The Antisemantics of the Word 'Jew'

 
00:00

by Pastor Mark Downey

We hear a lot about anti-Semitism, which is a misnomer in its usage, but we don’t hear anything about anti-semanticism. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. If something is ‘anti’, it is against or contrary to something and is replaced with another meaning. Such is the case with the little four letter word ‘jews’. I had the pleasure of discussing the jewish problem of the word jew recently with a well versed Bible scholar. The discussion began with the question “Are jews a race?” and evolved into a more in-depth examination of how the word jew is used in the Bible. Of course, it goes without saying, that the word jew is the most deliberately confusing word in the Bible. My friend contends that the word jew, as found in the Bible, always means a Judahite and hence an Israelite, whom we both agree constitutes the White race in the world today. However, I think the word jew means something else besides Judahites. The following is a continuation of dialogue with my friend:

Before I begin to respond to your most recent comments and questions, I’d like to say that oftentimes people ask a loaded question that cannot be answered directly. This happens all the time on Stormfront’s revised Theology discussion board, whereby if a yes or no, black or white reply is not forthcoming, they can discount Christianity for all it’s worth in their limited perspective. I believe God synchronizes His revelation of truth(s) in His own timing.

We in Christian Identity can certainly appreciate the hidden nature of who we are in the world in order for God to fulfill His purposes. I believe the same is true with our enemies, i.e., the enemies of God, historically, biblically and now. As such, there are different levels of understanding God’s will as manifested in either milk or strong meat. The latter requires the advanced student of the Word to “rightly divide the word of truth” so that we don’t mistake the intent of what God wants us to know. When somebody demands to be shown where America is in the Bible, of course, that word does not appear. However, when we consider other factors in the Bible, America becomes quite a valid consideration.

Another amazing sleight is the leaven of Ben Williams’ promotion of the denial of the deity of Christ, as to influence a good number of Australian CIers; all because they fail to discern whether or not Christ is speaking as a man or in His divine nature. The same is unfortunately true with the undesirable word jew.

In reviewing your theory of incest-only to arrive at your conclusions about the biblical significance of the word jew in relationship to race, it can be observed that this position is an easy to swallow interpretation (milk), but as a consequence, demands only singular definitions that follow that perspective. It is more rigid than flexible. So when you say, “show me a scripture that says what I want to hear”, it may not be in the Bible explicitly verbatim as you demand. God has a round-about way of saying things sometimes.

I recently purchased a book, “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible” by E.W. Bullinger. I was surprised to hear him say, “We are justified in saying that Bible students can find no complete work in the subject of Figurative Language in its relation to the Bible. Translators and commentators, as a rule, have entirely ignored the subject.” That was 1899. A few more comments will bring us back to our subject: “Many misunderstood and perverted passages are difficult, only because we have not known the Lord’s design in the difficulty. The instruction is to be obtained in the contemplation of the very difficulties by which at first we are startled. This is the intention of these apparent inconsistencies. Things are put to us in a strange way, because, if they were put in a more ordinary way, we should not notice them.” I hope you do not take the aforementioned personally, but find these notions of how we discern to be as contemplating as I have found them.

I don’t think it’s always wise to instantly produce answers to life’s mysteries without a little meditation and prayer. So, I preface my reply to you in hopes that there may be indirect circumstantial language in the Bible that may offer strong meat, in which much chewing is required. I hope I do not fail where others have either ignored your inquiry or given shallow regurgitations of the party line.

When discussing jews in the Bible, we must have a wholistic and categorical approach to those people identified as Judah or Judahites. If there is another people wanting to impersonate Judah, could one way of doing that be the tinkering of scriptures with words? Has this been done? How many Bible versions use the imprecise word jew? How many of these versions are dependent on the Massoretic text? If the word jew were not in the Bible, what other word could be used and, more importantly, why wasn’t it used? These questions should be self-explanatory as we come to understand the contemporary jew. There is no controversy in our understanding between these modern jews and ancient Judah.

If modern Judah is Germany, we can certainly see the high stakes game that jews play. Perhaps, like so many other things, CI has not gotten around to collating what we know about Judah in a single sermon or article to address a particular impasse, although tidbits of cogent information abound from numerous sources. Too often these morsels of truth are lacking other ingredients to make it palatable or easily digestible. If I can present a string of exhibits, I think a case can be made, even though it is by no means exhaustive. The case being made is that the word jew in the New Testament does not always mean a member of the tribe of Judah. In fact, had better translations been employed, we would not be expending any time at all on understanding the biblical narrative.

I don’t think God is interested in merely producing Israelites from whatever tribe or nation that goes by that genealogy, but rather producing a people who reflect the character of the term Israel; i.e. until man surrenders himself to the sovereignty of God and serves God in that capacity. God is looking for a relationship with people who truly respond to their calling.

