Watchman Willie Martin Archive

                                                                              Universalism Is It Scriptural?

All serious students of the Bible know that neither the Old Testament or the New Testament allows for the inclusion of all the various races on earth; that it is about just one race of people and that is the White Race; The Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Nordic, Slavic, and kindred people and none other.

Judeo‑Christianity with its false (Jew)dieo‑Christian Clergy has promoted a religion, a gospel, if you will, that is a universal religion; when, in fact, it is not. For

                                                                                 The Bible Is Structured By

                                                          Racially Exclusive Covenants

The following is a list of covenants in the Bible, which contain certain terms, conditional or unconditional. Each covenant is interconnected in a progressive unit and with one major common denominator; they all apply to the same Adamic Race.

1). The Adamic Covenant was with Adam:

“So GOD CREATED MAN (adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them. And GOD BLESSED THEM, and GOD SAID UNTO THEM, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:27‑28)

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat of the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou take: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Genesis 3:16‑19)

2). The Edenic Covenant was with Adam:

“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord GOD COMMANDED THE MAN (adam), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:15‑17)

3). The Noahdic Covenant was with Noah and Noah’s genetic “seed,” the direct descendants of Adam and Seth:

“And I, behold, I ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU (Noah), AND WITH YOUR SEED AFTER YOU; of the fowl, of the cattle and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH YOU; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:9‑11)

4). The Abrahamic Covenant was with Abraham and his “seed” referring specifically to Isaac and his genetic line, This was a racially exclusive covenant:

“O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the Lord our God, his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which HE COMMANDED TO A THOUSAND GENERATIONS; Even of  THE COVENANT WHICH HE MADE WITH ABRAHAM, and of his oath UNTO ISAAC, and hath confirmed THE SAME TO JACOB for a law, and TO ISRAEL for an everlasting covenant...” (1 Chronicles 16:13‑17) direct descendants of Adam, Seth, Noah and Shem:

A: Abraham was to become a great and mighty nation: “And I WILL MAKE OF THEE (Abram) a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing...” (Genesis 12:2)

B: Abraham would become a blessing to all the families and nations of the earth.

 “And I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)

“Seeing that ABRAHAM shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?” (Genesis 18:18)

C: Abraham’s descendants would become a vast multitude of people.

 “And I will make THY SEED as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall THY SEED also be numbered.” (Genesis 13:16)

“That in blessing I will bless thee (Abraham), and in multiplying I will multiply THY SEED as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore...” (Genesis 22:17)

D: Abraham’s descendants would become a multitude of nations.

“As for me, behold, my covenant is WITH THEE, and thou shalt be A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham: for A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I WILL MAKE NATIONS OF THEE, and kings shall come out of thee.” (Genesis 17:4‑6)

E: Abraham’s descendants would produce kings.

“...and KINGS SHALL COME OUT OF THEE.” (Genesis 17:6)

F: Abraham’s descendants would possess the gates of their enemies.

“...and THY SEED shall possess the gate of his enemies...” (Genesis 22:17

G: Abraham’s descendants would possess Canaan, the land area known today as old Palestine.

“And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto THY SEED WILL I GIVE THIS LAND...” (Genesis 12:7)

5). The Mosaic Covenant was with Israel, the direct descendants of Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel: (It was not made with the world nor with any other people on the planet earth; it was with Abraham and his descentants only)

 “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you (Israel) on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, IF YE WILL OBEY MY VOICE INDEED, AND KEEP MY COVENANT, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. THESE ARE THE WORDS WHICH THOU SHALT SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.” (Exodus 19:4‑6)

6). The Davidic Covenant was with David and his “seed,” direct descendants of Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Judah:

“He (Solomon) shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And THINE HOUSE and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.” (2 Samuel 7:13‑16)

“I will sing of the mercies of the Lord forever with my mouth I will make known thy faithfulness to all generations. For I have said, Mercy shall be built up forever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens. I HAVE MADE A COVENANT WITH MY CHOSEN, I have sworn UNTO DAVID my servant, THY SEED will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.” (Psalm 89:1‑4)

7). The New Covenant was with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, direct descendants of Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel and their seed:

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH: Not according to the covenant that I made with THEIR FATHERS (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel) in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke (Exodus 34:27), although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.” (Jeremiah 31:31‑33; see also Hebrews 8:7‑10)

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; For THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for many (of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah) for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26‑28)

“And for this cause HE IS THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, that by means of death, FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS THAT WERE UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT, they which are called might received the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)

The context of Jeremiah 31:31‑33 above reveals in the words “their fathers...” the identity of a physical Israel divided at the time of this prophecy into two kingdoms called the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Further, the references above in Matthew and Hebrews combine to clearly indicate that the New Covenant ratified by Jesus’ blood was confirmed “for many for the remission of sins,” that is “for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament (covenant).” The “first covenant’ only applied to Adamic Israel and thus, the New Covenant obviously is assigned solely and consistently to Adamic Israel. They are the ONLY parties to the New Covenant.

The preceding briefly outlines the major tenets of the context of the Bible by which the “gospel” must be interpreted. That interpretation must be consistent with the subject matter, the race and the covenants of the Bible. Without that contextual foundation, the “gospel” may well mean and apply to anything or anyone based, for example, on the judaistic universal philosophy of the day. Within the Biblical context, however, the “gospel” applies exclusively to a particular race (The Adamic White Race), which was given a dominion mandate (the Kingdom of God on earth) through specially defined covenants, especially the New Covenant in Jesus Christ.

With this study we are going to explore the unscriptural doctrine of “universalism.” We are going to start by examining a passage of Scripture which many Judeo-Christian ministers point out as authenticating such a tenet. This passage is found in Isaiah 56:4-8:

4).    For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose THE THINGS that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

5).    Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

6).    Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and TAKETH HOLD OF MY COVENANT;

7).    Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices SHALL BE accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

8). The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather OTHERS (the word others is italicized therefore it was added by the interpreters, and was not in the original text) to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. (KJV)

Ferror Fenton renders it:

4). For thus the Ever-Living says: “If they My Sabbath keep,

5). I give them in My home And walls a place and name More fair than girls or sons. A lasting name I give, Which will not be destroyed.”

6). And men of Foreign birth Who join the Lord and serve And love His Living Name, Shall be to Him for sons; Who keep His Rest unbroken, And hold His Treaty (Covenant) firm;

7). “They shall reach My Sacred Hill, Joy in My House of Prayer, And there upon My Altar Their gifts and offering place, For My House, a House of Prayer, Shall be called for every tribe.”

8). For thus the Great Lord says, “When LOST ISRAEL I collect, I will collect with him, Beyond him, My select!”

Except for the clause, “taketh hold of my covenant,” or as Ferror Fenton said “And hold His treaty firm,” it would appear from this passage, at least on the surface, that somehow Yahweh wants to bring everyone regardless of race into His House of worship. Being translated, “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people,” it would seem to be the gist or essence of what is being said. Before we leap to a conclusion, let’s take a better look at the world “all.”

Before we consider the word all, let’s examine one commentary which suggests that it is an invitation for all other races to join in with the Israelites. “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald says this of this verse on page 982:

“The Temple will then be a house of prayer for all nations, not just Israel. God will gather Gentiles (heathen) to His fold in addition to the house of Israel.” (Yet we know that the word “Gentile or Gentiles means Israelites and not some other race or people)

We don’t know about you, but it sounds like Universalism to us. Universalism is now taught in almost every church, Catholic or Protestant alike. Let’s now return to that word “all.” it is the word #3605 in the Strong’s Concordance. It seems that the word “all” doesn’t mean all, in every case. In Hebrew. “Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament,” says on page 396:

“... English ‘all’ and ‘whole’ ... In western languages it has to be rendered by adjectives ... in English this has to be expressed either by ‘whole’ preceded by THE ARTICLE, or by ‘all’ followed by it; when the noun is made definite by a pronoun suffixed, it must be rendered in English by ‘all’ without the article, or else by ‘the whole of’ ... THE WHOLE EARTH, ALL THE EARTH, Genesis 9:19; 11:1; ... the whole people, Genesis 19:4; ... the whole flock, Genesis 31:8; the whole circuit of Jordan, genesis 13:10; ... all my people, Genesis 41:40; ... all of him, Genesis 25:25; ... the whole vision, Isaiah 29:11; ... all the wicked, Psalm 145:20; ... all those who fall, Psalm 145:14 ...”

In other words, if this passage meant all people regardless of race, it should have been rendered, “a house of prayer for all [THE] people [or THE whole people].” #3605 is the same Strong’s number found in Genesis 3:20 where it says:

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of ‘ALL’ living.”

Therefore, if it meant that Eve was the mother of all the races, it would have said, “because she was the mother of all [THE] living. In Israel Identity, from overwhelming evidence long accumulated, we know that Eve was NOT the mother of all the races. The only child that Eve mothered besides those of the Adamic race was Cain who was fathered by Satan through seduction. Now we can know for sure that Yahweh didn’t want ALL other races in his “house of prayer.” Now that we have resolved the word “all,” let’s consider the word “people” like in “mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all PEOPLE.” the word “people” is the word #5971 in the Strong’s Concordance which says:

People: Strong’s Concordance: #5971... ‘am, am; from 6004; a PEOPLE (as a congregated unit); specifically a TRIBE (as those of Israel); hence (collectively) TROOPS or attendants; figuratively a FLOCK; folk, men, nation, people.

People: Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Definition: #5971  am‑





From this definition of the Hebrew word #5971, it is obvious that the phase “all people” neither means “all” nor just any kind of “people.” the word people in this verse is speaking to a particular kind of people, “a people,” “a congregated unit,” “a specific people,” “an Israel people,” “troops, as a collection of a particular kind of people,” “flock, a group of like-kind.” Plain and unmistakably, the phrase “all people” doesn’t mean the same thing in English as it does in Hebrew! The Ferrar Fenton translation renders Isaiah 56:7 as follows:

“For My House, a House of Prayer, Shall be called for every tribe.”

This is quite a contrast to the KJV which says: “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” Naturally, Israel was divided into tribes, and thus, “My House shall be called a House of Prayer for all the tribes of Israel.” It’s not talking about bring the heathen into Yahweh’s House!

                                                              Yahweh Didn’t Promise to Gather “Others”

The next verse we are going to consider in this passage is verse 8 (Isaiah 56:8) which reads:

“The Lord God which gathered the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather ‘OTHERS’ to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.”

The first important thing to notice in this verse is that the word “others” is not in the text, as it is in italics! It was inserted in there by the translators! Evidently, the translators were biased toward the false doctrine of universalism or they would not have put it there. The best rendering we have found on this verse is from “The New English Bible With The Apocrypha.”

