ANSWERS
TO QUESTIONS ABOUT INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE AND DATING
Version 2.2 September 2001
A compilation of
questions and answers on the race question.
In defending our traditional
values, we have taken a position which Herbert W Armstrong would be proud of.
After all, he had the same beliefs.
So, let us go ‘back to
the future’ with this doctrine.
Let us keep the faith
‘once delivered’.
Let us ‘hit the mark’.
God's Word states
“The lips of the wise disperse
knowledge, but the heart of the foolish doeth not so” (Prov 15:7. See Matt
13:52).
If we want to gain
knowledge, we must learn to give what we have, to others first:
“The heart
of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge” (Prov 15:14).
“The heart
of the righteous studieth to answer” (Prov 15:28).
God help us to follow those
perfect principles. In addition, Scripture adds:
“That the
soul be without knowledge, it is not good” (Prov 19:2)
“Apply thine
heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge” (Prov 23:12).
Will we apply ourselves to
those precious principles? If we do, we will be able to absorb the knowledge
which God wants us to.
Why
isn’t interracial marriage called a ‘sin’ in the Bible somewhere?
Actually, it is
referred to as sin in scripture, if we have eyes to see.
What is sin anyway?
Without wishing to write an entire article on this important subject, amongst
other things it is:
But the most frequent
word used for sin in the Bible is to ‘fall short of the mark’ or the will of
God – in other words, we must do that which is pleasing to God – be
God-centred. Or, we must build righteous character. There is nothing which
suggests that interracial marriage is in accordance with God’s will or is
building character or is God-centred. The Kingdom of God is being offered to
those building righteous character.
How does one build
character?: by doing the right thing – hitting the mark in one’s life, conduct,
obedience and doctrines.
So, whilst interracial
marriage is not listed as a part of the letter of the law, it is mentioned:
As such it misses the
mark, does not build character and therefore does not please the Creator – in
other words it is not an aspect of the way of life God wants for us. Some,
realising this, try and get around it by stating that interracial marriage is
‘wrong’, but not a ‘sin’. Sorry, but being wrong about something like that is
missing the mark – and therefore is sin. The above points are discussed later
in this article. But let us consider this:
Israel is called a
‘holy seed’ in the Bible and is set apart for use by God. Now, if it is so
special to God and continues to be in the New Testament and in so many
prophecies of the Millennium as well as the Kingdom (Rev 21), then how can
mixing its seed be of God?
And if it is not
somehow of God, it must be of another spirit – the spirit of this world which
is an enemy of God:
Rom 8:7
“because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is
not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be”.
What is this ‘seed’
anyhow? According to the International Bible Encyclopaedia:
“Seed
sed (Old Testament always for zera`, Aramaic (Dan 2:43) zera`,
except in Joel 1:17 for perudhoth (plural, the Revised Version (British and
American) "seeds," the King James Version "seed"), and Lev
19:19 (the King James Version "mingled seed") and Dt 22:9 (the King
James Version "divers seeds") for kil'ayim, literally, "two
kinds," the Revised Version (British and American) "two kinds of
seed." Invariably in Greek Apocrypha and usually in the New Testament for
sperma, but Mk 4:26,27; Lk 8:5,11; 2 Cor 9:10 for sporos, and 1 Pet 1:23 for
spora)”.
In addition, Israel is
God’s wife – He married her and will not let her pair off with anyone else. To
Him, she is absolutely beautiful. See the following scriptures: Ps 50:2; Lam
1:6; 2:1. Why then, should such a beautiful race, this holy seed, this special
people – be bred out? Following on from this principle, why should any other
ethnic group be bred out through interracial marriages?
So, ask yourself the
question: do interracial marriages further the way of life that God intended
for us?
Why doesn’t the Bible specifically say ‘Thou shalt not intermarry’?
Not all of God's Laws are listed in Exodus etc. Only the foundational laws, upon which the others are based. There are certain horrible sex sins not mentioned in scripture. Or smoking. Or taking drugs etc, etc. Nevertheless they are sin. How do we know?: 1. they break the spirit of the Commandments
2. the fruits are bad
3. common sense or deductive reasoning (logic)
4. HWA taught the truth on this matter. ALL those that have gone off into different directions have little no fruits. Why should one bother following their philosophies?
5. wanting to proclaim the Israel Message and allowing interracial marriage are contradictory - how on earth can one advocate proclaiming the attributes and warnings etc to Israel, yet permit interracial marriage?
6. the same people and organisations/people that push abortion, surrogacy, weird art, homosexuality, etc are the very ones pushing the mixing of races.
Christ
Himself warns against sexual sins:
Mat
5:32 But I say to you that whoever
shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to
commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.
Mat
19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall
put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits
adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.
But
to which sexual sin or sins does He refer to? The wording is the same as that
used in that time period for marrying outside of Israel (we would call that
today an interracial marriage). Therefore, in principle, it is sin for anyone
to marry outside of their race, not just for Israelites to do so. (see Jesus
and Divorce by W Heth & G Wenham, pages 154-55). The Dead Sea Scrolls
contain information which may also assist. In the First Letter on Works
Reckoned as Righteousness (4Q394-398), we find information which may throw
light on this:
“…the
issue of ‘fornication’, which in Lines 83-9 is equated to the one of ‘hybrids’.
