Debunking Zionazi abuse of ‘Amalek’

Bonus food for thought: Zionist accusations are confessions.

As diligent observers probably noticed long ago, the “Amalek” card is a commonly employed justification by right-wing Judeo-Nazis (Zionists) for their Holocaustic rampage against the Palestinian people. Benjamin Netanyahu has infamously co-opted Torah passages about Amalek to justify the Fourth Reich’s militarized brutality,¹² and “Messianic Jews” (so-called “Jewish Christians”) are equally as fanatically on par with Zionazism as their non-Christian counterparts.³ Obnoxious Zionist co-opting of the Book of Esther is also a staple characteristic.⁴

Let no man deceive you: Zionazism has zero connection to the values of the Torah and Mosaic Judaism. As you will see, their invocation of “Amalek” is entirely abusive and a false application of the Old Testament.

Overview: type/antitype significance

As explained in a previous posting, the literal nation of Israel in the Old Testament served as nothing more, nothing less than a mere shadow/“type” for the apostolic Christian church under the New Covenant. The prophet Jeremiah declared the following succinct, clear-cut words of Jehovah:⁵

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

The literal Hebrew nation was identified with the covenant of circumcision in literal fleshly terms in both the Abrahamic⁶ and Mosaic. Now, note that already in the time of Jeremiah—centuries before Jesus Christ of Nazareth was born—a distinction was already made between circumcision of the flesh and that of the heart. Take note what Paul said to the Philippians:⁷

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Elsewhere, the Apostle says that in Christ “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision.”⁸ There is no contradiction here—there are two forms of circumcision, one of the flesh and the other of the heart. The sum of the matter couldn’t be better explained in the second chapter of the letter to the Romans:⁹

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Long story short: the Old Covenant’s emphasis on circumcision of the flesh was only a typological shadow pointing to the greater “totality” fulfillment in circumcision of the heart, aka faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer.

Proof that the literal ‘Jews’ are not God’s chosen anymore

Zionazis are infamous for extensively quotemining the Old Testament to “prove” that literal Jews have an eternal covenant with God and thereby are still the “chosen.” They point to this cherry-picked, misinterpreted passage in Leviticus:¹⁰

And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God.

Note that this verse specifics “when they be in the land of their enemies.” Did the Mosaic Covenant remain in effect when the Jews were exiled in Babylon and Medo-Persia? Yes. However, the Old Covenant didn’t last forever. The prophet Jeremiah straightforwardly declared to his contemporaries:¹¹

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 in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an 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. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Once again, there is no contradiction. God’s promise to not break His covenant in Leviticus 26 only pertained to the time of the Jews’ exile in pagan Gentile nations. The New Covenant came into effect on Passover (Nisan 14) of 31 A.D. at the Last Supper,¹² when the Jews had long already received their nation back out of Medo-Persian exile. The Old Covenant “vanished away”¹³ in the post-exilic era.

Not convinced? Here’s the complete slam-dunk evidence:¹⁴

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

And don’t even think about throwing the recycled-cherrypicked Romans 11:1 card at me. As I covered in a previous posting, Paul explicitly explains that God’s “chosen”—as to the literal Jewish people—was only a fractional remnant out of Israel and not the totality.¹⁵

Antitypical relevance

Perhaps you’re wondering: what does all this have to do with Amalek? Simple: with the established factual record that modern literal Jews aren’t God’s chosen anymore, then the following corollary is logically established that Amalek cannot constitute an enemy to merely/solely a “literalized” group of “Jews.”¹⁶

Now, let’s look at the infamously misquoted Amalek command closely in Deuteronomy:¹⁷

Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

Note that there is an explicit emphasis on the command being divinely authorized by God alone. When the Hebrews—at Jehovah’s command to the high priest Samuel relayed to King Saul—massacred the Amalekites in I Samuel 15, the order was directly given by God rather than man.¹⁸ Only the Creator of human life has the moral authority to authorize the taking of human life.

Of course, the priesthood has changed—the old high priests of the earthly sanctuary only served as a shadow pointing to Jesus Christ,¹⁹ the true and superior high priest.²⁰ And it is stated in the New Testament:²¹

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This is not to say that any part of the Torah in its moral charater is thereby negated/abrogated by the New Covenant; Christ declared in the Sermon on the Mount:²²

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Paul explains who the enemy is in antitype:²³

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

IOWs, the real “Amalek” in antitypical terms is not a literal group of people along “ethnic” lines by any means. The literal tribe of Amalek in the Old Testament was clearly only a shadow, much as the literal nation of Israel was likewise a shadow.

The true Amalek

Note the fundamental characteristics of Amalek: he tries to destroy God’s people. Since it’s now well-established that the true “chosen people” of God is the apostolic Christian church, then the real Amalek in biblical “antitype” is some entity which tries to destroy the true Christianity. The prophet Daniel gives some information:²⁴

Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Who are the saints? The apostolic Christians²⁵ who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, justified by God, and who keep God’s commandments. The Book of Revelation clarifies matters as it relates to Daniel:²⁶

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

…

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Spoiler: the “beast” is the Holy Roman Empire (nowadays called the “European Union”), and the little horn (aka the “Antichrist”) which “makes war with the saints” is the Vatican. Now, note that Revelation 13:2 says “the dragon” gave the Antichrist its power. Who is the dragon? The chapter previous specifies:²⁷

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Now, if Paul says that the Christian’s battle is not against “flesh and blood,” that automatically precludes a bloody war against fellow human beings. Therefore, the “powers and principalities” he refers to are clearly to Satan and his legion of demons. Rev. 12 makes abundantly clear what the devil’s agenda is:²⁸

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The true character of the Book of Esther

I recently did a comprehensive literary analysis of Esther to unravel its marvelous beauty in its carried deeper meaning. And unfortunately for the Zionazis, the Book of Esther does not validate their worldview by any stretch.