Tracking the disposition of Judah from the time of its split from the Northern House to the time of Christ, we can deduce that one remained a true Judahite as long as they submitted to God. As Paul observed, “For he is not a jew [a Judahite], which is one outwardly” (Romans 2:28). In other words, something has to happen internally. Outward appearance (sort of looking White) just doesn’t cut it. Thus, we have to identify the conflict in Paul’s day as to who truly represented Judah. Was it those who rejected, or accepted Christ? Those in the majority were the rejecters, and so, historically, were able to retain the name of Judah in the eyes of men. However, in the eyes of God, it was the Christians. In God’s timing, many other followers of Jesus were added along with the original disciples and were grafted to the tree of true Judah. In time, true Judah became more populous than the dead branch of Judaism that had to be pruned. This is just one reason why the word jew does not deserve to be used in reference to Judah.

If you think Galatians 1:13-14 has Paul talking about the jews' religion as Judah’s religion, you have a perfect travesty of language. This is a direct reference to Judaism and demands an exact identification. All of Judah will simply not fit into these verses.

We must go back in time to understand the genetics, demographics and scriptural import of the subject. It must be conceded that the men of Judah were taken into the Assyrian captivity as were their brethren of Israel (II Kings 18:13). Over 200,000 Judahites were carried away except for Jerusalem. You can call them jews if you like (I don’t), but their racial integrity remained intact. These are the Judahites who would settle in Germany, bringing with them the royal scepter. When it came time for the Babylonian captivity of those Judahites who still remained in Jerusalem, only 10,000 were carried away (II Kings 24:14), as well as a few other deportations which were only 4600 (Jer. 52:30); not very many compared to the exiles in Assyria. After the fall of Jerusalem, there remained a residue of what could be considered poor White trash. They disregarded the advice of Jeremiah and fled to Egypt only to be captured by Nebuchadnezzar and sent back to Babylon.

We are beginning to get a picture of the various movements of Judah at different times and places. It was the descendants of these captives from Egypt and the 4600 who returned from Babylon and established themselves as the so-called jewish nation around 520 BC. If they were only about 15,000, they could have increased rapidly in their 70 year captivity. In fact, they were urged to raise large families (Jer. 29:6). However, the increase was problematic as we get to Ezra 9 and 10 describing the transgression of Judah’s holy seed mingled with strange wives of the people of those lands described in Ezra 9:1.

If, as you suggest, that the Ammonites and Moabites in particular, were the offspring of incestuous liaisons, then it would seem that we would have to accept the premise that these people, dating back to the time of Lot, circa 1898 BC (Usher), to the time of Ezra, 457 BC, never changed as a people in well over a thousand years. When we consider that Ruth was a woman of Moab (i.e. a Moabite) in 1322 BC, somewhat in the middle of these timeframes, and that her lineage led to David, which led to Christ, we are left with 2 propositions: 1) that Moabites never changed or 2) that the demographics changed and the Moabites were not the same people 1000+ years later.

The Moserites in the Septuagint are, no doubt, another word for the Mitzeraim or Egyptians, which were probably the lower class Judahites captured in Egypt.

When Nehemiah quoted the Law, it was perhaps more than just Deut. 22:30 to 23:4 dealing exclusively with incest, but 23:1 deals with testicular injury and emasculation and 23:2 discusses a ‘bastard’ as a mongrel (as substantiated in Ezek. 44:7; Nu. 18:4; Jer. 51:51). How could a person of incest be identified from entering the congregation? They would be assimilative, whereas the mongrel was different enough to identify. Deut. 23:4 says it was not because of incest, but rather their inhospitable nature and efforts to curse them. There is no reason not to believe that these strangers were racially mixed and retained the Moabite and Ammonite tags as we’ll see shortly; and is exactly what happened with the inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of Christ calling themselves Judahites or jews [sic].

The law against miscegenation in Deut. 7:1-3 is made racial in context with verse 6 “above all people”, and is what Judah disobeyed during their captivity. The evidence of an alien admixture to their racial stock was sufficient enough to change their physiognomy, as indicated in Isaiah 3:9, “The show of their countenance doth witness against them.” They no longer had the beautiful countenance of King David, “goodly to look to” (I Sam. 16:12). Quite frankly, they were ugly bastards, and the trespass was most commonly violated by its leaders (Is. 3:12 and Ezra 9:2). Is there anything new under the sun? The number of race mixing politicians today is epidemic. I am not aware of any who have been exposed for incest. And so we have these types and shadows in the Bible that call our attention to a pattern of violations.

We will miss the principle of something, if our etymology is too rigid as to be brittle. This is significant in a prophetic sense. Our study of the Word is especially tedious with a surplus of tenuous Bible versions, concordances, lexicons and commentaries; most of which I take with a grain of salt, in order to stay on course. If God caused Israel to be ‘lost sheep’ and 200,000 Judahites got lost with them, we can expect that both will be eventually found. Also keep in mind that not all Judahites were race mixers in Babylon. These were the good figs of Jeremiah 24, along with their brethren in the diaspora who would accept Christ and bring forth fruit.

All of those returning to Jerusalem after the captivity were labeled jews or Judahites, although, as already mentioned from Ezra, some were not racially pure. The bad figs of Jeremiah 24 were also Judahites, albeit the poor White trash left behind with Zedekiah and the new influx of misnomered jews who were mongrelized physically and spiritually. This is what I call the ‘Zionist Syndrome’ in which both non Judahites and Judahites (being called jews collectively) would reject the Messiah.

