The Teaching of the Scripture Concerning Race

Some of the most fundamental beliefs and doctrines of contemporary Christianity have a Scriptural basis only in the sense that they appear to be supported by one or more passages of the Scripture. When subjected to close inspection and careful analysis, these beliefs and doctrines are seen to be based entirely upon factors such as tradition and the misinterpretation of passages which supposedly support them. Of course, such beliefs and doctrines have no validity and no legitimate place in the Christian Faith, for the Christian Faith is based upon the declaration of the Scripture, and not upon tradition¹. A case in point is the belief that a multiplicity of races sprang from Adam, and subsequently, that a multiplicity of races sprang from Noah.

Contemporary Bible teachers assert that racial diversity is reflected in the three sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japeth—and that each son gave rise to a fundamental racial division, the white races descending from Shem, the black races, from Ham, and the oriental races, from Japheth.

Of course, to make such an assertion is to beg the question of how it is, that the racial diversity which supposedly was preserved from Adam down to the generation of Noah suddenly disappeared, being absent in succeeding generations. That is, how can it be, that Shem was father of white races alone? or that Ham was father of black races alone? or that Japeth was father of oriental races alone? Moreover, such an assertion cannot be reconciled with the historical record and archaeological evidence concerning race in the ancient world. For example, the Scripture² equates Ham and Egypt. And ancient Egyptian artwork depicts Egyptians as having a white skin. Thus is seen to be false the notion that Ham was black and the progenitor of the black races.

2 A Belief Based upon Misinterpretation

The only compelling Scriptural support for the belief that all races share a common ancestor appears to be the declaration of Acts 17:26, that God “made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”. Virtually every Bible commentator and teacher who argues for a common ancestry of the races bases his argument on this verse, interpreting the phrase “of one” to be a reference to an individual, namely, the first Adam.

But the phrase “of one” need not necessarily refer to an individual; the reference could be to a family or tribe. Moreover, if the phrase “of one” indeed refers to an individual, that individual need not necessarily be Adam. And the terms `all nations' and `all the face of the earth' found in Acts 17:26 are not necessarily to be taken literally. Any serious and competent student of the Scripture understands the folly of demanding that every expression found in the Scripture be interpreted literally. Like every literary work, the Canon of Scripture abounds with figurative language, and particularly, with hyperbole. Always it is necessary to take into account the context in which an expression appears, for it is the context which governs the meaning of a word or an expression.

Once it is understood that (1) the phrase “of one” does not necessarily refer to Adam, and (2) the terms `all nations' and `all the face of the earth' are not necessarily to be interpreted literally, it is apparent that the belief that all races share a common ancestor rests on a shaky foundation composed almost entirely of assumption. And once this understanding is combined with the understanding that the apparent conflict between the creation accounts of the first and second chapters of Genesis is not a matter of Scriptural error or one of perspective, but is due to the fact that each account has in view a separate historical event, then it becomes apparent that the belief that all races share a common ancestor simply cannot be supported by the Scripture.

`Blood' not Found.

It is only in the King James version that the word `blood' in the 26th verse appears; the word is not found in the Greek text. Some Bible teachers, seizing upon this fact, have attempted to use it as a basis upon which to argue that all races did not spring from Adam; but such arguments invariably are ill-contrived and inconclusive, for they must speculate regarding the interpretation of the verse would have if the word `blood' indeed were present.

2.1 The Nations

The interpretation of this passage hinges upon the identity of the `one' to whom Paul refers—the entity of whom God made “all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”. Though Paul does not explicitly identify this entity, neither does he leave the matter to conjecture—a fact which should be apparent to anyone who has a good familiarity with the Scripture, and a fact which certainly would have been apparent to the scholarly and knowledgeable Athenians whom Paul addressed. The men of Athens understood the reference of Paul, because, through the hand of Providence, they had knowledge of and access to the Canon of Scripture. Moreover, they, by virtue of their lineage, they had motivation to read and study the Canon.

In order to establish the identity of the unnamed entity of this passage, it is necessary to establish the identity of the `nations' which proceed from the entity. To begin with, these nations, being descendants of a common ancestor, are kinsmen. While many today hold to the view that all men are brothers, irrespective of national origin, such is not the view of the Scripture. Outside the line of Abraham, Old Covenant scripture rarely, if ever, speaks of nations or peoples as being related by origin. The word which the King James version translates `nations' is ethnos, which means family, tribe, people, or nation. In other contexts, ethnos is represented by the word `Gentile'³.

A History Obscured.

Many Christians who read the book of Acts and the Epistles are unaware that the so-called `Gentiles' to whom the apostles proclaimed the Gospel and wrote epistles of instruction in the Christian way of life were Israelites of the flesh, being the literal, physical descendants of Israelites of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel—the so-called `lost tribes'. But there is little excuse for this lack of awareness, for the Scripture abounds with prophecies concerning the Northern Kingdom. These prophecies foretell the invasion of the Assyrians, the loss of covenantal relationship, the destruction of the nation, and the deportation of the tribes. The prophecies foretell the preservation of the tribes despite their loss of identity as `Israelites', and their phenomenal increase. The prophecies foretell the eventual restoration of the tribes to covenantal relationship, and their reunification into a single, new nation under the rule of the Christ.