As you perhaps may (correctly) guess, since Esther is part of the Old Testament, it belongs in the “type” category in type/antitype terms. Queen Esther essentially serves as a shadow for the apostolic Christian church described by Paul as a woman in symbolic/analogical terms.²⁹ King Ahasuerus therefore serves as a type for Jesus Christ; just as the “kings of the east” in end-times antitype destroy spiritual Babylon,³⁰ so too was—in typology—literal Babylon destroyed by the Medo-Persians to the east of them.³¹ The prophet Isaiah declared that God named the Persian king Cyrus as “His Anointed” (literally, mashiach or “messiah”),³² indicating that the Medo-Persian king was a type pointing to Jesus Christ.

The role of Haman as “Amalek” in the Book of Esther is subtly implied via his designation as an “Agagite,”³³ a reference to the Amalekite king Agag in I Samuel. Once again, this simply serves as a typology: Haman is simply a type of Satan, his effort to destroy the Medo-Persian-era exiled Jews³⁴ constituting a shadow for Satan’s desire to liquidate apostolic Christianity from the planet.

More important in this exposition of the Book of Esther is the analysis of Queen Esther’s actions and moral character. Esther, Mordecai, and the Jews never presumed the automatically “inherent” authority to immediately avenge themselves upon their enemies—Mordecai and the exiled Jews mourned and fasted in sackcloth and ashes.³⁵ And Esther the Queen wasn’t any less humble: she understood that her going in unto King Ahasuerus was a life-or-death gamble,³⁶ and only through her subservient humility unto the king did she obtain his merciful granting to not only end Haman’s genocidal conspiracy but reverse them.³⁷

Conclusion

There is zero biblical basis to justify the Zionazi brutality against the Palestinian people no matter how many times they hide behind the “Hamas” dogwhistle and equivalent propaganda apparatuses. Ordinary Palestinians are nowhere near being out to genocide Jews—they intrinsically wish to live in peace instead of perpetually Nakbaed of their property, livelihoods, and lives. And the modern “State of Israel” has zero connection to the true ancient Israel of the Old Testament. Even if we were to assume for the slightest moment that there was a link, the comprehensive type/antitype analysis of the Bible debunks the notion that any enemy of the “literal” Jewish people constitutes Amalek from 31 A.D. into the present day.

The high priest Samuel told the Amalekite king Agag: “As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women.”³⁸ In this respect, the modern Zionazis—who constantly slaughter Palestinian families—bear infinitely greater similarities to Amalek. The Fourth Reich simply cannot cease living according to the Third Reich/Goebbels motto of projecting their own criminal record onto their enemies. Of course, should this be surprising anymore? I personally think not…

1. Brett Wilkins (Oct. 30, 2023), “Netanyahu Accused of 'Genocidal Intentions' in Gaza After 'Holy Mission' Speech,” Common Dreams.

2. Noah Lanard (Nov. 3, 2023), “The Dangerous History Behind Netanyahu’s Amalek Rhetoric,” Mother Jones.

3. Jayson Casper (Dec. 15, 2023), “For Messianic Jews, Debate Over Hamas Gets Biblical,” Christianity Today.

4. Ron Diller (Apr. 1, 2024), “Amalek is Haman; Haman is Hamas,” The Times of Israel.

5. Jer. 9:25-26.

6. Gen. 17:9-14.

7. Phil. 3:3.

8. Gal. 5:6, 6:15.

9. Rom. 2:28-29.

10. Lev. 26:44.

11. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12.

12. Mk. 14:24; Matt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 9:15.

13. Heb. 8:13.

14. Rom. 9:6-8.

15. Rom. 11:2-7.

16. Of course, in no sense is the Nazi State of Israel actually “Jewish” in any biblical connotation. The point here is that even if we are generous enough to just assume for a moment that the modern “State of Israel” constitutes literal Jewry in ethnic terms with a direct traceable lineage to ancient times (which they genetically lack in relative terms, as explained by Alfred M. Lilienthal in What Price Israel?), then they still have zero factual basis from a biblical standpoint to designate their adversaries as “Amalek.”

17. Deut. 25:17-29.

18. I Sam. 15:1-3.

19. Heb. 8:1-6.

20. Heb. 3:1-3.

21. Heb. 7:12.

22. Matt. 5:17-19.

23. Eph. 6:10-12.

24. Dan. 7:19-22.

25. I Cor. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:1-2, 15-17.

26. Rev. 13:1, 5-7.

27. Rev. 12:9.

28. Rev. 12:17.

29. Eph. 5:23-32.

30. Rev. 16:12.

31. Dan. 5:1-31.

32. Isa. 45:1-3.

33. Est. 3:1.

34. Est. 3:9.

35. Est. 4:1-3.

36. Est. 4:15-17.

37. Est. 5:1-8, 7:1-10, 8:1-8.

38. I Sam. 15:33.