The good and bad figs of Jeremiah 24 were present at the time of Christ and are with us today. It was God’s decision to separate men of our race into believers and non-believers. Race mixing and mixing religions will bring a forfeiture of Israelite tribal designation, such as the tribe of Judah. Whether we like it or not, God has put the wedge in place. God continually removes the bad figs from all nations for their hurt; to be a reproach; a proverb; a taunt; a curse … and will send the sword among them until they are destroyed (Jer. 24:9-10).

We, as good figs, are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers of our own race anymore than with alien judaizers. By the time of Christ, the evil figs were in control with the approval of Rome. They were known as the scribes and Pharisees. In John 8:33 these ‘jews’ admit they are not of Israel by saying they “were never in bondage to any man”. Jesus called them the children of the devil (John 8:44), and further declares that they are unbelievers “because ye are not of my sheep” (John 10:26). This in reference to something that complicates matters even more … the Edomites.

According to I Maccabees 5:3-8, the nation of Edom ended in 126 B.C. when John Hyrcanus of Judah finished the conquest of Judas Maccabeus, begun in 163 B.C, and forcibly converted the mongrelized Edomites to Judaism. Josephus adds in his ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ that they submitted to the jews’ way of living and were hereafter nothing other than jews. Edom was absorbed into Judah; therefore a branch of the tree of Judah became the only people remaining to fulfill the prophecies of Edom. They will be known by their fruits, or lack thereof. So, as God chose Judea as the time and place to bring His only begotten Son into the world, the conundrum was synchronized with all the players on the stage for us to sort out 2000 years later.

With the aforementioned exhibits, the verdict of Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 stands: in the principle of mongrelization impersonating racial purity. I believe God will punish and destroy this ungodly genetic mix for their false claims and their own self imposed curse that the Lord’s blood will be upon their children (Mt. 27:25). Throughout the ages, whenever we believers teach the doctrine of Christ, we bring the blood of Christ upon the unbelievers. They crucify Him over and over again, and chief among the murderers, you will find a jew pretending to be of Judah. The key to understanding who’s who regarding Judah at the time of Christ is Jeremiah 24.

To say there were no racially mixed people who played into the drama is as far fetched as saying all the people of the land were racially pure Israelites. This explains Peter’s speech in Acts 4:10 addressing two groups (the same as verse 8). If it were merely Israel, he would not have needed to say “and”. If, as you say, it was only “those few people” who were responsible for His death and culminated in 70 A.D. with them and their children being destroyed once and for all, I would have to say that really pushes the envelope of how you would define “few”, given the fact that Josephus reckons the number of dead at a conservative 1,337,490. Somebody more analytical than I can do the math and deduce that it wasn’t just a few Judahites that rejected Christ and paid the price, knowing also that the good fig Judahites had fled the country. There had to be a non-Adamic element that led to the crucifixion, which also runs parallel thereafter.

That is our lesson to be learned: to properly discern and identify the enemies of Christ. It is not only that we become fruit inspectors, but root inspectors as well. James Strong did not devise a definition for the word jew. He was probably well aware that the word jew never appeared in the 1611 KJV Bible, or the Geneva Bible of 1599; or any of Shakespeare’s plays. That’s because the word jew is not to be found in the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures. It is the same as trying to discern a person’s race with the word American. That’s why it is utter confusion in demanding the Bible produces one person referred to as a jew, who is not an Israelite. It is using our enemy’s terminology. If the mess was unsorted, the question would be: can you give one person the Bible refers to as a Judean, but is not an Israelite?

Just one example of tinkering to conform to the jew-Judah only theory is found in John 8:31, “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him.” Bullinger declares this verse a mistranslation as Fenton correctly renders it, “Jesus said, therefore, to the Judeans who had not believed Him.” The Lord was distinguishing between the good and bad figs and within the geographic context; the bad figs would include non Judahites/non Israelites as well as non believing Judahites. To say otherwise, is to say that Christ was ignorant of the demographics surrounding Him and discounting everything having a racial connotation. It’s not that the usage of the word jew is a double-minded view, but rather it has a double meaning. One can be a Judean without being a Judahite.

I believe the Word of God anticipated this confusion and is why we must now relieve ourselves of any false guilt that is imposed upon us. As the satanic rocker Mick Jagger sang his song, “Who killed the Kennedys? Well after all, it was you and me”, I can say with confidence “His blood ain’t on me”. Judaism was indeed cultivated in Babylon and proliferated in defiance of God’s laws. The Talmudic pattern displayed itself at the time of Christ in rampant miscegenation. The agenda repeats itself today with institutionalized secular humanism. It’s what the Bible calls the ‘mystery of iniquity’, where Adamic man thinks he can be God and interbreeds with whomsoever he desires and his mongrelized offspring think of themselves as good seed.

There may have been some who defied the laws of nature, escaping Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and their descendants are with us today. They are jews; aided and abetted by their Zionist lackeys, and God says there will be a Final Solution.