews, and then it says that he: “shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about,” which is the precise circumstance which our race suffers today. This is the same war that was presaged in Genesis 3:15. We only await the promise that fire shall come down from God out of heaven, and devour them. Elsewhere in the books of the prophets there are other assurances, that we ourselves shall be that fire, once we subject ourselves to our God. As Paul had said in 2 Corinthians chapter 10, Christians should be ready “… to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” One such assurance we find in Obadiah: “18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.”
Then, in that same place concerning those nations which Satan had gathered against the Camp of the Saints: “15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. 16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.” This is just one of the many promises of our ultimate deliverance, and the ultimate destruction of all the enemies of Christ, the Edomites and Canaanites now mostly known as both Jews and Arabs, along with all of the nations which they have gathered against us today. But if we do not come to know the players on the field, we can speak of a race war and we shall never prevail.
The primary problem with our friend is that he sees Christianity as a mere religion or philosophy which anyone can join, but it is truly a covenant made with a specific race. That race is not the Jews, as Paul of Tarsus explained in Acts chapter 26 that the Jews are distinct from the twelve tribes, and the twelve tribes are distinct from the Jews, who were opposed to his the bringing of the Gospel of Christ to the twelve tribes. They were opposed to the point where when he had mentioned that same thing in Acts chapter 22, they wanted to kill him. He also sees the Bible as a collection of stories, when the Bible is actually a collection of books which both explain and record a consistent narrative describing significant portions of the hand of God behind the history of our White race. Furthermore, by thinking that Christianity is universal, which it is not, he does not even understand the true significance of race in the Bible, and why it is important to know that Christ is not a Jew, or that the Jews are not Israel.
This is cognitive dissonance on many levels, because most White Southern Christians believe the Bible, even though they may not have been properly instructed in its meaning. So when our friend rails against Jewish power and authority, the average Southerner or American Protestant Christian understands the basis for that authority, and our friend causes confusion. They believe that the blessings of Abraham in Genesis chapter 12 apply to the Jews, when they do not, so they would not dare curse a Jew. The only way to strip the Jews of their power is to properly understand that the Jews are not of Israel, and they are not legitimate children of Abraham, as Christ had told both them and us on so many occasions. To accept and repeat the lies of the Jews concerning the Bile is to perpetuate Jewish power in society.
Even at the apex of one’s career, it would be a wonderful thing to learn and accept the truth. But to continue to reject truth, the consequences are great. An apex may also be a precipice.