According to the information presented on the cover, “The New English Bible is a fresh and authoritative translation of the Bible into modern English. It is a complete translation from the original tongues, enriched by the most recent biblical scholarship and enlivened by a fluent literary style which is clear, vigorous and often majestic. The work began more than twenty years ago (twenty years before 1970) and has been carried out under the authority of a Joint committee on which are representatives of the major Protestant churches of the British Isles. In the later stages the Committee was joined by observers representing the Roman Catholic Church.”

This translation was planned and directed by representatives of: The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland; The Church of England; the Church of Scotland: The Congregational Church in England and Wales; The Council of Churches of Wales; The Irish Council of Churches; The London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends; The Methodist Church of Great Britain; The Presbyterian Church of England; The British and Foreign Bible Society; and, The, Nations Bible Society of Scotland. With this kind of lineup, you can be sure that each faction was watching the others to see to it there was no hanky-panky going on concerning the Scriptures. We believe it is quite interesting how they translated Isaiah 56:8:

“This is the very word of the Lord God, who brings home the outcast of Israel: I will yet bring home all that remain to be brought in.”

This properly translated verse hardly leaves room for “others” besides Israel to “gathered” (#6908,to take, to grasp with the hand). If they had translated it “Yahweh” instead of “Lord God,” it would have been an even better translation. It’s not talking about bringing “other” besides Israel, it’s talking about bringing Israelites, and then more Israelites until all the Israelites are brought or gathered in. There isn’t any room for universalism here!

Amazingly enough, we have another modern version which is sometimes consulted called “God’s Word, Today’s Bible translation that says what it means.” We are sure there are many passages in this translation that might not be trusted, but guess how they translated Isaiah 56:8? Let’s take a look:

“The Almighty Lord, who gathers THE SCATTERED PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, declares, ‘I will gather still others BESIDES THOSE I HAVE ALREADY GATHERED.

The implication being that Yahweh will gather more Israelites besides the Israelites He has already gathered. Taking the context and the time period of this verse into account, this is being addressed to the REMNANT House of Judah that were still gathered to Him at Jerusalem, while the House of Israel, along with the rest of the House of Judah captured by Senacherib, had already been scattered into Assyria. This verse is simply speaking of gathering back these scattered Israelites, and not particularly to Jerusalem. Its not speaking about the other races and peoples of the earth.

                                                                                            The Time Frame

It is always well to take notice of the approximate date at which something is written. If you have a KJV with a center reference there is usually a date for each chapter (although some have them and others don’t). Sometimes Bibles other than the KJV have the dates listed for each page of each chapter. That is why it is nice to have more than one Bible. The KJV we use most was printed by “The World Publishing Company,” in the mid 50's and has the proper center reference to prove Two Seedline and also has the dates listed for each page of each chapter.

We also have a Southwestern Bible with large print which is the same as our World Bible. In the two KJV’s every chapter in Isaiah from and including chapter 38 to and including chapter 56 is dated 712 B.C. that is 19 chapters in all. This is the approximate date for the writing of these chapters. Although the writing time is approximately 712 B.C., the prophecy’s fulfillment can be dated many years (10's, 100's, and 1000's of years) later. For instance, Cyrus, king of Persia, is spoken of in Isaiah 44:28 (dated 712 B.C.) Who began his reign about 560/529 B.C., or approximately 153 years after Isaiah’s writing. For the chapter of Isaiah we are considering (Isaiah 56) it would be about the time of the return of the Judean captives form Babylon which happened about 538-529 B.C. When we understand these dates, it accounts for some of the many seeming discrepancies we find in this particular chapter.

For instance, we need only to back up to verse 3 in Isaiah chapter 56 to see a couple of very glaring discrepancies. It reads thus:

“Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I ‘am’ a dry tree.”

Ferror Fenton renders it:

“Let not the convert say: ‘The Lord cuts from His Race Nor let the Eunuch cry, ‘I am a withered tree!’”

For a “eunuch,” this would seem to be a contradiction according to Leviticus 21:18-21 and Deuteronomy 23:1 which say respectively:

18). For whatsoever man ‘HE BE’ that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19). Or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,

20). Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his STONES BROKEN;

21). No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deuteronomy 23:1:

1).    He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

When we consider these passages which are seemingly in conflict with Isaiah 56:3, we have to consider the time frame and conditions under which they were written. It is almost certain that Daniel was a eunuch, at least, according to Herodotus. No doubt, all of Daniel’s Hebrew companions in the high offices of Nebuchadnezzar were all eunuchs. This would account for a change in disposition toward a eunuch at this time. For more information on “eunuchs,” we will quote from “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” volume E-J, pages 179-180:

“EUNUCH [... to emasculate]. Alternately: OFFICER; CAPTAIN. A Chamberlain for the woman’s quarters in the royal household; usually a castrated male person. There are married eunuchs (Genesis 39:1), but Potiphar may not be literally a eunuch, as the word may indicate his office only. However, if he were a eunuch, his anger against Joseph would have more force. Usually the word implies sterility (1 Samuel 8:15; Isaiah 56:3) in Israel (cf. In Babylon [Daniel 1:3]; in Persia [Esther 2:3]; in Ethiopia ]Jeremiah 38:7; Acts 8:27])

“These men could be high officials (Genesis 39:1; Acts 8:27). But in Israel they were excluded from the covenant congregation, as were all impaired and defective persons. (Leviticus 22:24; Deuteronomy 23:1) This made the threat of exile calamitous:

“And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shall beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” (Isaiah 39:7)

“There is no certainty that this prophecy was carried out, or that Daniel was a eunuch (2 Kings 20:17-18), although Herodotus suggests that captives were commonly made eunuchs. The Tyrian Jezebel used eunuchs (1 Kings 22:9, cf. 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32) David had such officers (1 Samuel 8:15; 1 Chronicles 28:1) The last kings of Judah knew them (2 Kings 24:15; Jeremiah 41:16) Herod the Great used a eunuch for cupbearer (Josephus, Antiquates, XV, viii, 4: XVI, viii, I) The law-abiding eunuch is praised (Wisd. Sol. 3:14); and in the messianic kingdom, despite Deuteronomy, these castrated outcast will rank before the unfaithful of Israel (Isaiah 56:3-5)...”

There is evidence in Jeremiah 41:16 that Zedekiah had made eunuchs of his people for his harem of wives and children. This may have been one of the reasons Yahweh was so angry with him. It was also an Ethiopian eunuch by the name of Ebedmelech which rescued Jeremiah from a dungeon. This Ethiopian was a Cushite, no doubt of the same tribe as Moses’ wife came from, WHO WAS A WHITE WOMAN! Therefore, the “stranger” spoken of along with the “eunuch” in Isaiah 56:3 are more than likely also Ethiopian Cushites. There were two different peoples who were referred to as Cushites and to understand the “stranger” and “eunuch” of Isaiah 56:3, we are going to have to know the difference. For this we are going to use a short quote from Bertrand L. Comparet’s complete works of radio sermons entitled “You Heritage,” under the title, “Whom Did Moses Marry?,” page 67.

“When you think you have found some discrepancy in Yahweh’s word, some contradiction which can be used as the foundation for conflicting doctrines, you can never safely rely upon what you find in the English translation, until you have (at least) checked it in a good lexicon. The best references are the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries included in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which is more thorough than most of the others. You often find that defective scholarship in early translations, has become accepted as doctrine. It is continued, although the original word will not support the meaning given it in the translation. Let’s get back to Moses and his wife. In Numbers 12:1, the Hebrew does not say Ethiopian, it says Cush, a descendant of Cush, or a resident of the land of Cush. Remember that Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 10:6 tells us the sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, Noah and his wife were both White, so their children naturally were of the same race ... (Also Genesis 6:9 says Noah was perfect (pure) in his generation (Race) as were (the sons he generated))

“There were two different countries named Cush in Bible times, one was Ethiopia, lying south of the Sudan in Africa. However, there was ANOTHER CUSH in ancient times, it was in eastern Mesopotamia, or what at other times was part of the Babylonian empire. These people were certainly not a black race at any time. This Cush flourished about 1500 B.C., during the time of Moses, the Exodus from Egypt occurred in 1486 B.C. Who can we expect to find living in Cush, on the east side of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and from what people that lived there did Moses take his wife? In the first place, note there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Bible which says, or even hints, that Moses was ever in Ethiopia or any place else, where he could have found a Negro woman to marry. The Bible does tell us where Moses got his wife, and who she was. Remember Moses had killed an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite.”

From this, you can see that we can drop the word “Ethiopian” in the above references, and replace it with the word Cushite, as the word Ethiopian only confuses the issue. You should, also, be beginning to see this passage in Isaiah 56:1-8 has nothing whatsoever to do with universalism, but quite the opposite. You should also be beginning to see how dangerous it is to read any of the English versions of the Bible without consulting the original languages they are written in! One simply understand a lot of the Bible message otherwise.

                                                                       A Similar Passage in the Apocrypha

There is a similar passage in the Apocrypha like the Eunuch of Isaiah 56:3. It is found in the Wisdom Of Solomon 3:14 and reads:

“And ‘BLESSED IS’ the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against Yahweh: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of Yahweh more acceptable to his mind.”

This passage, like Isaiah 56:3, is not speaking of universalism either. To show you this, we will quote the entire 3rd chapter of the Wisdom Of Solomon. We will add explanations in brackets as we go along. We will use brackets [ ] so you will understand our explanations are not part of the text. This is a very outstanding passage when understood in the proper light. We believe you will be surprised:

1). But the souls of the righteous [Yahweh’s sons and daughters] are in the hand of Yahweh, and there shall no torment touch them.

2). In the sight of the unwise [other races] they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery.

3). And their going from us to be utter destruction [no life hereafter]: but [truly] they are in peace.

4). For though they [Yahweh’s people] be punished in the sight of [enowsh] men, yet is their hope full of immortality.

5). And having been a little chastised, they [the sons and daughters of Yahweh: Israel] shall be greatly rewarded: for Yahweh proved [tested] them, and found them worthy for himself.

6). As gold in the furnace hath he tried them [sons of Adam], and received them as a burnt [purified] offering.

7). And in the time of their [future] visitation they shall shine, and [with a glorified body] run to and fro like sparks among the stubble [“Jews” and others].

8). They [the saints of Israel] shall judge [reprove] the [Israel] nations, and have dominion over the [Israel] people, and their Mighty On shall reign for ever.

9). They that put their trust in him [Yahweh] shall understand the truth: and such [of them] as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect [Israel].

10). But the un-Yahweh like [the literal descendants of Satan]  shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsake [repudiated] Yahweh.

