The Race against Racism

 I'm just going to go through a few passages to lay out the facts so that the racist cult that has been gaining steam in Reformed circles has no excuse before God on judgment day.

1. The popular idea amongst racists that the mark of Cain was God making people black has no support in the text. And how exactly would his lineage look after marrying a white woman and having mixed children who then went on to marry white people? Black people don't come from Cain. This was an attempt by racist groups to stigmatize black people as murderers. It's purely eisegetical.

2. The popular idea amongst racists that Ham is cursed by being made black is not only without support in the text, it actually negates what the text says. Ham isn't cursed. Hence, all of his descendants aren't cursed. Only Canaan is cursed. Hence, only Canaan's descendant's are cursed, and they aren't black. The Canaanites are Middle Eastern. We know this from archaeology and from their depictions in Egyptian literature as the "Asiatics." Either way, the Hamites who may have made up Africa aren't the cursed ones. Given all of this, it's clear that the curse isn't making them black. That's not even a part of the curse in the text so to say that changing their skin color is part of it is, again, eisegetical.

3. Moses married an Ethiopian woman and the attempts to say that she probably belonged to the "other" Cush doesn't fit the context of Miriam and Aaron becoming made about it. First, it should be clear, they're not mad about racial differences per se. It's clear in the context that they are mad that Moses might be thinking he's a king, and they don't like him lifting himself up over them. Like all people who envy others in authority, they're arrogance detectors and so accuse him of arrogance because he married an Ethiopian. Why would this have anthing to do with him lifting himself up over them? Because Ethiopian women, both in appearance and in wealth, were often seen as exotic and women that only kings and extremely rich and powerful men in other countries would marry. This is consistent with their reaction. It's not because he married more than one wife, since that was common among lower class men too. It's not because she's a foreign woman because that was also common and he had already done that with Zippora who was a Midianite. Marrying a black woman signified wealth and power, and they didn't like him flaunting his power over them since they too were prophets of God.

4. Those who emphasize externals (skin color) over culture (the most important element being religious culture and values) don't have the Spirit of Christ in them. God looks at the inward person over the outward one. Blind men look to the outward so they worry a whole lot about how that cup looks and clean it constantly to hide the fact that cleanliness and filth matters far more on the inside. The Pharisees hated Christ on this point, as his dirty disciples didn't wash their hands before they ate and they could not stand anyone claiming to be godly doing such a thing. These people care much about appearances and think it's a tragedy if everyone were to return to a single color. You know, like Adam and Eve were, or weren't. 

And that brings up an interesting point. Were Adam and Eve both the same skin color? Is it possible that God actually made them genetically diverse? In fact, isn't it probable and even biblical to say that they had all the genes of all the races in them? If that's the case, aren't they a case of every race being married as God's original intent to every race? This brings us to another popular suggestion that isn't supported by the text.

5. God made the races when he divided the nations at Babel. Um, no, He didn't. He split people off linguistically. There is nothing in the text that supports the idea that He made them all different races. In fact, we know that it isn't true, as there are a lot of nations created here that are still made up of the same races. Also, God didn't make new humans at Babel, so every human being has the same genetics he had from Adam and Eve, which means that everyone could have taken upon the characteristics of everyone else given the same environment, time and genetic combination through procreation. The borders are given so that these people who speak the same language can have a homogenously linguistic society, not because Macedonians and Greeks are different races of people. And this isn't even talking about the entire world but the entirety of the land in the Ancient Near East which have a total of three groups involved, those who came from Shem, those who came from Ham, and those who came from Japheth. The lands mentioned are just within that sphere.

6. The fact that God tells them they can marry other women who are slaves or captured in battle from other nations means he has no problem with interracial marriage. What he does have a problem with throughout the Bible is interreligious marriage, daughters of a foreign god. He also allows men from other nations, like Caleb for instance, to marry Israelites wives. The host of Egyptians and Nubians and other slaves who went out from Egypt with Israel are never prohibited from marrying Israelite women as long as they were non-Israelite Israelites, religiously speaking.

7. This brings us to the final point I want to make here and that is that interracial marriage is never forbidden or even frowned upon implicitly in Scripture, and I would argue, it is actually encouraged implicitly through the principle of the incest laws. The further one gets away from one's own genetics, the healthier and stronger humanity becomes. The closer one gets, the more defects are multiplied. Now, of course, this can be accomplished with white people marrying white people and black people marrying black people but my point is that, if anything, it would more a sin to marry closer to one's genetic pool than further away from it. Obviously, it's only a stated sin to have relations to close within family units but the principle would show that the opposite has no similar principle governing it.