Yet the prophecies concerning the `Gentiles' are unknown to most contemporary Christians, for seldom are they mentioned from the pulpit, and almost never are they presented in detail by Bible teachers. While standing in plain sight in the pages of the Scripture, they have been neglected—indeed, they have been obscured—by those who have the responsibility to study the Word of God and to teach the things which are written therein.

On the one hand, the prophecies concerning the `Gentiles' have been neglected and obscured because of the propaganda of the unregenerate Jew, who promotes the false notion that there are but two categories of humanity—`Jew' and `Gentile'⁴. The Jew does so because this deception is vital to maintenance of the illusion (1) that the Jew is unique in his origin, (2) that the Jew inherently is superior to the rest of humanity, and (3) that the sufferings of the Jew are unsurpassed in human history, to the extent that the Jew ought be protected by law from any act which may be construed as persecution, opposition, or criticism. As a result of this ever-intensifying barrage of propaganda, it has become `politically-incorrect' to bring to light by means of discussion, teaching, or publication truth which may be construed as debasing to the exalted status which the Jew has claimed for himself. Indeed, it has become politically-incorrect even to objectively research and discuss history, or to publish new historical findings (so-called `historical revisionism'), because of the potential for such research and discussion to bring to light facts which contradict the propaganda of the Jew, particularly with respect to the purported `Holocaust' (concerning which numerous allegations have been demonstrated to be nothing more than brazen lie and fabrication). Through a combination of propaganda and physical intimidation, the Jew has managed in the present day to transform his image from that of relentless, ruthless persecutor of the Christian Faith to that of pitiable victim of relentless, ruthless persecution at the hand of the Christian.

On the other hand, the prophecies concerning the `Gentiles' have been neglected and obscured because the men who today stand in the pulpits of Christendom for the most part either are disinterested hirelings who have no genuine calling to the ministry and no inherent love for the sheep, or else are unfaithful to their calling, being lazy and incompetent. And not a few are covert Jews, falsely posing as the ministers of Christ⁵, though devoted to the art of deception. Such men feed themselves from the flock of God, while failing to feed the flock and minister to the needs of the flock. To such perfidious men the Scripture decrees the highest possible condemnation⁶.

Circa 721 B. C., the Assyrians repeatedly invaded the land of Israel, in the process conquering and carrying off captive not only the entire population of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, but also most of the population of the Southern Kingdom⁷. Only those who sought refuge within the walled city of Jerusalem were spared, the city being delivered by means of an angel who, in a single night, slew 185,000 Assyrian troops.

Having lost covenantal relationship under the Old Covenant⁸, the Israelites taken captive by the Assyrians never were to return to their homeland. Instead, their descendants, in accordance with prophecy⁹ having grown to a vast multitude, eventually migrated northward and westward over the Caucasus mountains, thus becoming known as `Caucasians'. These Israelites of the flesh continued to migrate northward and westward, settling in Western Europe and the British Isles. Being identified in the Scripture only by the obscure appellation ethnos, these are they to whom the Gospel was carried by the apostles. These are they to whom the epistles of Peter and Paul are addressed: the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians. These are they who, in accordance with prophecy, were brought again into covenantal relationship, under the New Covenant. Of these are the Athenians whom Paul addressed in the midst of Mars' hill.

A little more than a century after the Assyrian invasion, circa 586 B. C., the Babylonians besieged and took the city of Jerusalem, carrying off to Babylon the survivors of the siege. After seventy years, the captives were given their freedom, yet only a small number of these Israelites chose to return to the land of their ancestors. The tiny remnant which did return to the land of Judah began by rebuilding the temple and the wall of the city; this was accomplished under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. This remnant grew to become the nation into which Christ Jesus was born. These Israelites, though relatively few in number, officially constituted the entirety of the nation Israel. Having remained in covenantal relationship under the Old Covenant¹⁰, they were the legitimate and exclusive custodians of the Canon of Scripture. The Israelites previously deported by Assyria, being without covenantal relationship, no longer were the people of God, nor were they any longer entitled to be called by the name `Israel'¹¹. Theirs precisely was the status of a woman permanently separated by divorce from the man who formerly was her husband.

Koine and the Septuagint.

But though the remnant in Judah retained custodianship of the Canon¹², it was not long after their return from the Babylonian captivity that the Canon of Scripture ceased to be a possession exclusive to Israel. Indeed, through an extraordinary turn of events, the Canon came to be published throughout the Roman Empire, having been translated from the ancient Hebrew into the common language of the empire, the Koine dialect of Greek.

From the tower of Babel¹³ to the time of Alexander the Great, no common language existed in the ancient world. Language varied from one ethnic group to the next. Even within ethnic groups, language varied from one locale to another. The language of the Greeks varied in dialect from city to city. But Alexander, himself a Greek, through his conquests brought to the ancient world a new common language—a variant of the Greek which came to be known as `Koine'¹⁴. Thus did Koine become the lingua franca of the ancient world. Subsequently, when the Roman empire superseded Alexander and his generals, Koine remained the common language within the empire, despite the fact that the official language of the empire was Latin.