11), For whoso despiseth wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their [the “Jews’s”] hope is vain, their [the “Jews”] labors unfruitful, and their [the “Jews”] works unprofitable:

12). Their [the Jew’s] wives are foolish, and their children wicked.

13). Their [the “Jews”] offspring is cursed. Wherefore blessed is the barren that is undefiled [by another race], which hath not known the sinful [race-mixing] bed: she shall have fruit [children] in the visitation of [living Adamic] souls.

14). And ‘BLESSED IS’ the eunuch, which with his hands hath wrought no iniquity, nor imagined wicked things against Yahweh: for unto him shall be given the special gift of faith, and an inheritance in the temple of Yahweh more acceptable to his mind.

15). For glorious is the fruit of good labors: and the root of wisdom shall never fall away.

16). As for the children of adulterers [race-mixing], they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed [children] of an unrighteous [race-mixing] bed shall be rooted out [destroyed].

17). For though they live long, yet they shall be nothing regarded: and their last age [future generations] shall be without honor.

18). Or, if they die quickly, they have no hope [of resurrection’, neither comfort in the day of trial.

19). For horrible is the end of the unrighteous [race-mixing] generation.

If you think this is something outstanding, just consider the following six verses of chapter 4:

1). Better it is to have no children, and to have virtue [purity of race]: for the memorial thereof is immortal [life]: because it is known with Yahweh, and with [Adamic] men.

2). When it [race purity] is present, men take example [notice] at it; and when it is gone, they desire [grieve for the loss of] it: it [pure race] weareth a crown, and triumpheth for ever, having gotten the victory [of racial purity], striving for undefiled [racial] rewards.

3). But the multiplying brood [progeny] of the un-Yahweh [non-Adamic] like shall not thrive, nor take deep rooting from bastard [mamzer hybrid] slips [grafting of another race], nor lay any fast [racially sound] foundation.

4). For though they flourish in [our family] branches for a time; yet standing not fast [not racially sound], they shall be shaken with the wind, and through the force of winds they shall be rooted out [or our family tree].

5). The imperfect [racially-mixed] branches shall be broken off, their fruit [offspring being] unprofitable, not ripe to eat [not suitable to offer as mates to others of our kind], yea, [they are] meet [fit] for nothing.

6). For children begotten of unlawful [race-mixing] beds are witnesses of wickedness against their parents in their trial [ordeal].

You may not agree with the comments we have included in brackets [ ] with the above passages from the Wisdom Of Solomon from The Apocrypha, chapters 3 and 4, but you cannot take away the terms “bastard slips,” “children of adulterers” and “unlawful beds.”

At any rate, let’s get back to the subject of eunuchs as priests in the temple, we have to consider that this was an instruction only to the children of Aaron, for Leviticus 21:17 says:

“Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever ‘HE BE’ of thy seed in their generations that hath ‘ANY’ blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.”

Inasmuch as this offering of bread (communion as we would call it) represented the body of Yahshua the promised Messiah to come, at that time it was needful to have priests who were perfect in health and appearance. The “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible,” Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 171, says this concerning verse 17;

“Never was a wiser, a more rational, and more expedient law enacted relative to sacred matters. The man who ministers in holy things, who professes to be the interpreter of the will of God, should have nothing in his person nor in his manner which cannot contribute to render him respectable in the eyes of those to whom he ministers.”

While this is a very good comment. We would rather believe that this law enacted for the respect of the body of the promised Messiah. It was a token on the part of the Aaronic priesthood to expect a perfect sacrifice as the future Redeemer of Israel, and otherwise could only be flawless in nature. Thus, these priests of Aaron, perfect in health and appearance, represented Yahshua who Himself would be perfect in His Priesthood and His body a perfect sacrifice. The other Aaronic priests with physical defects were allowed to perform lesser duties in the temple. It is simply amazing, sometimes, what some read into these passages. We could only find one commentary which really spelled it out (not being a long extended observation), and it was “Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Bible,” volume 1, page 244:

“... The reason hereof is partly typical, that he might more fully represent Christ, the great High Priest, who was typified both by the priest and sacrifice, and therefore both were to be without blemish ...”

Thus, we can conclude that a castrated mail would not and could not represent a priest or sacrifice without blemish, and therefore not suitable to represent the perfect Redeemer Messiah. To represent the perfect Sacrifice in Yahshua, it had to be a male of the family of Aaron with zero blemishes, which included non-castration. When we understand these things in their proper light, they make a lot of sense. To propagate the doctrine of universalism from Isaiah chapter 56, verses 1 through 8, is simply fallacious!

                                                                        Some Say There Were Two Different Isaiah

Because there is seemingly so great a disparity in the style of writing between the early chapters of Isaiah and the latter chapters, many comment with the premise that there must have been more than one writer, or two different Isaiah. For a more positive view concerning this, we will quote from “The Post-Captivity Names Of Israel,” by Rev. Wm. Pasco Goard, page 16:

“So great is the difference of tone and viewpoint between the first section which deals with the breakdown of the nations in the B.C., period and the restoration described as coming at the end of the prophetic period that many have supposed that there were two Isaiah. However this may be, the theme is one.”

Some Misleading Commentary on Isaiah 56:1-8

Every once in a while it is our displeasure to have to quote from a source which, by its very nature, is not the best. This time it is from a book called “The Institute of Biblical Law,” by Rousas John Rushdoony. Whatever else he might have written for the better, his comments on Isaiah 56:1-8 leave much to be desired. We even hesitate to use this quote for fear of causing confusion among those who are not well established in the faith. Nevertheless, it is a very good example of a miscarriage of interpretation concerning a vitally important subject. For an exercise in mental adeptness, see how many misplaced statements you can detect as we proceed with this one. It is found on pages 84-85:

“Not only death and disease were to be separated from the people of life, but also eunuchs and bastards (Deuteronomy 23:1-2). Various forms of self-mutilation (Deuteronomy 14:1-2; Leviticus 19:27) were forbidden, as was tattooing (Leviticus 19:28) ... With respect to the ban on eunuchs and bastards, i.e., their being barred from the congregation, it is to the tenth generation. According to one editorial footnote in the Talmud, entering in to the congregation of the Lord meant “eligible to intermarry with Israelites,” and according to another editorial note, the expression “to his tenth generation” meant “the stigma is perpetual.” The ban on intermarriage was probably a real factor; certainly the penalty would work to make intermarriage difficult. But this does not get to the root of the matter. The ban was not on faith; i.e., it is not stated that the bastards and eunuchs nor, in Deuteronomy 23:3, that Ammonites and Moabites, cannot be believers. There is, in fact, a particularly strong promise of blessing to believing eunuchs in Isaiah 56:4-5, and their place as proselytes was real even in the era of hardened Phariseeism. (Acts 8:27-28) The Moabitess Ruth intermarried twice, first with a son of Naomi, then with Boaz, to become an ancestress of Jesus Christ. (Ruth 1:4; 4:13, 18-21; Matthew 1:5) There is no reason to doubt that eunuchs, bastards, Ammonites, and Moabites regularly became believers and were faithful worshipers of God ... All the integrity and honesty required by the law was due to every “stranger” (Leviticus 19:33-34), and it was certainly not denied a man’s illegitimate child, nor to a eunuch, an Ammonite, or a Moabite ... There is some ground for such an interpretation in terms of Deuteronomy 23:7-8, where the Edomites are given entrance into “the assembly of the Lord” on the third generation.”

We certainly hope you were awake on this one. You should have readily recognized several anomalies in this sort of position presented here. Sometimes it doesn’t take very many words to expose just what a man is thinking. Did you notice how he made our Redeemer a descendant of a Moabite? He is far from being alone on this one, as almost everyone else assumes the same thing. And this man is writing a 900 page book on Bible Law?

Did you notice how he groups the bastards, eunuchs, Ammonites and Moabites all into one basket and treats them all alike, and even suggested that Edomites were to be allowed into the congregation? In one place he groups the eunuchs with the bastards together, and makes the remark into their being barred from the congregation, it is to the tenth generation.

We were wondering, how do you get a eunuch to the tenth generation inasmuch as he cannot have any children? Obviously, he didn’t get anything remotely like this from Scripture. Actually all of these topics should be treated separately, and this is a good illustration to show you why.

Did you notice how he uses the term “stranger” as an all inclusive word, while the Hebrew in the Strong’s Concordance uses the numbers 1616, 4033, 5235, 5237, 2114, 8435, 1121 and 376 for various types of strangers? If he is using the Biblical word “stranger” wrongly in the general English sense, how many other words has he taken out of context? We really hate to point someone out as an example, but WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN TO SCRUTINIZE ALL BOOKS, and every man’s work should be open for critical review.

We dare not even trust any of the Bible translations as being 100% correct. Did you notice how he treats the eunuchs of Isaiah 56:4-5 as proselytes, as if they were of some other race and being accepted because they are “believing eunuchs?” From this remark, it is detectable that he believes in universalism, that any race can be in the Kingdom if they just believe.

But even the demons and devils believe and tremble:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)

Matthew tells us:

“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, THERE MET HIM TWO POSSESSED WITH DEVILS, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, THEY (The devils) CRIED OUT, SAYING, WHAT HAVE WE TO DO WITH THEE, JESUS, THOU SON OF GOD? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:28-29)

Here we have a witness that the devils themselves know and believe in Yahshua, but does that mean they can be saved? I think not. Christ did not preach to these two men, He simply drove the devils out of them.

Mark relates:

“And unclean spirits, when they saw him (Yahshua), fell down before him (Yahshua), and cried, saying THOU ART THE SON OF GOD.” (Mark 1:24)

Mark again states:

“And unclean spirits, when they saw him (Yahshua) WHAT HAVE WE TO DO WITH THEE, THOU JESUS OF NAZARETH? Art thou come to destroy us? I KNOW THEE WHO THOU ART, THE HOLY ONE OF GOD.” (Mark 3:11)

Luke tells us:


In Acts 19:15, we find:

“And THE EVIL SPIRIT ANSWERED AND SAID, JESUS I KNOW, and Paul I know; but who are ye?”

And while speaking of Ammonites, did you know the Japanese of today’ are the modern day Ammonites? Alan Campbell wrote a small booklet called “The Kings of The East,” to this fact. Also Thomas E. Plant wrote a booklet, “The Japanese, Who Are they?” on this very subject. In other words, it was Ammonites which attacked Pearl Harbor. The booklet by Plant tries to say the “Jews” are of Israel on page 15, otherwise his Japanese premise is quite interesting.

While we are considering the various groups that could not mingle with Israel, we should include the Edomites which Rousas John Rushdoony mentions above.