Like all cults, this one takes verses out of context to support it and then tries to mangle the texts that speak against it so that they silence the voice of God in opposition to them. 

I get that our culture is emotion and reactionary and most people condemning the movement have no credit since they react by their own brainwashing rather than with exegesis, but this movement really is unbiblical. It's not simply a virtue signal or cultural indoctrination. This is actually something our culture gets right because of its remnant Christian influence. What our culture gets wrong is the blending of religious races, sons of God and daughters of the devil, or vice versa, and the reverse racism and genocide they practice. But an overreaction is what the devil wants here. As I've said before, he doesn't lead conservative Christians astray by telling them to attend Drag Story Hour or ordain homosexual bishops. He drags them away from the importance of the gospel and the inward and eternal trajectory of our sights by causing us to overreact with another falsehood and immoral sentiment. 

I'm sure those forbidding marriage and the eating of certain foods were reacting against rampant sexual immorality and the celebrations of foods in honor of idols. Nonetheless, Paul also calls this the teaching of demons, and that's what we need to understand.

Biblical Versus "Christian" Nationalism, Part IV: Why We Need to Learn to Be Quiet in a World of Puffed-Up, Rebellious Loudmouths

It's estimated that the Roman government was made up of approximately 25-40% slaves. That means 2-4 out of every ten people in that culture was a slave. Indeed, we might think that the empire could not survive without an emperor, but actually, it would have done just fine. It would, however, have collapsed in a day without its slaves. They were everything from low laborers to house and state managers to doctors. The entire culture was dependent upon their submission to their authorities, and without that submission, Rome would have fallen apart because the fruit of the kingdom was dependent upon their loyalty to their tasks at hand.

Because the promise of the new covenant, as we have seen, look more like they are the curses of the old covenant in this world, a radical reversal in Jesus' teaching that not only promises suffering but makes it the primary catalyst through which the faithful are transformed into those who long for and are fit for the world to come, the question becomes, What role should Christians play in the world when it comes to the nations in which they reside? Are they to seek to take over them either through the gospel or some other means? In other words, do we see in the Bible that it is God's goal to use Christians, through whatever means, to take over the nations, and should they actively be talking about and seeking to do that?

There is, of course, a prophetic voice that Christians can play, but the question becomes what the content of the message should be as well as how that message should be delivered to those who are in authority over them. 

It is not a mystery as to what the content of the message is. Throughout Acts, the apostles come into contact with their pagan leaders and their message is singular to them. God has fulfilled His promise of salvation through Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead. All are now called to repent for the forgiveness of their sins and live righteously in that hope. 

In other words, they preached the gospel. They weren't preaching about taking over the nations. We know this because we don't believe the apostles are liars and lying about what their message is. Preaching about taking over nations and making them Christian nations would have been treason. Yet, the entirety of the Book of Acts makes a literary argument that Christians are not preaching that message. Hence, the leaders should conclude with Agrippa's council after hearing Paul's defense of the gospel and what he is actually preaching, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment" (Acts 26:31).  

Now, one might say, "Well, the taking over nations is implicit," but the pagan leaders aren't that stupid to miss the implicatures if they were there. It is clear that the message of the apostles is strictly religious in nature. In other words, whether the entire nation were the believer it or whether only a few believe it, the apostles do not have the goal to change the culture of the nations in which they reside. If all became Christians, certainly that would change the culture, but that is not the goal of the apostles. Rather, their goal is to save all sorts of people, as many as have been appointed to eternal life, by calling all men everywhere to repent from their idolatry and believe the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 17:30). "For this is what the Lord commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles that you may be bring salvation to the ends of the earth." That salvation is not ambiguous. It's not talking about the redemption of culture, but the individual forgiveness of sins and redemption of that life both now and on the day of judgment. In other words, although cultural change would surely take place IF everyone repented, the goal is restoration to God through Christ in the hope of the resurrection for the world to come, not the changing of this world, whether that were to occur as a byproduct or not. 

Hence, the commands given to Christians are not to become loud voices for social change in their communities. It's not to become political critics of policies or preach moralism to the pagans when they are not fulfilling their role God laid out for nations in Genesis 9, which I discussed previously. It recognizes that the world is dark, the devil has rule of it, and men need to be transferred out of its citizenship rather than stay in it and rearrange the furniture in a burning house (Acts 26:17; Eph 2:1-3, 12, 19-20; Col 1:13-14). 