In turn, both appear to be related to intermarrying between Israel and
foreigners actually referred to in 87-8 … the reason for the banning of both
‘fornication’ and intermarriage would appear to be the same: i.e. Israel is
supposed to be ‘a Holy People’, ‘a Holy Seed’. It is difficult to conceive of a
more xenophobic group than this” (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by R
Eisenman and M Wise, page 187. A translation of this text is found on
page 196 of the book).
Nehemiah
and Ezra also warned against mixed marriages in Ezra 9:1-3, 11-12; 10:1-3,
10-11, 16-17, 44 Neh 7:64; 10:28-30; 13:1-3, 23-30. They actually had the
Israelites divorce their foreign wives – this was the ‘fornication’ or sexual
sin of their day and which continued to be identified as such for centuries thereafter.
One member wrote the following: >The real issue behind this question is what does God want from us? What was His intention? Why, then, did God bother to create them at all? And, why does He give instructions to people about not mixing them up? (i.e., in the Old Testament, men and women were instructed not to mix up their roles by trying to dress like each other. A similar command is repeated in the New Testament writings of Paul). Well, the answer is fairly obvious -- to teach us important lessons about God and His Way and to prove us whether we will walk in that Way or not. For example, we know that, in the beginning, God made people "male and female" for the purpose of marriage (Matthew). We know that marriage is a God-plane relationship, picturing the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). We know from the Bible, that by the time described in Genesis 1:2, the boundaries that had been established had been destroyed. As a result, the earth became "without form and void" -- in a state of chaos, decay and destruction. Consequently, God had to put things back in their proper places. We know from other scriptures (such as those in the Book of Job) that Satan hates boundaries. [You may notice how in the beginning of Job, when Satan talks with God, he complains about the "hedge" God put around Job.] We also know that Satan's rebellion is how the earth became "tohu and bohu." We see in the Book of Genesis how God separated the various tribes into different lands and parts of the earth, whereas as man tried to bring them all together. We know that the great purpose of man is to develop Godly character. God wants to know that we will not turn out to be another Satan. Consequently, God wants to know whether we will respect the boundaries and guidelines He establishes now as a part of that process. It seems fairly clear to us from these things that God created different races for a specific purpose (just as he created man "male and female" for a specific purpose) -- and that that purpose has something to do with finding out if we are willing to live within the boundaries and guidelines God sets down for us. We see a similar test given in the Old Testament when God gave Israel the manna and tested them regarding the Sabbath "to see whether they will walk in My Law or no." Likewise, the Sabbath is a boundary set by God for the purpose of seeing whether we will respect the boundaries and guidelines He establishes. Consequently, the prohibition against interracial marriage had nothing to do with racism or with one race being better than another. God created all races, just as he created all men and women. All are heirs together of the same promise of salvation. The prohibition against interracial marriage (as formerly taught by WCG) was for the purpose of showing God that we were willing to respect and remain in the boundaries and guidelines He established.<
Why cannot we marry whom we are in love
with?
Note
the scriptures: Ex 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that
your days may be long upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you”.
Given
the duality of much of God’s Word – we have the letter of the law and
spirit/principle of the law - one may ask counter questions or make counter
statements:
Obviously
this law of God is being broken by those advocating interracial marriage.
Let’s
be honest: marrying one’s own kind is following the law of God, ‘law’ of nature
and is just common sense and logic. So, interracial dating, which leads to
marriage, is also sin.
Finally,
it is a never-ceasing wonder that people who once knew that interracial
marriage was a sin, under the influence of their local pastor or the
politically correct media, have fallen for this sin. Yet, many of these members
will tell you that smoking is a sin; that drug taking is a sin; and so on. But
they refuse to admit that changing the genetic structure of God’s creation is a
sin. This is inexplicable and strange behaviour – some are looking for all
sorts of excuses for not going the way of God.
While
there is no doubt that mixing has occurred for a very long time, it is now
occurring at an increased pace - and it is being encouraged in the media and
elsewhere.
However,
we are not all mixed, but it is the extent of mixing which may be debated:
And
if there were still a large degree of mixing in the world, why add to the
problem? Why not rather do the right thing even if one were in the minority?
Consider?:
if the world does not keep the Sabbath, should we then not? If the world does
not observe the clean & unclean law, why should we not? The fact is, we
must strive for righteousness and to be pleasing to God regardless of what is
happening in the world.
What
if one is from a mixed background – whom do you marry? As God is the author of
purity and high standards, He would want you to marry into the line most
closely approximating yours. In other words, you would have an opportunity to
assist in the healing of the situation. This is one area of scores that
Christians can attempt to fix in this life, even if we cannot make a huge
impact upon the world.
We
must be logical and use common sense based on Bible principles:
2Ti
1:7 For God has not given us the spirit
of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.
This
world’s philosophies are not sound at all.
Does Genesis 6 show that Noah did not mix his
bloodline?
Allow
Mr Armstrong to explain: “Noah, was "perfect"
in his generations. That is, his heredity, ancestry (Gen. 6:9). Proof of this
lies in the meaning of the Hebrew word
translated "perfect." It may refer either to spiritual
character (Gen. 17:1) or to physical characteristics (Lev. 22:21). Therefore
Genesis 6:9 allows the translation that Noah was either "blameless"
or "unblemished." The context (Gen. 6:2) clearly indicates the latter
is the intended meaning of "perfect." So a good rendering of Genesis
6:9 is that Noah was the only "just" man (in spiritual character),
and also "unblemished' (in his genetic heritage) among his contemporaries.” (Mystery of the Ages,
page 147).