                                                                                  Edomites (The Jews) Forbidden

                                                                                       to Mix With Israel Forever

We know instantly you are going to quote to us Deuteronomy 23:7 which reads:

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he ‘is’ thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

There are four reasons for believing the above passage was either added or modified from the original. All of Esau’s children were bastards (mamzers, and, therefore, verse 2 of this chapter applies to them. There is simply no way, according to verse 2, that the Edomites could qualify for entry into Yahweh’s House. Secondly, the Edomites were just as hostile to Israel as were Ammon and Moab when Israel was on the march to Canaan. For this, Ammon and Moab were forbidden forever from entering Yahweh’s House. Secondly, the Edomites were just as hostile to Israel as were Ammon and Moab when Israel was on the march to Canaan. For this, Ammon and Moab were forbidden forever from entering Yahweh’s House (v. 4). Edom’s hostility is recorded in Numbers 20:18, 20-21:

18). And Edom said unto him (Israel). Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword ...

20). And he (Edom) said, Thou shalt not go through, and Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.

21). Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

It is obvious, from that Edom had treated Israel just as badly as Ammon or Moab had done. Not only this, but the Amalekites (an Edomite tribe) were the first to oppose Israel and were prophesied to be at war with Israel from generation to generation throughout history which is still going on to this very day. It is downright ludicrousness and nonsense that Israel should incorporate any Edomites among them (Exodus 17:16)! Not only this, but Saul, the first king of Israel, was commissioned to kill every Amalekite (Edomite) man, woman, Child and all their cattle. (1 Samuel 15:3) This hardly sounds like brotherly love for the Edomites to me. This is the third reason we believe Deuteronomy 23:7 was added to or altered by some scribe later on (some “Jewish” scribe, no doubt) Fourthly, the Edomites had mixed with the descendants of Cain by the time period of Deuteronomy 23. In Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten Canaanite tribes, and among them is listed an Edomite tribe of the Kenizzites. The Kenizzites are indeed of Esau. The “Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,” volume 3, page 782, has this to say of Kenaz and the Kenizzites:

“KENAZ Singular form of the clan name Kenizzite, son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:11; 1 Chronicles 1:36), one of the chieftains of Edom (KJV Dukes) (Genesis 36:15, 42; 1 Chronicles 1:53)

                                                                                      Ten Nations Become Seven

This is interesting and important, it seems that Esau has mixed his blood with this group of ten nations too! Now in Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten nations and they race-mixed so much that in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 there are only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group from which the “Jews” are extracted. The “Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible,” Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, says:

“THE KENITES. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deuteronomy 7:1; Acts 13:19. Probably some of them which existed in Abram’s time had been BLENDED with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only of the ten then remained.”

In the “Peake’s Commentary on the Bible,” page 116 we find the following about this mixed up group of nations spoken of in Genesis 15:19-21:

“When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there a VERY MIXED population generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite.”

Most people in Israel Identity seem to understand Edom better than they do Cain, but there is much more to understand about Esau than has been presented by the Judeo-Christian clergy. Before we get into the subject in detail, we will present some “facts” that are simply not true. There is nothing like getting some dead wood out of the way at the start. For those who believe the scriptures are without scrible errors, we will be showing you such an error of monumental proportions. These kinds of errors can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. Once we deal with the translation errors, then we must contend with the idioms. Unless we make an effort to understand the idioms, we will miss most of the message of the Scriptures. Scripture simply cannot be taken literally when idioms are involved. Every serious Bible student needs to get the small booklet “Idioms Of The Bible Explained,” by George M. Lamsa published by Harper-Collins.

When we have completed this, you will be able to clearly see that the universalism teaching is false, and the teaching of the antichrists who have inhabited our seminaries and churches.

There are approximately 27,000 translation errors in our present Bibles. Some various translations by various translators have attempted to clean up many of these discrepancies, but the errors are very numerous and overwhelming. The translation of Deuteronomy 23:7 is one of them. We will start by quoting this passage:

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he ‘is’ thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

From this verse it would appear that we should welcome all Edomites into our congregations with open arms and with no questions asked, and that we are somehow guilty of some dire contemptible sin for even thinking an evil thought against them. We ask you: Is this not the impression which seized upon you when you read this passage for the first time? Remember the guilty, dirty, condemning feeling which came over you for even giving the Edomites the slightest hint of disparaging thought, that somehow Yahweh might suddenly kill you in your very tracks for even blinking your eye?

If this has been your reaction when reading this passage in the past, forget it, for that is not what this verse is saying; not even remotely. We happened on this verse many years ago when listening to a presentation by an Identity speaker making reference to the Edomites and using this verse as one of his points. At the time, we decided to look into the Hebrew meaning of the word for ourselves. We found the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible assigned the term “Edomite the Hebrew word #130 which says:

“ ... Edômîy ... Edôwmîy, ed-o-mee’; patronymic [derived from father’s name] from #123; an EDOMITE or descendants from (or inhabitant of) Edom: Edomite. See 726.”

Inasmuch as we didn’t want to overlook anything important, and we felt there was something desperately wrong with this passage, we decided to check on the word #726 which had the following to say:

Edomite: Strong’s Concordance: #726 “... Arôwmîy, ar-o-mee’; a CLERICAL ERROR FOR #130; AN edomite (AS IN THE MARGIN): Syrian.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Definition: #726  'Arowmiy‑Aramite, SYRIAN (Kethib), Edomite.

At once this struck, for if the proper rendering was “Syrian” instead of “Edomite,” it would make all the difference in the world.

We have pointed this out to many people, and some have replied that we error and that the verse as related in the Bible is correct. Yet we are satisfied that the word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. One party as all but challenged us to give a challenge to our supposition. It was only recently that we discovered what the CLERICAL ERROR is or was. We will now reveal to you how we made this discovery. As we had decided to take up the topic of Esau, we were in the process of reading anything and everything we could find on the subject. It was the reading in “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom where we find:

“... there are places where, because of the similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r)., the text was wrongly read __À, ‘Aram’ (i.e., Syria), and ____À, Arameans” (i.e., Syrians), for __À, ‘Edom,’ and ____À, “Edomites,” such as 2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chronicles 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.

We have followed the Hebrew characters as faithfully as we know how to do with our computer. We may have made a mistake. We will enclose documentation later so you can check against our references. The main thing to notice here is the “similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r).” You can see very readily, that a very slip of the pen can change the word from Edomite to Syrian, or Syrian to Edomite. We will enlarge on these two Hebrew letters and place them side by side so you can observe the difference in them:

                                                                                                          _    _

Just this very small change in the Hebrew writing, and the word can be changed from Syrian to Edomite! Think of it this way, syRian or eDomite. By this slight change, the Hebrew “r” sound is changed to a “d” sound. What we have here so far is: the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible” pointing out that there is a CLERICAL ERROR, and “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” point out the NATURE OF THE ERROR.

“The Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible” is actually making references to two other passages, but the principal here is the same. We will also include the Hebrew alphabet from the “Wilson’s Old testament Word Studies” later so you can check the phonetic sounds of these two letters. When we find discrepancies of this nature in Scripture, we are going to have to prove them by the context of the entire Bible.

Deuteronomy 23:7, with the use of the term Edomite, definitely is not in scriptural context, but with the term Syrian, it is very much in context, for it fits perfectly.

With all of this, we are at a loss to know whether this is an honest scribe error or a deliberate piece of sabotage by the enemy. A very short reference to the problem of confusing Syria with Edom, or confusing Edom with Syria is alluded to in “The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,” volume 2, page 204 which says:

“... in 2 Kings 16:6, ‘Edom’ should read for ‘Aram’...”

Let’s look at what the Nelson’s Bible Dictionary has to say about the Edomites. And puts the lie to Deuteronomy 23:7 and shows that the Edomites cannot possibly be the ones that we are not to abhor:

Edomites: [EE dum ites]‑‑ descendants of Edom, or ESAU; an ancient people who were enemies of the Israelites. During the days of Abraham, the region which later became the home of the Edomites was occupied by more than one tribe of non‑Israelite peoples. When Esau moved to this region with his family and possessions, the HORITES already lived in the land. (Genesis 36:20)

“Edom and Israel after Kadesh Barnea. After the years of wilderness wandering, Moses wanted to lead Israel northward to Canaan across Edom into Moab. The king of Edom, however, refused them passage (Numbers 20:14‑21), forcing them to bypass Edom and Moab through the desert to the east. (Judges 11:17, 18) Later in the journey northward to Abel Acacia Grove in the plains of Moab across from Jericho (Numbers 33:48‑49), Balaam prophesied that Israel would one day possess Edom. Numbers 24:18)

“From the Conquest Until the Division. In dividing the land of Canaan after the conquest, Joshua established Judah's border to the west of the Dead Sea and to the border of Edom. (Joshua 15:1, 21) During the reign of Saul, Israel fought against Edom. (1 Samuel 14:47) But Edomites at times served in Saul's army. (1 Samuel 21:7; 22:9) David conquered Edom, along with a number of other adjacent countries, and stationed troops in the land. (2 Samuel 8:13‑14) In later years, Solomon promoted the building of a port on the northern coast of the Red Sea in Edomite territory. He also built a smeltery nearby as a significant part of his developing copper industry. (1 Kings 9:26‑29)

“After the Division. During the time of the Divided Kingdom, a number of hostile encounters occurred between the nations of Judah or Israel and Edom. During Jehoshaphat's reign, Edomites raided Judah but were turned back. (2 Chronicles 20:1, 8) An attempt to reopen the port at Ezion Geber failed 1 Kings 22:48); and the Edomites joined forces with those of Judah in Jehoshaphat's move to put down the rebellion of Mesha of Moab. (2 Kings 3:4‑5) During the reign of Joram, Edom freed herself of Judah's control (2 Kings 8:20‑22), but again came under Judah's control when Amaziah assaulted and captured Sela, their capital city. Edom became a vassal state of Assyria, beginning about 736 B. C.

“Edom the Place of the Nabateans. After the downfall of Judah in 586 B. C., Edom rejoiced. (Psalm 137:7) Edomites settled in southern Judah as far north as Hebron. Nabateans occupied old Edom beginning in the third century B. C., continuing their civilization well into the first century A. D. During the period from about 400‑100 B. C., Judas Maccabeus subdued the Edomites and John Hyrcanus forced them to be circumcised and then made them a part of the Jewish people. The Herod family of New Testament times was of Edomite stock.

“Since no written Edomite records have been found, knowledge of the Edomites comes mainly from the Bible, archaeological excavations of their ancient cities, and references to Edom in Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian sources.” (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Unger’s Bible Dictionary relates the following:

Edomites: E'DOMITES (e'do‑mits). The descendants of Esau, who settled in the S of Palestine and at a later period came into conflict with the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:7); frequently called merely Edom (Numbers 20:14‑21; 24:18; Joshua 15:1; 2 Samuel 8:14.)