And this is significant since the Romans are not fulfilling their role as government in so many ways. They are in other ways, but in terms of protecting children, not waging wars of conquest, unjustly enslaving people, etc., they are a far cry from being what they should be. Yet, the apostolic message does not include a critique of their failure to govern as God has commanded in Genesis 9 and an encouragement to do so. We might say it would be fine to include it in a rebuke that preceded the gospel since law before gospel is something they do preach (cf. Acts 17). However, there is never a goal to change the government moralistically. There is no condemnation that they aren't using the Mosaic lawcode or biblical law as their standards to govern their nations. That's because the apostles aren't sent with that message. They aren't sent with that purpose. They are sent to save men.

Paul, therefore, commands all Christian men to pray as follows.

 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission . . .

In other words, pray for the individual salvation of everyone and pray not only for leaders to be saved but that they may not persecute you as a Christian so that you can live out your Christian life QUIETLY. Notice, that you might live a quiet life, a life not filled with conflict between you and government because they are not coming down on you. How would one live a quiet life, however, if he's commanded to change the culture and involve himself in culture wars? It would not depend solely on the government, so praying for it to get off your back wouldn't have the effect of you living a quiet life anyway. But here, it does. That's because Christians aren't called to get involved in culture wars and make political changes in government. Certainly, a Christian can do that on his own, but this isn't the goal and message of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ. A Christian can decide to change the way shoes are made or invent a new way to travel. Great. That isn't the goal and purpose of God in the gospel and therefore it is not the message the church should spend its time speaking to the world and to Christians.

Peter states that all are to be subject to every HUMAN authority (1 Pet 2:13-15). He uses the phrase every human authority to let Christians know that human authority is God's authority and to be in subjection to it is to preach the gospel message to those in authority without opening the mouth. This is repeated to women who are under men who are not obedient to God's Word. They are to win over their husbands, not by critiquing their wayward government over them but rather "without a word by the way you live when they see your pure and reverent conduct" (1 Pet 3:1-2). In other words, as we show that we honor and fear the authorities placed over us, we preach, without a word, that the gospel is true because when normally men would want to protest, we have come into a control of our tongues and lives believing that Jesus is Lord and trusting in Him and the hope He gives us, and so we do not protest but rather submit to even unjust governments. 

Hence, Peter argues that God wants us to be in submission to human authorities, whether kings or lower all lower authorities over us, because by doing so we "silence the ignorance of foolish men by doing good" (2:15). Notice, not with words of protest, critique, sitting around on Youtube talking about taking over governments and making them Christian, but by our good deed of being a fully loyal and submissive servant of the human authority that we honor that does not complain about it, we establish the truth of the gospel before it is preached with words. And then what is that gospel? God has brought about the salvation He promised in the prophets through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in whom we now may receive the forgiveness of our sin by repentance and loyalty to Him. 

Hence, Peter commands, "Keep your behavior excellent among the pagans, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation" (1 Pet 2:12).

In other words, the goal of every Christian is to preach the gospel and adorn it with their complete submission, honor, and conduct in the world as they lead quiet lives of devotion to God through the Lord Jesus Christ. When given opportunity, they preach the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection and call people to repent and give their allegiance to Christ for the forgiveness of sins. 

They don't go on and on blabbering about how we need a Christian prince because the authorities we have now just don't cut it. Does that sound respectful to you? Does it sound loyal? Imagine if Daniel were to be constantly talking to other people about how Nebuchadnezzar is not as good as an Israelite king who would rule so much better and so much more in accordance with God's law. Maybe an Israelite king would be better, but that would be seen as treasonous and shameful conduct for Daniel to conduct himself in such ways when he is under the particular authority of a non-Israelite king. Loyalty and submission to an authority a Christian is under is a greater witness to the world of Christ's sovereignty than complaining about current authorities and talking about making all things Christian. In other words, those who talk about culture change are just complainers and rebellious men who testify to the world the same thing that everyone else does, i.e., when things don't go as they like, since they are their own masters and Christ does not rule over them, they complain about it and protest that those things they don't like should change. I can get that from spoiled children. The Bible calls us to a better witness to adorn the actual message we should be proclaiming, which isn't Christian nationalism but rather Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. 