Bullinger’s
Companion Bible states: “the generations. Heb. Toledoth = family history
… perfect. Heb. Tamim, withot blemish as to breed or pedigree … The Hebrew
word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for
bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of
animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in
Exodus 12:5; 29:1. Leviticus 1:3,10; 3:1,6; 4:3,23,28,32; 5:15,18; 6:6; 9:2,3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12,18. Numbers
6:14; 28:19,31; 29:2,8,13,20,23,29,32,36. Ezekiel 43:22,23,25; 45:18,23; 46:4,6,13.
Without spot. Numbers 19:2; 28:3,9,11; 29:17,26.
Unified. Psalms 119:1. This
shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection, but tells
us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure”.
Theologians
decades ago understood this truth, but as they began to degenerate further, their
successors moved away from this truth – their view was that the lines of Cain
and Seth were intermarrying contrary to God’s will. Still others perverted this
understanding and speculated that demons married women! Modern,
liberal commentators, have moved away from this understanding, either by
ignoring this scripture or reading other meanings into it. Yet the context is
clear – Noah’s physical descendants are under discussion. God inspired Moses,
who was concerned about such matters in relation to the nation he governed,
Israel, to write Genesis in this fashion.
In
Luke 17 were are told that the end-time will be very degenerate, as in Noah’s
day:
Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it
also shall be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 They ate, they drank, they married wives,
they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the
ark; and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 So also as it was in the days of Lot: they
ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;
Luk 17:29 but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained
fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all.
Luk
17:30 Even so it shall be in the day
when the Son of Man is revealed. (see also Matt 24:38).
The
first thing to notice is that marriage is mentioned here in similitude to Gen
6:1-3 and give the context, must refer to the same type of (wrong) marriages as
in the days of Noah. Christ cannot mean that the world will just have marriages
and so on today as in those days. The context is wrong marriages and subsequent
punishment for them. Today people are eating and drinking wrong foods, buying
and selling in the wrong manner (ripping each other off as never before), force
the land (do not observe Land Sabbaths) and building in the wrong fashion
(forcing people into tiny dwellings through over-population etc).
People
will not be living normal lives in the end, leading up to the Tribulation and
that is a reason for Tribulation followed by the Day of the Lord. The entire
context of Genesis 6 and Christ’s words are related to punishment upon man for
sin, wrong lifestyles and so on.
Does it make any
difference to salvation?
What
does? Can we know if God is displeased with something? If He is displeased,
then is this not a problem with Him and thus affects our relationship with the
Father?
Uncleanness
and error are not attributes for salvation! How then can those that advocate
and even marry mixed couples, be welcomed into God’s Kingdom, being enemies of
the Creator of diversity and willingly trying to destroy that diversity?
But
doesn’t Galatians 3:28 state “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus.”
Sure
– that’s what it states. But it doesn’t state that:
It
is saying that in terms of salvation, it doesn’t matter. But to reach for
salvation, one must please God and be righteous. Accepting this world’s
philosophies is not acceptable to God.
Notice
the context:
“26 For ye are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized
into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
So,
there is nothing here about letting women become ministers; or for races to
disappear. Rather, both male and female and all races are offered eternal life.
But that does not mean that we shall no longer be sexes or races – something
which globalism and Marxism teach or promote.
And
finally, there is nothing in that verse contradicting the Older Testament where
we find prophecies of Israel mixing with others which God frowns upon. See Is
5:1-7 and Jer 2:19-23 where the vine of Israel tragically mixed herself
racially with other nations and thus became polluted. Now turn to Hos 5:1, 7
where “strange” is foreign, rebellious or half-breed. Mixed-breed children are
also not favourably looked upon in Zech 9:6.
Finally,
in Hos 7:8-9 we find a prophecy that Ephraim shall mix herself with other
peoples – the way it is written shows that God is not favourable toward this:
in 2000AD, Britain was at least 20% non-White; 50% of Indians had White wives
and 25% of Africans had White wives. If this is not a fulfilment of this
prophecy, then what is?
Isn’t
mixing inevitable in a ‘global village’ and weren’t Israel mixed?
Inevitable?
– nothing is inevitable. To prevent the destroying of man’s diversity, we can
invoke laws to maintain that diversity. Laws on immigration and marriage can be
introduced.
With
modern technology, we can introduce means to prevent and discourage illegal
immigration and so on. Laws can work, provided that they are enforced without
liberal media interference in the democratic process.
Israel was not a melting-pot at all. Some few may have mixed, but certainly not to the extent of a melting pot. Let us look at the fruits of this world and compare it with the accuracy of HWA - why bother even considering the politically correct positions when we all know which spirit is behind them?
No
one has said HWA was perfect and without mistakes, but what we want to do is
build upon the foundations of the doctrines he was inspired to bring into the
CoG. Doing away with major truths and becoming politically correct is not of
God. To go deeper into these Truths with more information and research than
ever before is what we should be doing however.
What about permitting strangers into Israel –
wouldn’t this lead to interracial marriage?
See
Ex 22:21 Here we note that there were certain laws in the Older Testament
covering the treatment of strangers. Now turn to 23:33 Here God says that other
peoples must not live in Israel. So what does He mean? He seems to be saying
that we should be kind to strangers who (1) become servants to so that they can
learn new skills etc; (2) they pass through Israel en-route somewhere else –
much like tourists today. Because of the hardness of their hearts, God allowed
Israel to marry and divorce a women in lands they conquered – these were the
temporary rules of war. Africans and Asians are not listed among those they
could take. See Deut 21:10-14; 20:11-14 in this context.