“Country. Edom ("Idumaea," KJV) was situated at the SE border of Palestine (Judges 11:17; Numbers 34:3) and was properly called the land or mountain of Seir. (Genesis 36:8; 32:3; Joshua 24:4; Ezekiel 35:3, 7, 15) The country lay along the route pursued by the Israelites from Sinai to Kadesh‑barnea and thence back again to Elath (Deuteronomy 1:2; 2:1‑8), i.e., along the E side of the great valley of Arabah. On the N of Edom lay the territory of Moab, the boundary appearing to have been the "brook Zered" (Deuteronomy 2:13‑14, 18)

“The physical geography of Edom is somewhat peculiar. Along the western base of the mountain range are low calcareous hills. These are succeeded by lofty masses of igneous rock, chiefly porphyry, over which lies red and variegated sandstone in irregular ridges and abrupt cliffs with deep ravines between. The latter strata give the mountains their most striking features and remarkable colors.

“The average elevation of the summit is about two thousand feet above the sea. Along the eastern side runs an almost unbroken limestone ridge, a thousand feet or more higher than the other. This ridge sinks down with an easy slope into the plateau of the Arabian Desert. Although Edom is thus wild, rugged, and almost inaccessible, the deep glens and flat terraces along the mountainsides are covered with rich soil, from which trees, shrubs, and flowers now spring up luxuriantly.

“People. The Edomites were descendants of Esau, or Edom, who expelled the original inhabitants, the Horites. (Deuteronomy 2:12) A statement made in (Genesis 36:31) serves to fix the period of the dynasty of the eight kings. They "reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel"; i.e., before the time of Moses, who may be regarded as the first virtual king of Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 33:4‑5; Exodus 18:16‑19) It would also appear that these kings were elected. The chiefs ("dukes," KJV) of the Edomites are named in (Genesis 36:40‑43) and were probably petty chiefs or sheikhs of their several clans.

“History. Esau's bitter hatred toward his brother, Jacob, for fraudulently obtaining his blessing appears to have been inherited by his posterity. The Edomites peremptorily refused to permit the Israelites to pass through their land. (Numbers 20:18‑21) For a period of 400 years we hear no more of the Edomites. They were then attacked and defeated by Saul. (1 Samuel 14:47)

“Some forty years later David overthrew their army in the "Valley of Salt," and his general, Joab, following up the victory, destroyed nearly the whole male population (1 Kings 11:15‑16) and placed (here the dictionary is wrong, for they were not Jewish garrison, but Israelite garrisons) Jewish garrisons in all the strongholds of Edom. (2 Samuel 8:13‑14)

“Hadad, a member of the royal family of Edom, made his escape with a few followers to Egypt, where he was kindly received by Pharaoh. After the death of David he returned and tried to excite his countrymen to rebellion against Israel, but failing in the attempt he went on to Syria, where he became one of Solomon's greatest enemies. (1 Kings 11:14‑22)

“In the reign of Jehoshaphat (875 B.C.) the Edomites attempted to invade Israel in conjunction with Ammon and Moab but were miraculously destroyed in the valley of Beracah. (2 Chronicles 20:22,26) A few years later they revolted against Jehoram, elected a king, and for half a century retained their independence. (2 Chronicles 21:8) They were then attacked by Amaziah, and Sela, their great stronghold, was captured (2 Kings 4:7; 2 Chronicles 25:11‑12)

Yet the Israelites were never again able to completely subdue them. (Deuteronomy 28:17) When Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem THE EDOMITES JOINED HIM AND TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THE PLUNDER OF THE CITY AND SLAUGHTER OF THE Jews (Should be rendered Israelites). Their cruelty at that time seems to be specially referred to in Psalm 137. It was on account of these acts of cruelty committed against the Jews (should be rendered Israelites, not Jews) in the day of their calamity that the Edomites were so fearfully denounced by the later prophets. (Isaiah 34:5‑8; 63:1‑4; Jeremiah 49:17; Limitations 4:21; Ezekiel 25:13‑14; Amos 1:11‑12; Obadiah. 8‑10,15)

“On the conquest of Judah, the Edomites, probably in reward for their services during the war, were permitted to settle in southern Palestine and the whole plateau between it and Egypt; but at about the same time they were driven out of Edom proper by the Nabateans. For more than four centuries they continued to prosper.

“But during the warlike rule of the Maccabees they were again completely subdued and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. THE EDOMITES WERE THEN INCORPORATED INTO THE JEWISH NATION, AND THE WHOLE PROVINCE WAS OFTEN TERMED BY GREEK AND ROMAN WRITERS “IDUMAEA.” Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, twenty thousand Idumaeans were admitted to the Holy City, which they filled with robbery and bloodshed. From this time the Edomites, as a separate people, disappear from the pages of history. Scriptural indications that they were idolaters (2 Chronicles 25:14‑15, 20) are amply confirmed and illuminated by discoveries at Petra. For a discussion of the degrading practices of Edomite religion, see George L. Robinson, The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization.

(bibliography: D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell, eds., Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2 (1964): 51‑58; T. C. Vriezen, Oudtestament Studien 14 (1965): 330‑53; N. Glueck, The Other Side of Jordan (1970); D. J. Wiseman, ed., Peoples of Old Testament Times (1973), pp. 229‑58). (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)

Fausset’s Bible Dictionary relates:

Edom: Idumea = "red." Esau's surname, the firstborn of Isaac; Jacob's twin brother, who sold his birthright for the red pottage (of yellow brown lentils, ['ªdashiym (heb 5742)]; the cooking of which is still seen in Egyptian representations), from whence came his surname. (Genesis 25:29‑34)

“The name was appropriate to Edom's possession, "mount Seir," the mountainous territory having a reddish hue. Seir means rugged, applicable alike to Seir the hirsute (like Esau) progenitor of the Horites, Edom's predecessors, and to their rugged forest covered territory. (Genesis 14:6; 32:3; 36:1‑8,20‑22) It extended from the Dead Sea S. to the Elanitic gulf of the Red Sea. Esau, with his 400 armed men (Genesis 32:6), commenced driving out the Horites, and permanently settled in mount Seir after his father's death, yielding Canaan to Jacob, in accordance with his father's blessing.

“It is objected to (Geneses 36:31) that the language supposes kings had already reigned over Israel. But in Genesis 35:11 "God Almighty" (['Eel (heb 410) Shaday (heb 7706)]) had promised Jacob "kings shall come out of thy loins."

“Moses, too, foretold of the Israelites having a king over them. Naturally then he notices that eight kings had reigned of Esau's family up to his own time, "before the reigning of any king to the children of Israel."

“The prosperity of the worldly is often immediate and brilliant, but it is transitory; that of God's people is slower in coming, that they may believingly and patiently wait for it, but when it does come it will abide for ever. Of the kingdom of the Messiah, Israel's king, there shall be no end. (Luke 1:33) The dukes did not precede the line of Edomite kings, and afterward succeed again (Genesis 36); but a single king (emir) reigned in all Edom contemporaneous with several dukes (skeikhs) or princes of local tribes. The king is mentioned (Judges 11:17), and the dukes a short while before. (Exodus 15:15) Moreover, the monarchy was not hereditary, but the kings apparently were elected by the dukes.

“The Edomites became "dwellers in the clefts of the rocks" (Jeremiah 49:16; compare 2 Chronicles 25:11‑12), like their Horite predecessors who were troglodytes or "dwellers in caves" (Obadiah 1:3‑4) Petra (Sela, Hebrew, rock), their chief city, was cut in the rocks. S. Idumea abounds in cave dwellings. Red baldheaded sandstone rocks are intersected by deep seams rather than valleys. In the heart of these, itself invisible, lies Petra (Stanley), Edom's stronghold in Amaziah's days (<2 Kings 14:7>).

“BOZRAH (which see), now Buseireh, was its ancient capital, near the N. border. Elath and Ezion Geber were Edom's seaports; afterward taken by David and made by Solomon his ports for equipping his merchant fleet. (2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Kings 9:26). Edom (100 miles long, 20 broad) stretched Edom of the Arabah valley, southward as far as Elath. Eastward of Elath lay the desert. Israel, when refused a passage through Moab N. of Edom, as also through Edom, went from Kadesh by the S. extremity of Edom past. Elath into the desert E. of Edom (Deuteronomy 2:8,13‑14,18; Judges 11:17‑18; 2 Kings 3:6‑9).

“The Brook Zered (wady el Ahsy) was the boundary between Moab (Kerak) and Edom (now Jebal, Hebrew Gebal, mountainous, the N. district, along with Esh. Sherah, the S. district), Edom subsequently took also the territory once occupied by Amalek, S. of Palestine, the desert of Et Tih ("wandering") (Numbers 13:29; 1 Samuel 15:1‑7; 27:8). Low calcareous hills are on the W. base of the mountain range of igneous porphyry rock, surmounted by red sandstone. On the E. is a limestone ridge, descending with an easy incline to the Arabian desert. The promised (Generis 27:40) "fatness of the earth" is in the glens and terraces of Edom (Genesis 27:39), while from their rocky aeries they sallied forth "living by the sword." When navigation was difficult merchants' caravans took Edom as their route from the Persian gulf to Egypt, which became a source of wealth to Edom.

“At Kadesh Edom came out against Israel, on the latter marching eastward across the Arabah to reach the Jordan River through Edom, and offering to pay for provisions and water; for the rocky country there enabled them to oppose Israel. The wady Ghuweir (where probably was "the king's highway") would be the defile by which Israel tried to pass through Edom being the only practicable defile for an army, with pasture and springs (Numbers 20:14‑21).

But Edom dared not resist Israel's passage along their eastern border, which is more defenseless than their frontier toward the Arabah. Edom then at last made a virtue of necessity and let Israel purchase provisions. (Deuteronomy 2:2‑8,28‑29). In both accounts Israel offered to pay for provisions, and did so at last on Edom's eastern side, whereas they and Moab ought to have "met (Israel as their brother) with bread and water." (Deuteronomy 23:4)

“Edom was among the enemies on the frontier from whom Saul at the beginning of his reign delivered Israel. (1 Samuel 14:47). Hadad the Edomite, who escaped from David's slaughter to Egypt, returned thence from Pharaoh Shishak to excite Edom to revolt against Solomon (1 Kings 11:14).