Though the details of the matter have been lost to history¹⁵, it appears that it was at the request of an influential ruler within the Roman Empire that the canon of Scripture was translated from the ancient Hebrew into Koine. Tradition holds that the translation was made by a group of seventy¹⁶ Scribes, in consequence of which the translation has come to be known by the designation `the Septuagint'. While the Septuagint was the only form in which the Canon of Scripture was accessible outside of the land of Israel, even within Israel the Septuagint soon became the de facto Canon. During the period of the Incarnation and the subsequent apostolic period, the status of the Septuagint was elevated from de facto to de jure, by the fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, rather than from the ancient Hebrew text. Without question, it was the hand of Providence which brought about the establishment of Koine as a common language and the subsequent production, dissemination, and authentication of the Septuagint; this all was in preparation for the coming evangelization of the Roman empire by the apostles of Christ Jesus.

Like many others of Israelite stock residing in the territories comprising the Roman Empire, the Athenians whom Paul addressed would have been drawn to the study of Old Covenant scripture not only on the basis of academic interest, but also on the basis of ethnic heritage. Those among them to whom the Lord had given eyes to see and ears to hear would have recognized in the prophecies concerning the Northern Kingdom their own destiny of covenantal relationship under a new, eternal covenant. They would have recognized in the declaration of Paul an allusion to a passage of Old Covenant scripture which had to do with them, and would have recognized the `one' of whom God made “all nations of men”.

2.2 Sleuthing from the Context

In the context of Acts 17:26 are three clues regarding the identity of the individual individual to whom Paul refers in his declaration that God “made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”.

The Song of Moses.

The first clue that the phrase, “and hath made of one”, of the 26th verse is not a reference to Adam is provided by a phrase which appears in the second clause of the verse: “and hath determined…the bounds of their habitation”. The phrase should be familiar to any serious student of the Scripture, for it is an allusion to a verse from the `Song of Moses'—the final charge and prophecy which Moses delivered to the children of Israel, immediately prior to his death. Inasmuch as the Song of Moses is a prophesy concerning Israel, the reader should expect that the declaration of Acts 17:26 likewise has to do with the tribes of Israel, rather than with the nations of the earth in general. And the phrase should bring to the mind of almost any reader the promises which God made to Abraham.

The Song of Moses is recorded at the end of the book of Deuteronomy. The citation of Paul is from the 8th verse of the 32nd chapter:

In this passage, the term `the angels of God' is a reference to Israel, rather than to angelic creatures. The Greek word translated `angel' is aggellos, which has as its primary meaning `messenger'. Other passages of Scripture likewise speak of Israel in the role of messenger, a role which is inherent to the role of Israel as custodian of the Canon of Scripture:

Abraham Our Father.

The second clue that the phrase, “and hath made of one”, of Acts 17:26 is not speaking of Adam is the fact that nowhere in the Scripture is Adam given the appellation `father' or referred to as `father'. And in only four passages of the Scripture is there a reference to the `son' or `sons' of Adam:

However, there is, in the Scripture, an individual to whom the appellation `father' repeatedly is applied: Abraham. Numerous passages of Scripture refer to Abraham as `father'. It is Abraham, and not Adam, whom Israelites viewed as their father:

Likewise, Abraham, as the pattern of faith, is said to be the father of all them that believe:

Christ Jesus himself is declared to be the seed of Abraham. By virtue of this fact, those who are in union with Christ Jesus likewise become the seed of Abraham:

The `Times of Ignorance'.

The third clue that that the phrase, “and hath made of one”, of Acts 17:26 is not a reference to Adam is the phrase “hath determined…the times before appointed”, which also is found in the 26th verse, together with the phrase “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent”, which appears in the 30th verse of the chapter.

The mention by Paul of “the times before appointed” should bring to mind the prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel and the reuniting of the divided kingdom under the reign of Christ Jesus—prophecies and events which have nothing to do with Adam:

The phrase, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent”, of the 30th verse refers to the epoch of the New Covenant. This epoch, which began with the death of Christ Jesus as covenant sacrifice¹⁸, is termed `the times of the Gentiles', `the fulness of the Gentiles', and `the dispensation of the fulness of times':

3 Other Misapprehensions

In their attempts to justify their promotion of racial diversity and interracial marriage within the body of Christ, false teachers frequently cite several passages which, on the surface, seem to indicate that racial integration and miscegenation were practiced, both in Israel under the Old Covenant and in the early Church. However, in each instance it readily is demonstrated that but one race—the Adamic race—is in view, and, consequently, that the passage has nothing to say concerning racial integration or miscegenation.

3.1 The Wife of Moses

Some teachers ignorantly claim that Zipporah, the wife of Moses, was black. Their argument is based upon Numbers 12:1, which declares that Moses took to wife an Ethiopian woman.