See
also Lev 22:12 – here the ‘stranger’ appears to be someone from tribes other
than Levi. But in Ezek 47:21-23, there is nothing here which indicates that
these were non-White. If they were, this would contradict all the other
scriptures. We have to look at the context to ascertain what is meant by a
‘stranger’ and there is no evidence it allowed for interracial marriages – why
should it?
There
were no Africans, Indians, Fijians, Eskimos etc in that area at that time!
Was not Judah, the leading tribe, mixed?
Let
us turn to scripture for proof one way or the other. According to Gen 38:1-5
Judah had three sons by his Canaanitess wife. Their names were Er, Onan and
Shelah. Shelah’s descendants are mentioned in IChron 4:21-23 while Er and Onan
died without generating children.
Judah
had two more sons: Pharez and Zarah. In a future article their descendants will
be proved to be the British Royalty, Ulster Scots, Highlander Scots and
Lowlander Scots. The Keltic people have the whitest skins of any people in the
world, proving that they are not mixed (skin colouring changes before any other
physical attribute in mixing).
Therefore,
the descendants of Judah are predominantly white, Keltic peoples, a branch of
the Nordic race.
But there won’t be any races in the God Family,
so why can’t we mix racially?
Well,
who says there won’t be? Firstly, even if there are not to be different races
in the God Family, why should that be an excuse to pair off now?
What about the dark non-White woman in
the Song of Solomon?
What
dark woman? In the book the word “yawfeh” (=fair) is used of his beloved,
therefore if she was the Queen of Sheba, she wasn’t black. However, it was more
than likely that she was a Judahitess.
See
1:5-6; 2:1-2; 4:1-5; 6:1, 5, 7, 10; 7:2, 4, 6. Note how she is likened to
lilies (white), her hair are locks (and therefore not peppercorn) and she is
called fair (“yawfeh”) and is also likened to ivory (white). Therefore she was
White, not dark!
What
then of 1:5-6? Well, simply compare that with Job 30:30 – was Job a black man?
Of course not – the sun tanned his skin dark as the verse says.
In
Song of Solomon it says that the sun looked upon this lady and darkened her
skin. Why? Because she was working in the vineyards – a very harsh job in the
red hot sun!
Did not Joseph marry an Egyptianitess?
This is what we are told:
“Gen 41:44 And
Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without a word from
you, no man shall lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah. And he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On, for his wife. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.” (see also 46:20, 34)
Surely, if Asenath were black, then Ephraim and Manasseh would’ve been half-breeds. But there is not the slightest physical or genetic evidence that the Anglo-Saxon English or Americans are. So what is meant by this? Now, although her name is Egyptian, remember that most Black Americans have names of Whites, so a name itself is not proof for her being a Black Egyptian. Note Ex 2:16-19 where Moses is called an Egyptian for example. There were White Hyksos and Aramaeans (wrongly translated as ‘Syrian’ in the Bible) living at the edge of Goshen, where the Israelites were later to dwell. After they were expelled, the Egyptians turned on Israel. See Deut 26:4-8. Geographical integration in Egypt led to racial discrimination against Israel in the time of Moses. God put an end to this discrimination by separating or segregating the Israelites from the dark Egyptians: Lev 20:24 “But I have said to you, You shall inherit their land, and I, I am giving it to you to possess it, a land that flows with milk and honey. I am Jehovah your God, who has separated you from the nations.” (back to top)
Did not Moses marry a Cushitess?
The following is recorded in Numbers:
Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses
because of the Cushite woman whom he had taken. For he had taken a Cushite
woman.
Num 12:2 And they said, Has Jehovah indeed spoken only by Moses? Has He not also spoken by us? And Jehovah heard.
The New Bible Commentary notes: “1, 2 Ostensibly Miriam and Aaron complained that Moses had married a Cushite woman. The verb, however, is third person feminine singular, suggesting that originally it was Miriam alone who spoke. Later, Miriam alone was punished (v. 10). The ostensible ground of the complaint appears to be that Moses married a foreign woman: the reference may even be to Zipporah, who was, of course, a Midianitess (Ex 2:15), for Midian and Cushan are linked, e.g. in Hab 3:7. But the real challenge was, Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?”. So, Miriam and Aaron used the Cushite woman as an excuse to have a go at Moses. They used a problem with Moses as a means to undermine his authority. Theologians generally take two positions:
1. If tradition can be believed,
Moses was a general in the Egyptian army and whilst campaigning in the south,
married a Cushite or part-Cushite woman, prior to conversion. Later, he
divorced her and married Zipporah, a Midianitess (the descendants of Midian are
today around the Baltic region). The Cushite woman was still in the camp and
Miriam and Aaron used this as a means to attack Moses. The
accusation in Num 12 then is brought up about a previous matter that Moses got
himself involved in quite some time previously - because he was, at that time
married to Zipporah.
2. Another position is that she was the same as Zipporah and therefore racially not a Cushite, but may have been nationally if some trading Midianites found their way into Cushite territory. Therefore she was White. The accusation in Num 12 then is brought up about a current matter that Moses got himself involved in - because he was, at that time married to Zipporah.