“Jehoshaphat of Judah reduced the Edomites 897 B.C., dethroning their king for a deputy from Jerusalem, and trying by a fleet at Ezion Geber to regain the trade; but his vessels were broken by the Edomites or the Egyptians. Amaziah of Judah killed many thousands in the Valley of Salt near the Dead Sea, and took Selah, afterward Joktheel, the first mention of this extraordinary city (2 Kings 14:7), and adopted their gods of mount Seir. Uzziah built Elath on the opposite side of the bay from Ezion Geber, the Roman (Etana, now Akabah; but in Ahaz' reign the Edomites (as 2 Kings 16:6 should be read for "Syrians") recovered it. (2 Kings 14:22)

“When Israel and Judah declined Edom "broke off Israel's yoke," as Isaac had foretold, in Jehoram's reign (2 Kings 8:20‑22), re‑conquered their lost cities and invaded southern Judah. (2 Chronicles 28:17) Edom also joined the Chaldaeans against the Jews (should be Israelites instead of Jews) (Psalm 137:7). Hence, the denunciations against Edom in (Obadiah 1:1; Jeremiah 49:7; Ezekiel 25:12; 35:3), etc. At the Babylonian captivity they seized on the Amalekite territory, and even Hebron in southern Judaea, so that Idumaea came to mean the region between the Arabah and the Mediterranean.

“Meanwhile mount Stir or Edom proper, was occupied by the Nabathaeans (descended from Nebaioth, Ishmael's oldest son and Esau's brother in law), a powerful people of S. Arabia; they founded the kingdom of Arabia Petraea in ancient Edom, and their monarchs took the name Aretas. Aretas, the father‑in‑ law of Herod Antipas (Matthew 14), took Damascus at the time of Paul's conversion. (Acts 9:25; 2 Corinthians 11:32) Rome subdued this kingdom of Arabia A.D. 105.

“Idumea S. of Palestine was joined to Judaea under Judas Maccabaeus and John Hyrcanus. Antipater, one of the Jewish prefects, an Idumean by birth, by the Roman senate's decree (37 B.C.) became procurator of all Judaea. His son was Herod the Great. Just before the siege under Titus 20,000 Idumeans were admitted into Jerusalem and filled it bloodshed and rapine. Muslim misrule finally destroyed Edom's prosperity in fulfillment of prophecy (Ezekiel 35:3‑14).

“Psalms 44 was written by the sons of Korah in the midst of Edom's invasion of Israel, taking advantage of David's absence at the Euphrates. David was striving with Aram of the two rivers (Naharaim) and Aram‑Zobah when Joab returned and smote of Edom in the Valley of Salt (the scene also of Amaziah's victory over Edom, the plain S. of the Dead Sea, where the Ghor or the Jordan Valley ends; the mount of rock salt, Khasm Usdum, is in its N.W. grainer) 12,000 men. (2 Samuel 8:13; 10:6,8, 10‑19; 1 Chronicles 18:12; 1 Kings 11:15‑16)

Israel's slain lay unburied until Joab returned from smiting Edom along with Abishai. The scattering of Israel among the pagan (Psalm 44:11) was but partial, enough to gratify Edom's desire to falsify the prophecy, "the elder shall serve the younger." Edom's spite is marked (Joel 3:19; Amos 1:6, 9, 11) Israel pleads faithfulness to the covenant, which suits David's time; also they had no "armies" in Babylon (Psalm 44:9), which precludes the time of the captivity there.

“David wrote Psalm 60 when victory was in part gained, and he was sending forth the expedition against Edom. Translated in the title, "when David had beaten down Aram of the two floods," "when Joab returned," which he did not do all he had fully conquered the Syrians; (Psalm 60:4), "Thou hast given a banner," etc., alludes to this victory and to that over Edom (in 2 Samuel 8:13 "Edom" should be read for "the Syrians," Aram) in the Valley of Salt, the token that the expedition (Psalm 60:9‑12) for occupying Edom in revenge for invading Israel would succeed.

“Over (rather, to) Edom I will cast out my shoe," as one about to wash his feet casts his shoe to his slave (Matthew 3:11; John 13:8; Acts 13:25); and the casting of the shoe marked transference of possession. (Ruth 4:7; Joshua 10:24) David as king, Joab as commander in chief and Abishai under Joab, smote Edom. Abishai first killed 6,000, Joab afterward 12,000 (as the title of Psalm 60 states); so in all 18,000 (in 2 Samuel 8:13).

“Edom was also linked with Ammon and Moab in the desperate effort made to root out Israel from his divinely given inheritance (their main guilt, 2 Chronicles 20:11; Psalm 83:12) under Jehoshaphat, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 20. They joined craft with force, marching S. round the Dead Sea instead of from the E. No news reached Jehoshaphat until the vast multitude was in his territory at Engedi; "they have taken crafty counsel," etc. (Psalm 83:3‑5,12) probably was written by Jahaziel, of the sons of Asaph, upon whom'" came the Spirit of the Lord in the midst of the congregation." (Psalms 47 (compare Psalm 47:4‑5, 8‑9) was sung on the battle field of Berachah ("blessing") after the victory. Psalm 48 was sung "in the midst of God's temple" (Psalm 48:9); Psalm 48:7 alludes to Jehoshaphat's chastisement in the breaking of his Tarshish ships for his ungodly alliance.

This danger from within and the foreign one alike God's grace averted. Psalm 83 is the earliest of the series, for it anticipates victory and is a thanksgiving beforehand, which was the very ground of the victory which actually followed (2 Chronicles 20:21‑22). See "Studies in the CL. Psalms," by Fausset. N. Edom is now called El Jebal (Gebal), with the villages Tufileh, Buserah, and Shobek. Its S. part is Esh Sherah, inhabited by fellahin; of these the Ammarin are so degraded as not to have the Bedouin virtue of keeping their word. The Liyathoneh are a branch of the Kheibari Jews near wady Musa. (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary)

We could go on and on with other descriptions on how Israel went to war with the Edomites and how the two were adversaries from the beginning. But these should suffice to prove the point that the word Edomite in the verse should be “Syrian.” It simply makes no sense that God hated Esau, the Jews, and we are not to hate His enemies.

Now you say “What does this have to do with Universalism?” It has a lot to do with it and anything else that is controversy in the scriptures and shows that one must study really deep to understand what the Scriptures really relate to us.

Now let’s check out in two different versions of the Bible to get an idea of the nature of this error. Notice the capitalized words in 2 Kings 16:6 in each version:

King James Version:

“At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered to SYRIA, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the SYRIANS came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.”

The Modern Language Bible: The New Berkeley Version in Modern English:

“At that time Rezin king of Syria regained Elath for EDOM, clearing the Jews completely out of Elath. So the EDOMITES came back to Elath and lived there to this day.”

Now let’s try the other passage (2 Chronicles 20:2) mentioned by “The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,” volume w, page 204 quoted above on this same type of error of getting Syria mixed up with Edom:

King James Version:

“Then there came some that told Jehoshaphat, saying, There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea ON THIS SIDE OF SYRIA; and, behold they BE in Hazazontamar, which IS Engedi.”

Revised Standard Version:

“Some men came and told Jehoshaphat, ‘A great multitude is coming against you from EDOM, from beyond the sea; and behold they are in Hazazon-tamar.” (That is, En-gedi)

Thus you can very readily, from the two translations on each of these two verses, how great an error can come from a slight change in the Hebrew letters. If we are truly interested in Bible history, these passages can really be confusing if we didn’t know someone had made an error and how the text should really read. Now wee know something that is absolutely not true about Esau-Edom. If Yahweh says that He hates Esau and all of his progeny, we, being kinsman to Him, have the same right. As a matter of fact, to hold back this hatred and keep it within us, can and will make us mentally and physically ill.

                                                                                                Esau’s Progeny

Genesis 36 lists fourteen dukes of Edom. All of these fourteen chieftains can be traced back to three of the women Esau took for his wives, Adah, Aholibama and Bashemath, Adah was the Canaanite daughter of Elon the Hittite. Bashemath was the daughter of Ishmael, the granddaughter of Abraham and Hagar. Some confuse Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, with Adah. (Genesis 26:34-35)

Maybe Adah was known by two names, but Esau only had three wives, not four, or even six as some say. Adah, the Hittite, had one male child by Esau, Eliphaz, but had six grandsons. Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz, Korah and Gatam who became six of the fourteen dukes. Aholibamah, the Hivite, had three sons, Jeush, Jaalam and Korah who became three of the fourteen dukes. Amalek was a real bastard as he was both Hittite and Hivite. Amalek’s mother was Timna the Hivite, and his father was Eliphaz, the half-breed son of Esau and Adah the Hittite. Amalek was one of the fourteen dukes. Bashemath the granddaughter of Ishmael had four male children, Nahath, Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah who became four of the fourteen dukes. Esau gave his wives Hebrew names, thus making it confusing.

                                                                            The General Overview History of Esau

Before Esau and his brother Jacob were ever born, there was a war going on between them in their mother’s (Rebekah’s) womb. Before their birth Yahweh had informed their mother that the older would serve the younger (Genesis 25:23), and that two national groups would be separated from her inward parts. Rebekah, knowing this, never deviated from this goal.

At the critical necessary points in her son’s lives, she was always there doing what she knew to be the will of Almighty Yahweh even though it didn’t conform to the normal protocol of her day. Before their conception, for Rebekah had remained childless for about nineteen years, Isaac entreated Yahweh, and she became pregnant. Led by peculiar feelings to inquire of Yahweh, Rebekah was informed that she would give birth to twins whose destiny would be as diverse as their character, and what was in those days even stranger still, that the elder would serve the younger.

Esau was the firstborn, thus the eldest of the twin brothers, (Esau and Jacob), sons of Isaac and Rebekah. (Genesis 25:22-26) Isaac being the son of Abraham, and Rebekah the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-aram, and also, sister to Laban the Syrian.

Chapter 27 of the Book of Jasher relates the following concerning Esau:

2). And Nimrod king of Babel (later called Babylon), the same was Amraphel, also frequently went with his mighty men to hunt in the field, and to walk about with his men in the cool of the day.

3). And Nimrod was observing Esau all the days, for a jealousy was formed in the heart of Nimrod against Esau all the days.

4). And on a certain day Esau went in the field to hunt, and he found Nimrod walking in the wilderness with his two men.

5). And all his mighty men and his people were with him in the wilderness, but they removed at a distance from him, and they went from him in different directions to hunt, and Esau concealed himself for Nimrod, and he lurked for him in the wilderness.

6). And Nimrod and his men that were with him did not know him, and Nimrod and his men frequently walked about in the field at the cool of the day, and to know where his men were hunting in the field.

7). And Nimrod and two of his men that were with him came to the place where they were, when Esau started suddenly from his lurking place, and drew his sword, and hastened and ran to Nimrod and cut off his head.

