by Pastor Mark Downey
Scripture Reading: Revelation 2:9 “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of satan”.
We hear a lot about anti-Semitism, which is a misnomer in its usage, but we don’t hear anything about anti-semanticism. Semitism comes from Semite and Semite comes from Shem, the son of Noah. We are Semites carrying our genetic seedline from Adam to Christ to the present day racially pure Israelite. I thought I had invented this new term. 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’. But, I was wrong; “anti-semantics” is online and cleverly rubbing next to the fish scales of “anti-antisemitism” in the fishy-slimy Urban Dictionary. It says, “Being against the arguing of meanings or definitions of words”. And then gives an example: "Look, I just don't care if the Holocaust refers specifically to the murder of the Ashkenazi Jews or if it can be used more broadly to the Nazi's persecution of other minorities!" Who would've thunk? Of all the myriad of examples, they pick the jews. In other words, it doesn't make any difference to them if a word has been adulterated for nefarious purposes. If you google “antisemantics”, this article doesn't show until page 3 and before that it's 2 pages of whining jews. The misnomer must be defended at all costs by the 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 portion 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, especially those hostile to Christianity. 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 and field of understanding. I believe God synchronizes His revelation of truth(s) in His own timing for these type of people.
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, that is, 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” (II Tim. 2:15) 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 and we can see how Israel, the White race, was appointed a place and planted and that they would “move no more” (II Sam. 7:10). White Christian America has no place left in the world to escape the madness that has beset our heritage and destiny.
Another amazing sleight is the leaven of Ben Williams’ shameful promotion of the denial of the deity of Christ, as to influence a good number of Australian Christian Identity believers, 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. Context and intent should be the guiding light for exegesis.
In reviewing my friend's theory of incest-only and the subsequent conclusion 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 one demands. God has a round-about way of saying things sometimes. We learned that lesson in a recent study of a parable, that Christ does not address everybody equally.
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 discernment 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 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 honest 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 Masoretic 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. They are definitely not the same.
If modern Judah is Germany, we can certainly see the high stakes game that jews play. Perhaps, like so many other things, Christian Identity 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. But to whom much is given, much is required. And we've been given a lot as Paul relates: “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all [Israel]... But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” Romans 9:4-6. That last verse is alluding to branches of the Israelite family tree that race mixed and forfeited their racial identity as Israel, such as the mongrel nation titled “Israel” today.
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; that is, until man surrenders himself to the sovereignty of God and serves God in that capacity. It will always be a matter of a spiritual Israel (Christians) within the physical race of Israel and never inclusive of non-Whites. God is looking for a relationship with people who truly respond to their calling, not the fakes who only want to enjoy the benefits, thinking themselves God's chosen people.
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, a mask will not suffice. Something has to happen internally to those who aren't wearing a mask of deceit. 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 Adamic Christians. In God’s timing, many other followers (Adamites) 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 and burned. This is just one reason why the word jew does not deserve to be used in reference to Judah. It should be self-evident that jews do not bring forth the fruits of Christ and therefore cannot be associated with, by any stretch of the imagination, the tree of life, which only pertains to the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
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. Paul was speaking of himself as a corollary to today's judeo-Christian. “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions”. If any White man dares to follow a Kinsman Redeemer today, they are persecuted with the pejoratives of jewish devils, “When they [jews] shall speak all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake” (Mt. 5:11). Paul makes it clear that the “church of God” and judaism are not the same thing, because the constituencies are not the same. Judaism promotes the racially impure, whereas Christ comes for the racially pure. The KJV renders “Judaism” in verse 13 as “the Jews religion”. Paul was an Israelite, but he was duped by a religion founded by the bad figs of Judah, not the good figs (Jer. 24). Paul may have been one of the “they” in Mt. 5:12, but who influenced him is the key. Who influenced the persecution of the prophets? Jeremiah may have been vilified by men of Israel (just like we are today), but the stranger dwelled in their land and made them sin against God (Ex. 23:33). The jew's book is called the Babylonian Talmud and hence Babylon fathered the jew's religion, not Moses or the prophets. Remember, that was the point Christ was making with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: the jews had no racial connection to Moses. Therefore, we cannot say correctly that the word 'jew' here had any semblance to Judahites, but rather to the zuwr (racial alien) stranger and his strange gods. It's been said that we owe our Bible to jewish writers, but that's a lie! The only thing we owe the jew is a fiery furnace for adding to and diminishing from the Word of God. Their word is Babel.
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. One of the earliest German tribes was called Jutes, a derivation of Judah. 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; a precursor of things to come. But in the end, they will be sent to hell.
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. 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.
If, as suggested, 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 groups, dating back to the time of Lot, circa 1898 BC (Usher), to the time of Ezra, 457 BC, never changed as an ethnic group 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 time-frames, 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.
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]. Again, a grievous misnomer for the modern church.
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. This should not be confusing, if only our people would study the facts.
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 called 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 (of German descent), are not to be unequally yoked together (II Cor. 6:14) with unbelievers (zuwr strangers) or of our own race. 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 (Judahite) way of living and were hereafter nothing other than jews (in name only). Edom was absorbed into Judah; therefore a branch of the tree of Judah became the only ethnic group 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. Christian Identity has sorted it out. No one else will, because it is racist and racism is a sin (ha ha).
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, 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 name 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 (like the locust, the cankerworm, the caterpillar and the palmerworm escaping the swarm, to lay their eggs again). Jews are a mongrel breed. That's why there is such a racial diversity of impurities flowing in their veins. But, the most insidious jew is the one who looks White. Lying is part of jewry; they are congenital liars and it's even incorporated into jewish ritual called the kol nidre, an annual practice for the disannulment of all vows and oaths for the coming year. That's why the truth of Rev. 2:9 is so important for us today. It addresses this fraud as “blasphemy” to call yourself a Judahite or “Jew” in the KJV, when you're nothing of the kind. But rather, they are “the synagogue of satan.” The adversaries of God meet together in order to destroy us, the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When did a jew ever claim to be lost? They are only lost to reality and promulgate insanity. That's why God says there will be a Final Solution. We pray that it comes sooner than later.