In short, maybe Christians need to shut up more. Maybe they need to sit down when they want to stand up because although standing up will get changes made, sitting down causes a different kind of change that God wants to happen in the midst of a messed-up culture and bad leadership. Maybe quite conduct is a louder message that speaks to a world beyond the concerns of this one. Maybe we need more Christian slaves than princes. 

Biblical Versus "Christian" Nationalism, Part III: A Tale of Two Covenants

I'll comment on how Christians are to live under governments in the final post, but I wanted to lay a foundation for why we are to live that way in this one.

Along with the debate concerning Christian Nationalism seems to be an understanding that Christians should physically dominate every sphere of life in the way that God promised Israel to physically dominate every sphere of life in the old covenant if they remained faithful to Him.

God states in Deuteronomy something that will be echoed throughout the Prophets, namely, that Israel, if faithful, will dominate every aspect of physical life in this world. In Deuteronomy 28, God declares to them the following.

28 “Now it shall come to pass, aif you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God bwill set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and covertake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

3 d“Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be ein the country.

4 “Blessed shall be fthe 1fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.

5 “Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.

6 g“Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

7 “The Lord hwill cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.

8 “The Lord will icommand the blessing on you in your storehouses and in all to which you jset your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

9 k“The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways. 10 Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are lcalled by the name of the Lord, and they shall be mafraid of you. 11 And nthe Lord will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the Lord 2swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The Lord will open to you His good 3treasure, the heavens, oto give the rain to your land in its season, and pto bless all the work of your hand. qYou shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the Lord will make ryou the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you 4heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them. 14 sSo you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

The very first promise here is that Israel will dominate the nations. In fact, this is where the kingdom of God idea comes from. Israel will be the empire that rules the world. The nations will bow down to it and acknowledge the Lord through them. Along with this is the promise of prosperity and riches in this life. They will be physically protected and so no one who seeks to do them physical harm will be able to overcome them. Their very lives are protected by the promise of God that none of their enemies will be able to physically harm them or kill them. They will have no miscarriages. They will have no famine. Everything will prosper and they will be on top of the world and below no one and nothing else in this physical world. Again, this is offered if they are faithful and in a good standing relationship with God.

In contrast, the people of the new covenant who are in good standing with God through faith in Christ's perfect work and obedience are promised none of this in this world. There are no physical protections of their lives promised. Instead, we are told that the devil is given authority and gives that same authority to overcome the faithful physically and not only harm them, but kill them, i.e., to take away their physical lives completely (Rev 13:7-8). The ruling authority over all nations is not given to the new covenant saints but rather to the devil and the beast (Eph 2:2; Rev 13:7-8; 2 Cor 4:3-4). Paul, who could be seen as the most faithful among all early Christians is plagued with sickness (2 Cor 12:7-10; Gal 4:13-14), has no authority over anything physical in the world, whether humans or animals, and is on the run from them, even being in danger at every moment, in contrast to the Deuteronomic promise that all enemies will run from God's people and they will flee from no one (1 Cor 15:30-32; 2 Cor 4:6-13). We are told that the normative Christian life will be suffering, oppression, being at a loss of physical possessions, slandered to the point of losing our very names and being without honor rather than being feared/revered (again, as promised in Deuteronomy), being beaten, and even killed (Rom 8:17, 36; Heb 12:2-11; 13:12-13; Rev 13:7-8; James 5:6; 1 Pet 1:6-7; 4:12-19). As Paul and Barnabas tell all of the believers in various places, "through many hardships we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). Christ Himself, before leaving the apostles, stated, "“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). The entire book of Revelation is a testimony that faithfulness for a Christian means the opposite of receiving the Deuteronomic blessings in this life. It actually looks like receiving the curses. 

Now, why is this? Why such a stark contrast between the promises of both covenants? I have said this many times. It is what the New Testament teaches. Please hear it loud and clear. ISRAEL IS A SHADOW OF THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH, NOT A PICTURE OF THE CHURCH IN THIS AGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know why this is hard to understand other than we have been so influenced by the health and wealth cult in our society that we can't get this through our thick skulls. The promise of Deuteronomy is for Christians to the utmost, but not in this world. In fact, if you've read through the verses I quoted above, you'll actually see that.