Either way, regardless of what Moses may or may not have done, we are not to sin. Similarly other Patriarchs and righteous men sinned, but that is no reason for us to. (back to top)
Do you believe that the nations have a right to self-determination instead of mixing together to form One World Dark Race?
All
nations and peoples have a right to life, to develop their culture and language
and to continue their history and ethnicity without globalisation. If current
trends continue, the diversity of mankind will disappear within 150 years.
Bio-diversity of species, whether they be flora, fauna or human, is paramount
to creative expression. Those that interfere with God’s creation declare war on
the Creator Himself.
How many
more reports will there be of various American Indian tribes, Maoris and Aboriginals
decrying the weakening of their blood-lines? What of the tribes and ethnic
groups such as the Negritos of Asia (pygmies), the Estonians and some of the
peoples of Africa who are on the edge of extinction? Will they disappear from
view?
God Almighty
created all of the tribes, nations, peoples and races and He will see to it
that all survive into the Millennium. The different nations collectively
magnify God’s creative capacity and bring glory to Him. Who are we to destroy
mankind’s wonderful diversity? God deplores racism - especially that which
leads to the destruction of ethnic diversity.
One might
only view the racism extant in the former Yugoslavia, the terrifying feud
between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and the down treading of various tribes
around the world as just a few examples. Nations wish to wipe out other
nations. At the other extreme, globalisation will lead to the end of ethnic
diversity as the ‘global village’ leads to the ultimate melting pot.
Racism
begets racism. We have Whites hating Blacks and visa versa; Indians fighting
Pakistanis and so on. Another trend which our media is refusing to report today
is the ‘subtle’ (not so subtle for those with eyes to see) anti-Caucasian
racism. How many more works will we read where ‘academics’ promote the passing
of the White peoples as inevitable and call for the speeding-up of this
process. Today Whites account for about 14% of the total world population
figure. And the descendants of Abraham (Israel in NW Europe and colonies) as well
as his offspring via Keturah in NE Europe account for only about 5% of the
world, if that. The percentages and the overall total numbers are decreasing
rapidly due to intermarriage, abortions and these peoples bearing very small
families. Unless the Messiah intervenes, the bio-diversity of mankind will
disappear.
In the
meantime will we see a weakening of the Abrahamic stock in the colonies; and
with a Europe feeling threatened, a German-led backlash to this steady process?
Will the forthcoming Holy Roman Empire attempt to preserve the ethnic
identities of its various nations? Will we see giant race wars in our time
between Europe and her allies on the one hand and the Anglo-Saxon powers on the
other; a European invasion of the Arabic nations; and the final showdown
between the East and Europe?
(back to top)
Why be absorbed into this world’s philosophies? “Come out of her My people”
We can only urge the members of the Body of Christ to come out of this world's liberal philosophies and to follow the truth. We also urge those particular CoGs that permit interracial marriage to reverse that tragic decision. We know some are eager to permit it - waiting for this to creep in subtly and slowly - with a low-key announcement later on - just like Tkach did. These types like to tell the White girls to pair off interracially. Alas, the media and the political backgrounds of some are so overpowering without any countering in our literature or in sermons anymore, that members are being swamped by left-liberal ideologies (in the past we had Gene Hogberg and others countering the media with contrary points of view). We think we are not being swamped, but if we stopped a minute, we would have to admit that we are taking on more and more the characteristics of the politically correct views of this world. What we are trying to say is that the 'new Tkachians' as many are calling them, are alive and well, moving and plotting slyly their next doctrinal move. Be careful, these types are everywhere and want to drag you back to a position so close to Tkachianism, to be unrecognisable from the WCG with the exception of Sabbath. They promote evil and perverted men such as J F Kennedy and Martin Luther King, whilst simultaneously condemning Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher – some smelly and wicked thing is going on here. Our Mother, the Church, should be protecting us from evil and this world’s philosophies – why isn’t she? Why are the children being left alone to be poisoned? Why are there no counter-weights to these evil philosophies in church magazines, sermons and Bible studies? (back to top)
Do you believe that there is an anti-Caucasian racism in the media and universities?
Today, leftists and liberals who control much of the sporting and modelling industry, undemocratically make decisions contrary to national opinion and the wishes of the majority and push together people of different races. They transfer enormous wealth from one race to another via immoral salaries for such menial jobs (whilst simultaneously condemning executive salaries). By such wealth, prestige, fame and social life, they encourage interracial affairs and marriages. Remember the 2000 Olympics? For those who closely examined it and especially the opening and closing ceremonies, they would have been surprised. In newspapers in the lead-up to it, hardly a White person appeared in the articles; but mainly non-White athletes. So, it was not a surprise to learn that the media completely ignored the victory of a White Greek in the prestigious 100 metre sprint. Or that Whites from west and central Europe accounted for well over 60% of all medals, gold and medals in total. Lets face facts, with sport, fashion etc: They are White inventions; using White money; normally White trainers or organisers; White created venues; White technology; White clothing or sporting togs etc. How come God gave such opportunities to the descendants of Shem, and in particular Israel? Is He discriminating against other races? Or is there a sense of organisation and order here? Do various races have different gifts and opportunities? If so, why should one race be envious of another? Or be deriding of another? Rather, we should accept diversity and be happy that God wants to maintain it. This is a test upon all of us not to be jealous of another race; or lust after another race; or despise another race. Just a few years ago a fierce debate exploded out of US university campuses, encouraged by haughty, undemocratic and unaccountable professors – they were: 1. calling for the end of western civilization
2. claiming that Caucasians, and in particular White males, were strange and had some kind of genetic defect
3. Blacks were superior
4. the only solution to the ‘problem’ was to be found in interracial marriages and White abortions.