8). And Esau fought a desperate fight with the two men that were with Nimrod, and when they called out to him, Esau turned to them and smote them to death with his sword.

9). And all the mighty men of Nimrod, who had left him to go to the wilderness, heard the cry at a distance, and they knew the voices of those two men, and they ran to know the cause of it, when they found their king and the two men that were with him lying dead in the wilderness.

10). And when Esau saw the mighty men of Nimrod coming at a distance, he fled, and thereby escaped; and Esau took the valuable garments of Nimrod, which Nimrod's father had bequeathed to Nimrod, and with which Nimrod prevailed over the whole land, and he ran and concealed them in his house.

11). And Esau took those garments and ran into the city on account of Nimrod's men, and he came unto his father's house wearied and exhausted from fight, and he was ready to die through grief when he approached his brother Jacob and sat before him.

12). And he said unto his brother Jacob, Behold I shall die this day, and wherefore then do I want the birthright? And Jacob acted wisely with Esau in this matter, and Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, for it was so brought about by the Lord.

13). And Esau's portion in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham had bought from the children of Heth for the possession of a burial ground, Esau also sold to Jacob, and Jacob bought all this from his brother Esau for value given.

14). And Jacob wrote the whole of this in a book, and he testified the same with witnesses, and he sealed it, and the book remained in the hands of Jacob.

15). And when Nimrod the son of Cush died, his men lifted him up and brought him in consternation, and buried him in his city, and all the days that Nimrod lived were two hundred and fifteen years and he died.

16). And the days that Nimrod reigned upon the people of the land were one hundred and eighty‑five years; and Nimrod died by the sword of Esau in shame and contempt, and the seed of Abraham caused his death as he had seen in his dream.

17). And at the death of Nimrod his kingdom became divided into many divisions, and all those parts that Nimrod reigned over were restored to the respective kings of the land, who recovered them after the death of Nimrod, and all the people of the house of Nimrod were for a long time enslaved to all the other kings of the land.

So we can see that as Esau grew up, his natural tendencies and inbred characteristics began to surface. In the process of time, the different natural endowments of the two boys began to display their effects in dissimilar aptitudes and pursuits. Quite unlike his brother Jacob who was led by his less robust makeup and quiet disposition to fulfill the duties of a shepherd’s life and occupy his time in and around his tent, Esau become a skillful and adventurer hunter, man of the field, a thorough son of the desert, a wild man who was worldly minded and materialistic, only being concerned about his immediate desires and needs. Esau showed his lack of concern for the Covenant promises by marrying two local girls who were not closely related to the people of Abraham. The mixed marriages caused grief to Esau’s parents, particularly his mother. It is not possible to have two brothers more unalike in every respect both mentally and physically than these two were. One wonders how they could even have been of the same race.

The firstborn of Isaac and Regekah, and the twin bother of Jacob, Esau became the forefather of the Edomites. He was, as already pointed out by the Bible Dictionaries, given the name Esau because of his unusual “red” appearance at birth, but got the name Edom (meaning “red”) from the red lentil stew for which he sold his birthright. This color “red,” the descendants of Esau were destined to carry through time immemorial. The color red has followed Esau right down to the Communism to this very day. There is more to be said about the color red, but we will save that for later.

In a hunter’s life there is much uncertainty as well as hardship; many days pass in which the greatest and most strenuous exertions are required to stalk the game. Hunters in the days of Esau had little in the way of the equipment known to us today. Much more expertise was required in order to get close enough to get off a deadly shot with their primitive bows and arrows. No doubt, the disappointed hunter came home many times without anything to show for his futile efforts. Esau had on one occasion experienced such a disappointment, and, wearied with his fruitless efforts, completely exhausted and overcome with hunger and for want of and, wearied with his fruitless efforts, completely exhausted and overcome with hunger and for want of sustenance, and dependant, desperate and forlorn from not killing any prey, he was anxious beyond all measure to turn his steps hurriedly toward home where he could recuperate from the tiring chase and find rest and safety from Nimrods men.

On this particular day, Esau being tired and hungry from fleeing from Nimrods men, came alone from the field while Jacob was boiling up some red lentil stew. In response to Esau’s desperate demanding request, “Quick, quick, please share with me some of the red stew you are cooking.” Jacob, quickly observing and sizing up the situation and recognizing Esau’s weakened and desperate need, at once realized the time was an opportune moment to strike. The same spirit seized him which cause him to grab unto Esau’s heel at birth in an effort to pull him back so he could be born first instead of his brother.

Jacob realized it was now the ideal time to make his move. Jacob very manipulatively stated to Esau a conditional contract. “For your birthright, I will share with you this red stew.” Jacob saw the urgency which Esau was in, and determined not to let it pass idly by. Accordingly, Jacob put a price on the required food. Esau was the elder, and had, in consequence, immunities and privileges which were quite high in value, especially the headship of the family or tribe, and the possession of the great bulk of the family property, and carried with it the Covenant Blessing (Genesis 27:28-29, 36; Hebrews 12:16-17)

Urged by the craving of extreme hunger, and with Nimrod’s Robe and the power that he gained from slaying Nimrod, sold his birthright to his younger brother, even confirming the contract by the sanction of an oath. Because the birthright would not take effect for many years in the future, and Esau being very materialistic, and not valuing the birthright to any great degree, made the agreement with Jacob and sold it for the red pottage.

Having no appreciation for sacred (set apart) things, namely, the promise by Yahweh to Abraham concerning the seed through which all the Israel nations were promised to be blessed, Esau impetuously, by swearing an oath, sold his birthright to Jacob for one meal of lentil stew and bread. Jacob having thus gotten his price, supplied the famished Esau with the needed refreshments to recover his strength. By thus despising the birthright; viewing it as of little value, Esau showed a complete lack of appreciation for things sacred (set apart) to his family.

“Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: THUS ESAU DESPISED HIS BIRTHRIGHT.” (Genesis 25:34)

This is also recorded in the Book of Hebrews, where it tells us that Esau despised his birthright, but when Isaac died, he sought to obtain it with many tears.

“Lest there be any FORNICATOR, OR PROFANE PERSON, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for HE FOUND NO PLACE OF REPENTANCE, THOUGH HE SOUGHT IT CAREFULLY WITH TEARS.” (Hebrews 12:16-17)

Fornicator: Strong’s Concordance: #4205  pornos (por'‑nos); from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine): KJV‑‑ fornicator, whoremonger.

Thayer’s Definition states it this was: #4205  pornos‑

1) a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire

2) a male prostitute

3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Profane: Strong’s Concordance: #952  bebelos (beb'‑ay‑los); from the base of 939 and belos (a threshold); accessible (as by crossing the door‑way), i.e. (by implication of Jewish notions) heathenish, wicked: KJV‑‑ profane (person).

Thayer’s Definition states it: #952  bebelos‑

1) accessible, lawful to be trodden; used of places

2) profane

a) unhallowed, common, public place

b) used of people, ungodly

When Esau saw Jacob sent away to obtain a wife from his mother’s relatives, he understood that the Canaanite he had married did not please his parents. Esau showed his ultimate lack of concern and consideration for the Covenant promises of Yahweh by intermarrying with two local girls who were not closely related to the ancestors of Abraham. (Genesis 26:3-35, 36:1-2)

The mixed marriages caused inordinate grief, anxiety and distress, “ a source of bitterness of spirit,” to both Isaac and Rebekah, Esau’s parents; especially his mother. (Genesis 26:35) At the age of forty, he married two Hittite women. (Genesis 26:34) Actually it was a Hittite and a Hivite. Arriving, them, at the age of maturity, being forty years of age, he married Adah and Aholibamah. Actually, Esau made his own arrangements for these marriages which was something unusual in those days, and on account of their origin, they were not acceptable to Isaac and Rebekah. To say the least, some unhappy feelings appear to have previously existed in the family, and these marriages by Esau didn’t improve family matters any.

When Isaac was grown old and feeble and advanced in years, he realized in the consciousness of his approaching death, that he desired to give his blessing to his older son, Esau. The time for the fulfillment of the compact between the brothers at length arrived. At this juncture of time, Isaac is “sick unto death,” but still fully aware of the import of his responsibility of his older son’s inheritance as the Law required. At this crucial point, in the state of Isaac’s family affairs, Isaac already knew the Law required him to pass the inheritance on to Esau even though he had married Hittite and Hivite wives who were a grief of mind to him and Rebekah.

When a person is stricken with grief of mind, their whole world is pulled out from under them. It is a state of living in which nothing seems to be worthwhile anymore, a total withdrawal into overwhelming and crushing disappointment. In spite of this, he was fully ready to pass his blessing on to the mixed descendants of Esau to become the heirs of the Abraham Covenant. Upon fulfillment of the blessing by Isaac, the people of Esau/Edom would have become the chosen people of Yahweh.

Isaac was aware of the full ramifications and consequences of the outcome of his actions. In order to forestall the inevitable, he sent for Esau, requesting him to bring him some savory venison which he loved so well, although, in his weakened condition, he probably didn’t have a very healthy appetite. Isaac knew very well that this could take some time to acquire, on the part of Esau, perhaps several days. No doubt the thought of his blessing going to Esau and his Canaanite wives was no comfort to his troubled mind.

His appetite as well as his strength having failed, he is only to be thwarted by provocatives and reasons for anger. It would seem that if Isaac was anxious to pass the blessing on to Esau, he would have completed that first, and then sent Esau after some venison. But Esau proceeded to do this with the view that he would be receiving the blessing as firstborn, though he actually was no longer entitled to that blessing by reason of his having sold his birthright. Thus, he was willing to break his oathbound covenant made with Jacob at the sale of his birthright.

In this action, Esau became just as much a supplanter as Jacob. If Esau had been completely honest with Isaac, his father, he would have informed him, at the time, of the former event in which he sold his birthright to Jacob. Esau ought to have told his father that the blessing did not rightly belong to him, that, in fact, he had sold it to his brother. But he did not.

On this dilemma, Rebekah began to feel that the critical time for action had come, for she fully remembered the promise of Yahweh that the elder would serve the younger. Recalling what Yahweh had said to her before the birth of her twins, Rebekah was ready to intervene, advising Jacob to present himself before his father as Esau and thus procure the blessing which was rightfully his. Because Esau did not honestly inform Isaac of the sale, this put Rebekah into a bind, for then she would have been considered a betrayer of both her son’s to their father.

If the hated Hittites were not to enter along with her less favored son into possession of the family property, the dedication of the birthright must, in some way, not be confirmed and consummated upon Esau as Isaac was planning to do. It was now time for Rebekah to frustrate this plan, and in some way, secure the inheritance for Jacob.