To begin with, it should be understood that when the Scripture speaks of Ethiopia, it is not necessarily speaking of the territory which in the modern day is known as Ethiopia. Indeed, in Bible times there were two lands known as Ethiopia, both of which also were known as `Cush', this being the name of one of the sons of Ham. One of the lands, apparently the more ancient of the two, is a region which lies in Asia and was associated with Egypt, running southward from the southern point of Egypt and encompassing the upper region of the Nile. The other land is a region which lies in Africa. It is apparent from Jeremiah that, in at least one of the regions, the inhabitants were of a black skin:

After killing the Egyptian¹⁹, Moses fled to the land of Midian, Exodus 2:15, Acts 7:29. It was natural for Moses to seek refuge in the land of Midian, because the land of Midian not only was contiguous to Egypt, but also was the region inhabited by the descendants of Abraham: Midian was one of the sons born to Abraham by Keturah, Genesis 25:1–2. Thus, the Midianites were kinsmen of the Israelites.

In the land of Midian, Moses encountered the seven daughters of the Midianite priest, Jethro²⁰, Exodus 2:15–17. Moses took up residence in the land, dwelling with Jethro, and Jethro gave in marriage to Moses one of his daughters, Zipporah, Exodus 2:16 – 3:1. Thus, Moses took to wife a distant kinsman—a Midianite, not a black woman.

It appears that the reason for which the Scripture refers to Zipporah as an `Ethiopian'(Numbers 12:1) is that the Midianites were a people of the desert: they were a nomadic people, having no certain boundaries. While typically living on the border of the land of Ethiopia, the Midianites always were in search of green pasture, and thus roamed from place to place. This foraging for pasture brought the Midianites to the land of Israel at the time of Gideon, Judges 6:1–6.

3.2 Ruth the Moabitess

Some teachers cite the marriage of Boaz to Ruth the Moabitess as an instance of divinely-blessed interracial union. But in doing so, they both lie and display their ignorance of the genealogies found in the Scripture. Boaz is a white man, an Israelite, having a lineage which proceeds directly from Judah, one of the twelve sons of Israel²¹. Boaz is the father of Obed, who is the father of Jesse, who is the father of David. Moab is one of the two nations which proceed from Lot, Genesis 19:30–38. Lot is the nephew of Abraham, the son of Nahor, brother of Abraham, Genesis 11:27. Thus, the Moabites and the descendants of Abraham are kinsmen and are of the same race—they all are white, all of them being the descendants of Adam.

Some teachers have questioned whether Ruth indeed is a Moabite by descent, postulating that she actually is the descendant of Israelites who, like Naomi, her husband, and her two sons, somehow came to reside in the land of Moab. But irrespective of the merit of this conjecture, it matters not with regard to the question of whether the marriage of Ruth to Boaz constituted miscegenation. Whether Israelite or Moabite, Ruth is of the Adamic race.

3.3 “Black but Comely”

In the book of Canticles (commonly known as the `Song of Solomon') is a passage, the first verse of which frequently is cited by unscrupulous teachers to support the false claim that Israelites engaged in interracial marriage, and that they did so with the approval of God. In the Masoretic Text, the passage reads as follows:

The teachers who cite this passage must do so with a large measure of flimflam, because one need only continue reading to the second verse of the passage in order to discover that the `black' skin of the first verse is not the result of inherent pigmentation; rather, it is the result of prolonged exposure to the sun: the girl has been made to labour in the family vineyard, to the detriment of her complexion, which otherwise would be white. Sadly, few Christians of this day actually read the Bible, with the result that a preacher today may cite Canticles 1:5 in isolation, and his deception go undetected by his congregation.

3.4 The Ethiopian Eunuch

The book of Acts records the encounter of Philip and the eunuch of Ethiopia. This encounter is cited by Bible teachers as proof that Israel was a nation of multiple races, and that the Christian Faith and membership in the body of Christ Jesus is open to men of every race. The record of the encounter is as follows:

Taken literally, the word `eunuch' denotes a man who has been castrated. Castration was practiced primarily in eastern monarchies. Castration in no respect was intended as a punishment: typically, young men who exhibited promise in administrative fields were castrated as a preparation for the assumption of great responsibility, the apparent rationale being that elimination of the sexual drive would facilitate single-mindedness in the conduct of official duties, and would circumvent the possibility of compromise by lust or seduction in the sexual realm. Inasmuch as eunuchs commonly held positions of high authority, the term `eunuch' came to be used as a title for a man serving in a position of authority, whether or not he indeed had been castrated.

The fact that the eunuch to whom Philip proclaimed the Gospel is said to be `of Ethiopia' does not necessarily imply that the man was of Ethiopian origin. Consider, for example, Daniel, who, though a Hebrew, had been made a `Babylonian Eunuch', being a high official in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Such utilization of competent foreigners was not uncommon in the monarchies of the ancient world.

The fact that the eunuch had come to Jerusalem for worship indicates that he was a Jew—in all probability, a descendant of the Israelites who, by agency of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, had been scattered throughout the kingdoms of the ancient world. The Scripture records that such individuals, having journeyed to Jerusalem in order to observe the Passover and the subsequent feast of Pentecost, were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost following the Crucifixion:

4 The Origin of the Races

As noted at the outset of this article, it appears to be impossible, apart from the declaration of Acts 17:26, to find a compelling Scriptural basis for the belief that all races share a common ancestor. Indeed, the Scripture militates against such a belief.