5. in particular they were pushing the superiority of non-whites to whites in sport. The debate spilt over into Canada, the UK and to a lesser extent Australia.
This led to wild scenes on campuses and a whole range of books and newspaper articles trying to get Whites to feel guilty and that they were also coloured (pink) and therefore should intermarry. This has now found its way into legislation, policy, movies and immigration practice. Their war cry was: “Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Western Culture’s gotta go”. They have indeed gone a long way to destroy our European heritage and culture. Hollywood is even worse, on an ongoing crusade against Caucasian males. Those of you who have read Hollywood vs. America by Michael Medved, would know how wicked many of the bosses, producers and actors & actresses are. The deliberately push such evils as: · Constantly portraying the family unit as bad
· Doom and unhappiness. Where are the happy movies with smiling families, strong fathers, sweet mothers, lovely children?
· Caucasian males (particularly those with English or German accents) as the baddies
· Non-white police chiefs and officers as the goodies and the White police officers as stupid or the baddies
· Promotes the US Army, CIA, FBI and businessmen as bad or plotting with ‘bad’ nationalists and patriots
· Portray people who use the Bible as bad, oppressive and racists
· Promotes new age ideas, abortion, radical feminism, blasphemy, sick jokes, perversions, surrogacy, euthanasia, homosexuality, drug-taking and so on.
It is from these same people and from the same spirit, that we have interracial couples, dancing, kissing, romance etc either shown as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ or a preferable relationship. White men are portrayed as undeserving of beautiful women. But non-whites are portrayed as deserving – they are, after all, the heroes and are sensible. Have a look at today’s movies, TV dramas, and rock videos with a view to catching the interracial scenes. The science fiction movies often show the end of Caucasian areas or peoples. You will be shocked and moved to protect your children (from whatever race you derive) from such madness. There is the constant presence of interracial dating and dancing in movies nowadays and even in television and radio commercials. Not surprisingly, they even appear on billboards and other forms of advertising. Or White men mad to look like fools, but rescued by stronger or cleverer non-white men etc, etc. For instance, the movie The Perfect Storm just happened to focus on an interracial couple and promote it. Yet such had nothing to do with the theme of the movie. So why is this being pushed down our throats by Hollywood – and why aren’t the Churches of God shielding our people from it? You can see TV programs promoting the inevitability of the "Africanisation of Europe". Also the newspaper articles of the Western press condemning Europe for beginning to slowly build up a fortress to prevent further African immigration: "Europe's Shame", Sydney Morning Herald 26 December 1992; "Europe 'white only' Community", Sun-Herald 6 June 1993. Watch carefully the TV shows, Hollywood movies and rock videos - out of all proportion to the mixed marriages and relationships going on, it is encouraged tremendously by the media. Simultaneously they infer in the media and 'science' books that White men are inferior and that because all races emerge out of an African source, it is only natural that all races mix and become African again. One newspaper in Australia pretended to wish to help singles get together. For weeks on end in commercials over radio stations, they wasted immense amount of money with a woman commenting that she was looking for a man and that she ‘didn’t mind what colour he was’. We cannot recall any supposed ‘minister’ speaking out against this evil. Yet they speak out against patriots who continue the traditions of Australia’s most popular Prime Minister, Robert Menzies. But when will they speak out, like Christ would, against bad leadership, political parties promoting drugs and filth? Instead, they speak out against those that are conservative both in the world and the church. When are we going to hear a sermon condemning homosexuality, abortion, drugs and feminism? Not from the Tkachian infiltrators, we assure you. Why is it that the feminists and media, whilst promoting interracial mixing, simultaneously turn a blind eye to the White slave trade with White women and children being kidnapped and forced to have sex until about age 30 – after which they are murdered? This is seldom reported in the media. Why is it that the enormous amount of rapes of White women is normally not reported either? Instead, supposed bad White men are constantly being attacked in the media. It was therefore both shocking and ghastly to read the following: “70 girls attacked by rape gangs. Caucasian women the targets”, The Sun-Herald (29 July 2001, pages 1, 4-5): “The victims, one as young as 13 … were gang raped … Fifteen youths and men have so far been charged with more than 300 offences relating to matters since mid-2000 alone. They are all of Middle Eastern extraction …Their alleged victims have all been Caucasian, aged between 13 and 18”. This behaviour has been well-known for decades, so for it to be actually mentioned in the media, is a surprise. Today’s generation of children are being taught at schools, universities; by disc jockeys, rock stars; in love novels, movies and video games to pair off interracially. Satan has decreed the end of Caucasians. But God has not! Tell us: why should ministers follow the examples of drug addicted, new age religion followers who are so anti-Bible – it just does not make sense at all. But it is interesting that certain sick teachers, social workers, disco owners and others do all they can, in their perverted and degenerate state, to encourage races to intermarry. It is indeed very interesting when a someone who claims to be a ‘minister’ of Christ, but who has engaged in perversions at colleges and elsewhere, goes around the CoG encouraging this stuff. They go around promoting Martin Luther King and J F Kennedy whilst condemning good men and women both within and outside the Church – rather strange, don’t you think? There is nothing that we have read by some that convinces us that the world, with all its competing philosophies (such as Fabianism, Liberalism, Marxism and globalism) are correct on the issue of interracial marriage. To us, the fruits speak for themselves. One final point: there are some tremendous attempts to preserve various fauna and flora species in the name of bio-diversity. But why do not the same groups have any concern at preserving mankind’s bio-diversity? In particular, with White’s on the edge of extinction, one would have thought that there would be an international effort to preserve this particular species of mankind. (back to top)
The extremes of racism and interracial mixing.