One particular remains at this point; the father’s blessing. If this should be given to Esau and his progeny, all hope was gone; for this, like our modern wills, would deed the inheritance and the accompanying family headship to the tribe of Esau and his wives. It was now time for Rebekah to use her cooking skills to make goat taste like savory venison.

All the while, Rebekah was listening to every word, and heard all that Isaac had said to Esau during their father to son conversation. Rebekah realized it would be better (in fact, it was expedient) for Jacob to have the blessing rather than Esau. Not only this, she loved Jacob much more than Esau. She wasted no time in calling Jacob, to inform him what Isaac had said to Esau, and she said:

“Now, my son, do that which I tell you and you will receive the blessing instead of your brother. Go now to the flocks and bring me two kids from the goats: and I will cook them in the same manner as the meat Esau cooks for your father. And you will present it to your father; and he will think that you are Esau, and will thus give you the blessing; which in reality belongs to you.”

But Jacob said:

“But you are aware that Esau and I are not alike. His neck and arms are all covered with hair while mine are quite smooth. Therefore, my father will feel of me, and he will discover that I am not Esau; and then, instead of giving me a blessing, I am fearful that he will more likely curse me.”

But Rebekah answered Jacob her son,

“Never you mind, you do as I have instructed you, and if something goes wrong, I will intercede for you and inform you father of the sale in which Esau sold his birthright to you, and your father will have no alternative but to follow through by blessing you. If any harm comes, it will come upon me; so do not be afraid, but go now and bring the meat.” (The whole story can be found in Genesis 27; we have paraphrased the verses a little to make the story more easily understood)

On Rebekah’s direction, Jacob proceeded and brought a pair of small kids from the flock, and from them his mother prepared a dish of delicious tasty food, so that it would be to his taste buds very similar to the way Isaac liked it. Then Rebekah brought some of Esau’s clothes, and dressed Jacob in them; placing on his neck and hands some skins of the kinds which Jacob had slaughtered from the flock, so that Jacob’s neck and hands might fee rough and hairy to Isaac’s touch.

Then Jacob came into his father’s tent, walking much in the manner Esau might approach, carefully bringing the prepared dinner and disguising his voice to sound like Esau as much as he could, and said:

“Here I am my father.”

And Isaac replied,

“Who are you my son?”

Jacob answered Isaac, and said:

“I am Esau, your eldest son, and I have done as you asked me; now sit up and eat the dinner which I have prepared; and then give me your blessing, as you promised on my leaving you would do.”

And Isaac replied:

“How is it you have found it and returned so quickly my son?”

Jacob then answered,

“Because Yahweh El, your Mighty One, showed me where I should go and gave me expeditious success.”

Isaac did not feel quite sure that this was Esau, his firstborn son, and said,

“Come nearer unto me and let me feel you, so I might know for sure you are really my son Esau.”

And Jacob drew closer to Isaac’s bed, and Isaac felt his face and his neck along with his hands and said:

“The voice seems like that of Jacob, but the hands are those of Esau. Are you really my eldest son, Esau?”

With this, Jacob again continued to deceive his father, and said, ‘I am.’” Then Isaac, in the blindness of his old age, ate the food that Jacob had brought to him, and he affectionately kissed Jacob, believing he was kissing Esau, and he gave to Jacob the blessing which Esau so earnestly sought for. In blessing Jacob he proclaimed the following:

“Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:             Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.” (Genesis 27:28-29)

No sooner had Jacob received the blessing of inheritance, than he rose and hastened from Isaac’s presence. And upon Jacob’s departure from Isaac. Esau suddenly returned bringing his dish of food that he had cooked, and said:

“Let my father incline and eat of the venison I have for you, so you may grant me my blessing.”

And Isaac said, “Why, who are you?”

Esau replied,

“I am your oldest son, your son Esau.”

Isaac replied with much consternation, and said,

“Who then is the one that came before and brought me food? And I have eaten his food and have blessed him; yes, and he shall be blessed.”

Upon hearing this Esau knew that he had been cheated; and cried aloud, with a bitter cry,

“O my father, my brother has taken away my blessing, just as he took away my birthright.”  (Is this the first time Isaac had heard about Esau selling Jacob the birthright? If so, Jacob could not have conferred upon Esau the blessing in such a case anyway, as Esau had no legal standing)

“But cannot you given me a blessing also? Have you given everything that you have to my brother?”

Thereupon Isaac related to him all that he had said to Jacob. He said,

“I have told Jacob that he shall be the ruler, and that all his brethren and their children (Here Isaac is acknowledging that Jacob would have many children) will be under him. I have promised him the richest land for his crops and rains from heaven to make them grow. Now that all these things have already been spoken, they must come to pass. What is there left worthily for me to promise you, my son?”

After Esau had begged urgently for a leftover blessing, Isaac said:

“And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; 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.” (Genesis 27:39-40)

In researching for this lesson, we have noticed something which we have never pondered before. We became aware that Rebekah was the leading light in all of these events. Not only was Isaac blind to what was going on in his family, but he blindly demanded that Esau should receive the birthright and the blessing regardless of his marriage situation with the Hittites and Hivites. It was not until Rebekah declared her stand on the racial issue that Isaac finally woke up. Rebekah stated in Genesis 27:46:

“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?”

After Rebekah made this outstanding and demanding statement, the very next verse (Genesis 28:1), both Isaac and Rebekah are in mutual agreement. We believe when the Rebekahs of our people finally take a stand on racial issues, we will finally see a change in our respective lands for the better. This verse is where Isaac finally takes a definite stand himself. Maybe when we can get both the fathers and mothers in agreement, there will be great strides for the better. Let’s read this verse:

“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.”

We know in Genesis 26:35, speaking of the Hittite and Hivite wives of Esau, it says:

“Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.”

Because the Book of Genesis is not particularly written in chronological order, we believe ascribe added this last verse which is placed before the fact. It almost appears like a marginal note which was later added tot he main text.

We should ask other questions: Would Isaac have really pronounced such blessings upon Esau with his Hittite and Hivite wives along with their crossbred descendants?, or was Isaac more aware of what was going on, and only pretended to play Rebekah’s and Jacob’s game? If Esau’s wives were a “grief of mind” to him as stated in Genesis 26:35, would he really have blessed their descendants?

It is obvious the old man had a lot more savvy in his old age than it first would appear. Maybe what he lost in his eyesight, he gained in hearing. Why would Isaac determine to bless Esau, then turn around and instruct Jacob not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan in Genesis 28:1? Isaac knew full well that Esau had taken wives of the Canaanites before the episode concerning the blessing. After considering these possibilities, we still contend that Isaac fully intended to confer the blessing of the birthright upon Esau in spite of his wives, and that if it had not been for Rebekah’s maneuvering, Jacob would never have received the birthright and the blessing. Although it is not recorded, we believe Rebekah may have had something to do with Jacob asking Esau to sell it, by planting the idea in Jacob’s mind.

Thus deprived forever of his legal family birthright, and in virtue of the now unalterable blessing to Jacob, Esau began to entertain a hatred for Jacob which would become a natural enmity between the descendants of Esau and the descendants of Jacob and would last throughout time immemorial. Esau resolved within himself to seize the first opportunity after the days of mourning his father’s death for slaying his brother. Words to this effect were overheard and reported to Rebekah his mother, who thereupon instructed her younger son to flee to his uncle Laban, who lived in Haran, and that he should continue there for some time.

Or, at least, until Esau’s wrath was fully dissipated. Later, Esau would reconcile with Jacob, but the old hatred would surface again from time to time. Later they had an amicable reunion after which Jacob went on to Canaan, and Esau went back to the region of Edom. Esau, who lost his birthright and blessing, forfeited the rights of the firstborn forever. In the providence of Yahweh, Esau was made subservient to Jacob. In Hebrews 12:16-17 he is described as a profane person. Long after Esau’s death, Yahweh declared that He loved Jacob and hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13)

This should give you a pretty good general overview of the story of Esau, but all of this is only just a generalization and there is much more intrigue to this story than has been presented here. Now that we have a general overview of the story, we will go over it in very fine detail You might wonder, what more could be said? There is a lot more to Esau’s story than what is presented in the Bible.

                                                                                 Esau is The Great “RED” Dragon

                                                                                              Of Revelation 12:3

While the serpent of Revelation 12:3 represents the entity which seduced Eve, the great dragon represents Esau as he is called the “great red dragon” in verse three of this chapter. Although the “Jews” as we know today have, for the most part, both the blood of Cain and Esau flowing in their veins along with other entities it is almost impossible to get anything creditable from Bible commentaries on this passage, but we found one that was somewhat reasonable although most of his comments cannot be trusted. We will now quote the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald on Revelation chapter 112 on page 2369:

“A great sign appeared in heaven, namely, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. The woman is Israel. The sun, moon and stars depict the glory and dominion which has been promised to her in the coming kingdom, just as they pictured Joseph’s ultimate rule over his father, mother, and brothers ... The Woman is in labor, awaiting the birth of a baby (Yahshua). Much of the history of Israel is telescoped in these verses, with no indication that time gaps exist, or that events are necessarily in chronological order ... A second sign in heaven is a fiery and red dragon ... The dragon is ready to devour the Child as soon as He is born; fulfilled in the attempt of Herod the Great, vassal of Rome, to destroy the newborn King [to be]. The male Child is clearly Yahshua, destined to rule all [His] nations with a rod of iron. The record here jumps from His birth to His Ascension.”

To impress upon you just how important this story of Esau is, had Esau gotten the birthright along with the blessing, he would have been in the line of, and an ancestor of the Messiah. This makes every move and countermove in this story very important. The slightest little change in this episode could have changed our entire Israelite destiny. With Esau’s Hittite and Hivite wives, the Cain-Satanic Seedline would have been incorporated into Yahshua’s lineage. Someone other than Mary would have had to have been the virgin mother of Yahshua. Our Israel family would never have been under the Covenant, nor would we be Yahweh’s chosen people above all the people on the earth. And last, and most important of all, with Esau’s mixed line, there could never have been a Kinsman Redeemer. Had this story changed in any way, there would be no future life for us.

Both Edom and Edomites are mentioned frequently in the Bible; in addition, there are places where, because of the similarity between the letters _ (r), the text has wrongly read __À, “Aram” (i.e., Syria), and ____À, “Arameans” (i.e., Syrians), for __À, “Edom,” and ____À, “Edomites,” such as 2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chronicles 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text. (Taken, in part, from A Teaching Letter, by Clifton A. Emahiser, 1012 N. Vine St., Fostoria, Ohio 44830, (419) 435-2836)

Reference Materials