For instance, in Hebrews 13:13-14, he states, "Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come." Peter says that we are strangers and aliens here, i.e., this isn't our world, so we are just resident aliens like people from other nations residing in a foreign land (1 Pet 2:11); and that we suffer various trials for the purpose of preparing us for the new world that will be revealed when Christ comes again (1:7-13). This text also states that the stuff in the Prophets was about revealing of Christ and the kingdom to come. Paul states that we are heirs of all things, but only if we now suffer with Christ in this world so that we may share in His glory in the one to come (Rom 8:17). These trials aren't viewed as possible or optional. They are said to be a necessity in each of these passages: "even though, now, SINCE IT IS NECESSARY, you have been besought with all kinds of troubles," "through troubles we MUST enter the kingdom of God," "if we suffer with Him" we are heirs to all things, "everyone who is a son is disciplined," etc. 

These sufferings prepare us for the world to come, and that is the world that Christ died for. That is the world that God so loved. It is the world to come. It is the world that He made this world as a means to create that one (Gen 2:3 - שָׁבַת מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת "He rested from all his work which he created in order to create"). Christ's kingdom is the world to come. The already-not yet, clearly, does not include the literal physical promises of the shadow to the already. Suffering is promised for the already because we are Christ's body in this world and Christ had trouble in this Satanic and fallen world. Hence, we will have trouble, as Christ, in this world. Instead, the promises of the shadow are cast from the world to come, and it is this world that Christ seeks to fill up with a people who have been prepared for it through the gospel and sufferings in this world. Hence, as Christ did not rule over the nations in this world, neither will we. As Christ did not have immortality in this world, neither will we. He could be slandered, under oppressive and unjust rulers, hungry, thirsty, and even die in this world. Hence, so will we. We look like, as Paul said, the dregs of all the world, scum, losers, cursed because our Lord bore the reproach of the world and became a loser in this world for our sakes and the sake of the world and the glory He would inherit, a world and glory to come. 

What does this have to do with understanding the Christians role when it comes to nations? It means that there is no promise to take over this world and that rather it would be contrary to the Christian promise to suffer, which, as shown above, means not ruling, fleeing from enemies, not being honored but slandered and accused falsely, not being physically unharmed but beaten, made sick, and even killed. Victory in the Apocalypse is actually being persecuted and killed because a saint would not deny Christ verbally or through his or her actions. Success is losing in this world, not because one is trying to lose but because the devil will make sure that any faithful Christian does lose in this world and God has so predestined to use that suffering for the Christian's ultimate victory in the world to come.

It would be nice to rule nations. It would be nice for lions and bears to bow down when we walk by. It would be nice to always have food and drink, clothing and shelter. It would be nice to have the respect of all men, to never be slandered/lied about, to never have a miscarriage, to never have to be afraid of harm and run from enemies. But that isn't the promise that we are given, and therefore, pursuing these things in this world as such a major part of the Christian message soon becomes another religion. The Israelites under the old covenant are promised success as a shadow of the world to come. We are promised the opposite because we need to be molded into the people who are fit to live in that world. Our promises are not the same. 

So what then? It means that political domination might be possible, but not promised or even probable. It is not a coincidence that when Christians gain the comforts and power in this world, success in this world, that truth and morality are almost always compromised. Corruption sets in because the program of God is to bring about loss in this world in order to gain our souls, the losing of our lives in order to find them, picking up our crosses that we might one day pick up our crowns. We will rule upon the earth (Rev 5:10), but not until we suffer, overcome, and Christ returns with our reward (Rev 3:21).

What then am I saying? I'm saying that there seems to be some idea that we're supposed to rule here, and that if we don't, it's because we've denied our birthrights and adopted some sort of defeatist Christianity that lacks the full power and promises given to us. 

I became a Christian in the early nineties, which was the height of the health and wealth cult that was spreading everywhere within the church. No one was ever saying that those who didn't seek success in this world weren't Christians but what they were saying is that those who don't are missing out on the full gospel and everything that God has promised to give us. My people, do not miss out on everything God has for you by spending one more minute with this false gospel. It distracts from the true one, and it discourages and even shipwrecks the faith when false expectations are unfulfilled. Our hope and promises are not of this realm because Christ's kingdom is not of this realm (John 18:36). We are a strange people who are citizens of an invisible foreign land (Phil 3:20-21). We await, not a Christian prince of this world to bring us our sabbath, but rather the King of Kings who will wipe away every tear born of suffering, every loss in this age, and will restore every life from death and bring eternal light into this dark place. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!