One member wrote the following of these problems: >Unfortunately many in the various CoG's have adopted the world vision and have combined the two seperate views of segregation of the races and racism together. Segregation no matter how unpopular it may be in today's view which is much as it has been throughout human history is not a sin. However, racism is a sin. This is what has been taught in the Church before these liberals came to power. Although some may not agree I have found that time studying these issues with the former WCG literature has been helpful to sort out who is who as far as the differences between races and nationalities and the article has shed some light on how one would decide whom could marry whom. The Plain Truth Magazine ran an article in the April, 1957 concerning many of the issues that have been brought up. Concerning the Ethiopian woman Moses married it is equated as a sin. There are many instances within the Bible that when sin is not so clearly identified by the author it is something that can be understood by using the Spirit of God and seeking His counsel when things are not clear to us. All to often we as human see only through our own eyes and all to often as is the case we all find ourselves scattered and in most instances separated by vast differences of opinion as the discussion has proven. As Mr. Armstrong instructed us to "get God's point of view" and leave our points of view buried with the "old man".< One might add that the sins of patriarchs and men of God are, whilst exposed, are not always labelled sin. Because a Patriarch sins, and that sin is recorded for lessons for us today, then should we commit the same sin? Of course not! Then why are some using this as an excuse for interracial marriages? Looking down disdainfully upon another race; or looking lustfully or jealously at another race, is breaking God’s Law and is thus sin. (back to top)
Has the Church the power to prevent interracial dating and marriage? The Church, as our Mother, has the obligation to teach the Father’s Laws as part of its training for rulership in the World Tomorrow. Law is useless unless it is taught and enforced. Therefore the Church can separate interracial couples like Ezra and Nehemiah did. Being friendly toward other humans is another issue completely - we must be careful not to confuse the issues on hand with other matters which may lead one to come to wrong conclusions and thus err doctrinally: interracial marriage and racism are not the same thing. We can be opposed to interracial marriage whilst simultaneously being respectful of other races. Concerning the Church being given the right or not to divide races - we need to have wisdom on this issue. Has God given the Church a charge to divide male and female; young and old etc? Answer: it doesn't have to! - nature has already done that. Similarly, God, through nature, has already divided nations and races. What is so wrong with this? What is it with some in the CoG now that they want to become politically correct? Why is this so? The fact is, the Church is there to back up nature, and hence God's Will. Where does it say in the OT that 'thou should not have female preachers' or similar? Or 'thou shalt not take drugs'? Answer?: it doesn't have to. Some things are so obvious and inferred in the scripture, that there is no need to. Let us ALL follow the truth that came via HWA, building upon those firm foundations and going deeper and deeper into the truth to the extent that we are humanely able.
When one studies the Bible, we should always remember the old WCG 12 rules of Bible Study. One of them was duality. Often there is imbedded within a scripture a dual meaning - often this means a physical and spiritual. For instance, let us take a look at clean & unclean meats: 1. it is a physical health law2. it is a ceremonial law (commentaries normally only have this view)3. it is a principle – avoid junk food or food high in cholesterol etc4. spiritually, we must avoid spiritual junk food such as pornography, false philosophies, false doctrine and such like. Typology is one of the most interesting and fulfilling studies one could undertake and assists greatly with Biblical understanding. Literally and typologically we see in the book of Genesis how God separated the various tribes into different lands and parts of the earth, whereas it is man, swayed by Satan, who tried to bring them all together. (back to top)
How can Acts 17:26 be used to promote
segregation?
A
member wrote:
>God tells us in Acts 17:26 "And He has made from one (blood) every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings." Both in Adam and Eve and Noah and his wife God performed the miracle of placing in them the genes to produce after a few short generations all the various races of man - black, yellow and white, for each to reproduce after their own variety after that. Just as God has created flowers of every kind so too does God love wonderous variety in mankind. 1. One point of view is based on the book of Enoch where it says that Abel and Japheth were reddish and both Cain and Ham were black. The very word Ham in Hebrew means "burnt". Ham and Japheth did not intermarry with another race. They were non-white to begin with and married women of their own race. A white marrying an African will not produce an Aboriginal or an Indian. God had to supernaturally add genetic material into the family of Noah (probably in the pairs of animals also) to preserve the varieties/races in the human species. It is this miracle of extra genetic material being added by God that allowed brother-sister and other familial marriages to not be biologically dangerous for centuries after the Flood rather than decades. As to the case of Moses and the Ethiopian woman we must remember that his marriage to her occurred before his conversion when he was a prince in Egypt. I would be interested in hearing people's comments on the legitimacy of the marriage. We know that Nehemiah broke up marriages between Israelites and Gentiles, presumably claiming that they were never legal to begin with and not a legitimate marriage because they were forbidden to marry Gentiles (Deut 7). Why wasn't this applied in Moses' case? Maybe because it occurred before he was officially a part of the congregation of Israel(not a member yet) and it was like the principle Paul said about non-believers - if they are pleased to dwell stay with them but if they depart then let them depart. God also allowed the propagation 12 tribes of Israel, but that didn't mean God condoned the polygamy from which the original fathers of those tribes were created.