In particular, there are serious conflicts between the creation account of the first chapter of Genesis and that of the second chapter—but only if the two accounts are taken to be descriptions of the same event. When confronted with the apparent discrepancies in the two accounts, few Christians are willing to admit the possibility that each account has to do with a separate historical event, and fewer still have the temerity to postulate Scriptural error, despite the fact that they are able to offer no other plausible explanation. Most Bible teachers and most Christians never give the accounts more than a cursory reading, and simply dismiss the discrepancies as a matter of perspective, surmising that the accounts were written by different authors. But the differences between the two accounts are substantial, involving both the sequence and the nature of the creation. The accounts cannot be reconciled by an appeal to perspective. However, when viewed without prejudice, the disparities between the two creation accounts lead directly (if not inescapably) to the conclusion that (1) the Adamic race is a creation distinct from the other races, and, (2) domestic animals are a creation distinct from wild animals.

Thus, the natural interpretation of the two creation accounts of Genesis is as follows: All races other than the Adamic race were created on the sixth day of Creation. The non-Adamic races appear to have no common progenitor; each appears, like the Adamic race, to have been a distinct creation. Subsequent to the sixth day of Creation, God formed Adam, planted in Edem a garden²², and placed Adam in the Garden. God then created for the protected and husbanded environment of the Garden a complement of domesticated animals—animals which require tending by humans and which generally are incapable of living in the wild. This is the natural interpretation.

Though many consider genetic similarities between the various races to be evidence of common ancestry, an equally-plausible interpretation is that such similarities evidence the fact that the Creation is the work of a single designer.

5 The Implications

The implications of the finding, that Acts 17:26 is a reference to Abraham, rather than to Adam, are nothing less than profound, for the finding demolishes the primary (if not sole) basis of virtually all of the teaching of the contemporary Christian pulpit regarding race.

In the present day, it has become `politically correct' to promote racial blindness, and to do so to the point of denial of the very existence of racial distinction. False teachers, having hired out themselves to the Establishment in the capacity of agents of propaganda, constantly wage an assault upon the Christian Faith and upon all that is right and honourable. These evil men twist the teaching of the Scripture in an attempt to support their pernicious arguments regarding race. Ignoring or obscuring the division of the ancient Kingdom of Israel—which division gave rise to the distinction of `Jew' versus `Gentile'—and misapplying the prophecies of reunification of the two groups under the New Covenant, these treacherous men claim that the New Covenant nullifies not only the distinction between `Jew' and `Gentile', but also the distinction between the various races of humanity. They repeatedly utter the lie, There is only one race—the human race.” Ignoring or obscuring the multitude of factors which differentiate one race from another, these agents of deception claim that racial differences which appear obvious to all in reality are no more than skin-deep, and that the perception of race and the perception of racial distinction is a false perception which is based upon an insignificant parameter, namely, the degree of pigmentation of the skin. These false teachers condone and even advocate interracial marriage, portraying it as a badge of honour—a sign which indicates that one has attained to a higher plain of perception and obedience in the Christian way of life.

6 Concluding Remarks

Few practices inherently are more reprehensible than that of miscegenation, that is, interracial marriage. Even as natural instinct causes a normal, sane individual utterly to be revolted at the very thought of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, or by the thought of copulation between man and beast, so also, natural instinct causes him utterly to be revolted at the very thought of sexual union between individuals of differing race. Yet, few today—even among those who consider themselves to be Christian—are revolted by sodomy, lesbianism, or miscegenation. Fundamentally, this is due to the fact that contemporary society in general has rejected truth. Through a combination of (1) propaganda delivered by television, Hollywood movies, and the print media, and (2) legislation designed to suppress truth, contemporary society has been conditioned to view as normal the sodomite, the lesbian, and the racially-mixed couple. Nor is the Christian—whose role with respect to society is that of salt and light—countering this situation; for that which today passes as `Christianity' is but an insipid counterfeit of the Christian Faith of the Scripture.

Love of the Truth.

The Scripture divides the descendants of Adam (and, in particular, the physical seed of the line Abraham-Isaac-Jacob) into two fundamental categories, the basis for the division being attitude toward truth. The criterion for the division is expressed in phraseology which is somewhat curious: the criterion is whether or not one has received a love of the truth. The reason for the curious phraseology is to emphasize the necessity of going beyond the mere recognition and acceptance of that which is true.

In order to be pleasing to God, the individual must have a love of truth in the abstract; that is, he must delight in truth, in the sense that the pursuit of truth must be integral to his way of life. Most men are eclectic with respect to truth: they embrace truth which agrees with their thinking, and they reject truth with demonstrates their notions to be false, or which condemns their actions and motivations. And while they generally recognize and accept that which is true, they generally are unwilling to make sacrifices in order to acquire truth or to disseminate truth. For them, truth is a means, rather than an end; such men have not received a love of the truth.

But God has no tolerance for those who have not received a love of the truth. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul declares that to such men God sends `strong delusion', with the intent that they might believe that which is false:

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul delivers essentially the same message, speaking of men who reject truth because they take pleasure in unrighteousness:

No one who considers the Gospel foolish or offensive has received a love of the truth:

Those today who see nothing wrong with sodomy, lesbianism, and miscegenation have succumbed to the assault of the kosmos. For the sake of political correctness (which is nothing other than acceptance by the kosmos), they have suppressed natural instincts and inhibitions, and have abandoned whatever proper standards they once may have possessed. Though by the standards of the kosmos such individuals may appear normal and sane, by the absolute standard of the Law of God they are abnormal and insane:

Genetic Confusion.

While in some cases the children of interracial marriage have a normal appearance, in many cases the offspring of miscegenation exhibit hideous deformities or abnormal markings. Such phenomenon are the result of genetic combinations which are contrary to the design of God—a confusion which loudly proclaims the grievous sin of the parents. Some may argue that, inasmuch as conception took place and the embryo developed into a foetus, came to full term, and was delivered as a live birth, God has given his approval to miscegenation. But precisely the same argument may be used in an attempt to argue that God has given his approval to fornication, adultery, or even rape.

Some examples of deformities and markings in the offspring of the union between black and white are: (1) a child which is an albino, with the hair and facial characteristics of the Negro, and jet-black ears; (2) a child with a white skin, but which is covered from head to foot with irregular black splotches; (3) and a child with a black skin, but with a white neck and wrists. Though no demonstration should be needed, such deformities and markings demonstrate that the practice of miscegenation is an abomination.

Throughout history, and irrespective of the ethnic group, the offspring of miscegenation suffer social ostracism. Upon encountering one of these pathetic beings, one of the first thoughts which must spring to the mind of a Christian is, “How can a man and a woman fall into such as state of depravity and lust for self-gratification, as to defy one of the most fundamental instincts of mankind and unite sexually with an individual of another race?” The answer is found in the Scripture; such individuals have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, with the result that their conscience has been rendered insensitive:

Prohibitions under the Old Covenant.

The fact that miscegenation is sinful is seen in the prohibitions which are found in Old Covenant scripture:

These prohibitions have obvious applicability to the sexual union of a man and a woman: if the Lord prohibits the crossbreeding of plants and the crossbreeding of animals, certainly he must prohibit the crossbreeding of mankind.

Of course, one might argue that, if miscegenation is sinful, God would have declared the fact plainly, rather than indirectly, through analogy. However, ancient Israel was a nation which, from her inception, had been set apart unto God and had been commanded to live in isolation from the surrounding heathen nations. Moreover, even the heathen nations which surrounded Israel were, like Israel herself, of the Adamic race. Consequently, racial diversity was not to be found within ancient Israel, and there was little opportunity for miscegenation. Consequently, the primary concern of the Scripture with regard to intermarriage with other nations is not miscegenation; rather, it is the idolatry which such unions almost invariably introduce to the Israel.

Miscegenation is confusion; thus, it is apparent that miscegenation is not of God:

Misapprehension of the Mystery.

The foundation for the belief that the Church is a racial amalgam and for the notion that racial amalgamation within the local congregation is proper and to be promoted is a misapprehension of the great mystery of the Gospel, namely, the bringing into covenantal relationship of the so-called `Gentiles', and the reunification of the `Gentiles' and the `Jews' into one body, namely, the Church:

Though at the time Paul wrote these words to the Ephesians, the Old Covenant already had been dissolved, the temple at Jerusalem remained standing and was daily in operation, reflecting the fact that, generally speaking, the Jew was in a state of denial regarding the dissolution of his covenantal relationship. Failing to realize that Christ Jesus was the very husband to whom the nation of Israel was married (the Old Covenant being a covenant of marriage), the Jew was oblivious to the fact that, with the death of Jesus, his covenantal relationship forever had been dissolved. Consequently, the Jew could not appreciate the profound truth of the first four verses of the 7th chapter of Romans, namely, that the death of Jesus allowed him to enter into a new, eternal covenantal relationship, which also was a covenant of marriage.

Phrases such as `in heaven' (Ephesians 1:10) and `in heavenly places' (Ephesians 3:10) are not necessarily references to heavenly entities and phenomenon, but in some cases simply reflect the perspective of the Jew with respect to the Gentile. To the Jew, covenantal relationship was a state tantamount to being `in heaven', in contrast to the state of his kinsman, the `Gentile', who, since his loss of covenantal relationship circa 721 B. C., was `on earth'.

As previously noted²³, the so-called `Gentiles' are nothing other than descendants of the Israelites who were carried away by Assyria circa 721 B. C. Thus, in no way may the Gentiles be construed to be men of all races. The Gentiles are Israelites, and thus, are of the Adamic race. Consequently, the Church, which is body of Christ, like Israel of old, is composed primarily of the descendants of the line Abraham-Isaac-Jacob. And, it appears that, as was the case with ancient Israel, the only non-Israelites within the body of Christ are individuals who, though not of Israel, nonetheless are descendants of Adam.

In stark contrast, the perpetual foe of the Christian Faith, Talmudic Judaism, is based almost entirely upon tradition, often in utter disregard and even contempt for the teaching of the Scripture. Consider Matthew 15:1–9, Mark 7:1–13, Galatians 1:13–14, Colossians 2:8, I Peter 1:18–20.

Psalm 105, Psalm 106.

The use of the word `Gentile' to represent ethnos is nothing less than perverse. `Gentile' is a transliteration of the Latin word gentilis. The Greek ethnos and the Latin gentilis are cognates; that is, the two words have the same meaning, namely, that of family, tribe, people, or nation. But the original text of the Scripture is written in Greek, and not in Latin. Nonetheless, in numerous instances, the translators of the King James version declined to translate ethnos and likewise declined to transliterate the word. Instead, they chose to represent ethnos with a transliteration of the Latin cognate. The logic behind such a decision all but defies analysis.

According to the Jew, term `Gentile' appertains to anyone who is not a `Jew'. And among themselves and in their own writings, the Jew uses the derogatory term `goy' (the plural of which is `goyim') when referring to the Christian. Indeed, the Jew views the rest of humanity as nothing more than cattle.

II Corinthians 11:12–15.

See in particular the prophecies of Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

II Kings 18:13.

Both the Old Covenant and the New are covenants of marriage. Consequently, the idolatry in which ancient Israel engaged was nothing other than adultery in the spiritual realm. The husband has the prerogative of divorcing an adulterous wife, though divorce is not mandated. The Eternal exercised his prerogative and divorced the Northern Kingdom; but he remained in covenantal relationship with the remnant of the Southern Kingdom, though she also had given herself to idolatry.

Though these Israelites were to be dispersed among the nations, they were to be preserved, and not be destroyed, Amos 9:8–9. Though they were to lose their national identity, yet they were to grow into an innumerable multitude—becoming “as the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured nor numbered”—and eventually were to be brought again into covenantal relationship and be reunited with the remnant of the House (that is, Kingdom) of Judah, Hosea 1:1–11.

Several factors necessitated that a remnant remain in covenantal relationship, one of which was need for a legitimate custodian of the Canon of Scripture, Romans 3:1–2.

See the first and second chapters of Hosea.

Covenantal relationship being a requisite for a custodian of the Canon, Israel as a physical nation Israel lost custodianship of the Canon upon dissolution of the Old Covenant. At that time, custodianship of the Canon passed to the new, spiritual Israel, which is the Church.

Genesis 11:1–9.

The Greek word koine means `common'.

Ignorant men frequently deny the legitimacy of the Septuagint, arguing that the origins of the Septuagint are uncertain. However, the same men almost invariably promote the King James version as having been ordained by God, although very little is known concerning the details by which the King James version came into being; this despite the fact that the Septuagint was translated at least a century prior to the Incarnation, while the King James version is a product of the 17th century of the Christian era. Moreover, these men ignore the fact that the Septuagint—whatever the details of its origin—was authenticated by Christ Jesus and the apostles, by virtue of the fact that they quoted from the Septuagint. Likewise, these men ignore the fact that, for a period of roughly fourteen centuries, the Church preserved the Septuagint and venerated it as the authentic and official Canon of Old Covenant scripture. Finally, these men voice no objection to embrace of the Jewish Masoretic Text which underlies the King James version, even though the Masoretic Text was unknown to Christians until its publication in the 15th century of the Christian era, and even though almost nothing is known (at least, outside the realm of Talmudic Judaism) concerning the origin of the Masoretic Text. Thus, though the Septuagint is much more ancient than either the King James version or the Masoretic Text, the uncertainty surrounding the origin of the Septuagint hardly is greater than the uncertainty surrounding either of those relatively recent works.

Some say seventy-two.

Unless otherwise noted, all citations of Old Covenant scripture are taken from the Septuagint (typically, from the A. D. 1851 English translation of Brenton), which is a translation into the Greek dialect called `Koine' of the ancient Hebrew canon of Old Covenant scripture. The Septuagint commonly is designated by the Roman numeral `LXX', which corresponds to the number seventy, this supposedly being the number of men who laboured on the translation.

The translation was made a century or more prior to the Incarnation, and copies of the Septuagint circulated throughout the ancient world. By the time of the birth of Christ, the Septuagint had become accepted as the authentic and official Canon of Old Covenant scripture. Popular acceptance of the Septuagint was due largely to the fact that the Hebrew language had fallen into disuse; this, in turn, being largely a consequence of the dispersion of Israel by the Assyrian invasion, together with the subsequent seventy years of captivity in Babylon of the remnant which Assyria did not carry away. By the time of the return from Babylon, Greek had become established as the common language of the world, as a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Thus, it is the Septuagint, rather than the ancient Hebrew Canon, which was in common use throughout Judea during the era of the Incarnation and the apostolic age, and there is little, if any, evidence that the ancient Hebrew canon was still in use by anyone during this period. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint rather from the ancient Hebrew, thus authenticating the Septuagint as the official and authentic canon of Old Covenant scripture. Consequently, it is the Septuagint, rather than the ancient Hebrew text, which the early Church preserved and revered as genuine.

Veneration of the Septuagint—on the part of both the Christian and the Christ-rejecting, unregenerate Jew—persisted for a period of roughly a century after the Resurrection. However, the Jew, having nothing but an adversarial relationship with the Christian, began maintaining his own editions of the Septuagint. Sometime after the final destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in A. D. 70, the Jew attempted to revive the defunct Hebrew language and to re-create the abandoned ancient Hebrew text—a text which, like the ark of the covenant, has disappeared without a trace. It appears that neither a copy nor even so much as a fragment of the ancient Hebrew canon survived to the modern era; at least, Christian scholars know of none to be extant. These efforts of the Jew culminated in creation of the so-called `Masoretic Text', which was not published until the 15th century A. D. It is vital to understand that the Masoretic Text is the product of unregenerate men, working entirely in the Christian era—an era in which no man rightly can claim to possess covenantal relationship with God under the terms of the Old Covenant, for the Old Covenant came to a permanent and irreversible end upon the death of Christ Jesus. Being the creation of unregenerate men, the Masoretic Text by no stretch of the imagination may be considered canonical.

Popular notion perceives the Masoretic Text as simply the ancient Hebrew text to which `vowel points' have been added; but, in actuality, the Masoretic Text is a new Bible, written in a language considerably more complex than the language of the ancient Hebrews. Regrettably, William Tyndale translated his English Bible from the Masoretic Text, rather than from the Septuagint; thus were Christians originally introduced to the Jewish counterfeit of the ancient Hebrew Canon. And despite the fact that, soon after its publication, the Masoretic Text was demonstrated by Christian scholars to be but a counterfeit of the ancient Hebrew Canon and marred by numerous serious flaws, Tyndale's use of the Masoretic Text set a precedent which has been followed by virtually every subsequent translator of the English Bible. Demonstration of the corrupt and spurious nature of the Masoretic Text is not difficult, for New Covenant scripture contains numerous quotations of Old Covenant scripture, and inspection of the quoted passages reveals all manner of corruption, including truncation, augmentation, and selective editing.

Thus, despite its historical role as the basis for English Bible, the Masoretic Text is nothing more than a poorly-crafted modern Jewish counterfeit of the ancient Hebrew Bible which long ago had been abandoned, even by the Jew; as such, the Masoretic Text is unreliable, utterly worthless, and offers nothing whatsoever of value to the Christian. The oldest extant copies of the Septuagint predate the oldest extant copies of the Masoretic Text by more than a thousand years. Moreover, there is no demonstrated continuity between the ancient Hebrew Canon and the Masoretic Text. Without question, the Septuagint is the only reliable link to the ancient Hebrew Canon. Indeed, the Masoretic Text gives the appearance of being a heavily-edited translation of the Septuagint into the Masoretic Hebrew language. But whatever the pedigree of the Masoretic Text, it is the Septuagint alone which is the authentic canon of Old Covenant scripture, simply because it is from the Septuagint alone that Jesus and the apostles cited the Scripture.

For a more comprehensive discussion of this matter, see the journal article, ”Rightful Succession & Imposture: The Case of the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text”, Salt & Light, Vol. 2, No. 6.

See the 9th chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. In that epistle, the King James version mistranslates the Greek word diatheke and its cognate diatithemai, rendering them, respectively, by the terms `testament' and `testator'. However, the context is that of a covenant, rather that that of a bequeathal of benefit upon death. Consequently, the terms should be translated `covenant' and `covenant sacrifice'. In the Septuagint, diatheke and diatithemai are used only in the context of a covenantal agreement; see Genesis 6:18, 6:19, 9:9, 9:11, 9:12, 9:13, 9:17, 15:18, 21:27, 21:32, 26:48.

Foolish and ignorant Bible frequently assert that, in killing the Egyptian, Exodus 2:11–12, Moses committed an act of murder. But in bringing against Moses this false accusation, these false teachers bring condemnation upon themselves; consider Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20, Deuteronomy 19:15–21. The Scripture utters not a word of condemnation against Moses for this act. That which Moses did was deliver a Hebrew kinsman from a murderous assault by an Egyptian officer. While, in every age of history, the law of Caesar implicitly grants immunity from prosecution to the officers of Caesar, the Law of God allows no such exemption. Not only was Moses justified in killing the Egyptian, but he would have violated the law, “You are to love your neighbour as yourself,”, had he failed to intervene. The teaching of Paul in the 13th chapter of his epistle to the Romans and the teaching of Peter in the 2nd chapter of his epistle does not grant Caesar and his agents license to murder or to engage in other activity of a criminal nature. In contemporary society, there are many circumstances in which intervention obviously is futile; but in instances in which there is a fair opportunity for success, no righteous man who has the means of intervention can fail to intervene in such a case and retain his righteousness.

In Exodus 2:18, the father of Zipporah is called `Ruel'. Brenton, in his translation of the Septuagint, renders the corresponding word as `Raguel'. The word appears to be a title composed of the prefix RU or RAGU and the Hebrew word EL.

See, for example, the genealogy recorded in the 12th chapter of I Chronicles.

Genesis 2:8. In the reading of the Septuagint, God planted in Edem a `paradise' (paradeisos). Brenton translates paradeisos as `Garden of Delight', rather than merely transliterating the word.

See the second section of this article.