Query: The point is they propagated the races through their wives, so God must have accepted their marriages, just as he did Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman. Answer: Just because they propagated, how does that translate into God's acceptance? There are often children born out of wedlock. Does that OK fornication?
2. Another point of view: Query: As a casual observer, one question? What about Noah's sons, weren't they all married to someone of another race? Answer: No. Only Ham and Japheth were. And, their family was protected because Noah found grace in the eyes of God, just as Lot's children were offered the same protection from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, though the others decided not to take advantage of it except for his two daughters.
I have been enjoying the comments on interracial marriages. It really shows how far we have strayed from what Mr. Armstrong taught. From what I have read of this society's leaders, the whole purpose behind promoting interracial marriage in society today is to bring peace to the world, by making all of the races a 'blah'. It is not too hard to see that this alone will not bring peace. There are far more fights within the family than anywhere else, and these are between people of the same race(in most cases). Look at what is happening in Africa where people of the same race are fighting. Where do wars and fighting come from? Please read James 4v1. Our problems in this society will not be solved with interracial marriages. It will take far more than that. When I came into the church in the late 60's there was a couple of mixed marriage in the congregation. I am sure that this couple suffered more than I can imagine. We were taught to respect the qualities and skills of each individual race. God gave the variety, should we try to make everyone the same? The solution to man's problems, is not interracial marriage. It has more to do With individual repentance of sin before God.<
Some teach that there are so little
differences between the races it is fine to mix
Not
true. As part of His creative capacity, God brought about an abundance of life
on earth, including human life. As the God of diversity, His creation of
necessity has involved enormous complexity to bring about such diversity in the
first place.
Some
claim that there as there is only 2% in the difference between racial genes,
therefore it is alright to intermarry. It is amazing the excuses the deceived
mind wishes to make up. In fact there is also 2% difference in the gene between
man and his supposed closest relative, the chimpanzee. So where does this leave
us?
Firstly,
‘what is a gene?’ Do the liberals who wish to poison Church members know? A
gene is “a length of DNA with a particular sequence of organic bases coding for
the formation of a protein” (Genetics: A Basic Guide, page 174). In
other words it is the mechanism by which particular sets of inherited
characteristics are transmitted from generation to generation.
By
analogy, it is like a software programme that is ‘zipped’ up or compressed.
Once uncompressed, it expands into a beautiful application to use on one’s
computer. So, a tiny gene is not the man or woman. It is merely the code. But
once it is ‘uncompressed’ and grows into a man or woman, it is much larger,
complex and wonderful.
Therefore,
similarities in genes is no reason or argument for mixing the races. It is when
it has fully flowered into a human-being that counts and it is from that point
one must argue one’s case.
In
assigning humans to various races and nations, human biologists use dozens of
measurements, including skin colour (the most obvious), features, skull types,
hair types, sitting index, blood groups etc, etc. There are also various mental
attributes, and physical and mental gifts God has granted the different races.
The differences are so huge, that only dishonest people, professors and
liberal-left researchers try and say otherwise. They have a political and
genetic agenda: the interbreeding of all races until there is only one.
Starting first with the Israelites, they are now moving toward pouring various
races into other Shemitic nations.
Later,
they will mix them, Japhethites and Hamites to form one race. One race means
more control. A diversity of nations and races makes world union and thus
global dictatorship impossible.
(author unknown)
Here is the surprising truth about the identity of a
young Israelitish widow, Ruth, the central figure of the Book of Ruth, in your
Bible.
Why is the identity of this woman important? How does
this relate to our time or to Christianity? The answer to these questions and
more, you will find as the truth unfolds about this amazing woman of the Bible.
Historical perspective: Ruth lived in "the land
of Moab", which had been conquered several generations earlier, at the
time of Joshua, by the Israelites. They had killed all the Moabites and
Ammonites north of the Arnon river, and it became their territory.
The Controversy of Race and the Lineage of Christ
The nationality of Jesus Christ has become obscured,
by controversy. Four of the women in Matthew's account of Christ's lineage are
said to be Gentiles, by both Jewish and Christian theologians. These women are
Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba.
Recently, Christ's nationality has been the focus of
controversy. On March 29, 1997, The Vancouver Sun, Saturday Review, G4, had an
article "The Many Faces of Jesus". He was depicted as being both
Negro and Caucasian. A little confusing?
In a book, "Beyond Roots: In Search of Blacks In
The Bible", a black American author argued that a white Jesus had to be
invented because He was useful to white slave masters. The author said that,
far from being the white, European-looking man of popular imagery, Jesus was
definitely middle eastern in appearance, and could even have been of African
descent.
The Executive Director of a group called Men
Enhancing Community Cultural Awareness, based in Gary, Indiana, declared that
it is actually harmful to depict Jesus as white. He feels that this causes
psychological damage to black peoples.
In this age of being politically correct, it is easy
to see how the "white Jesus" of established Christianity is under
attack. The colour of His skin has taken precedence over the strength of His
message.
In his book, "Mystery of The Ages", the
late evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong made several striking statements on this
issue. He wrote: "Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, and it was
necessary that He be of the original pure racial strain, even as Noah was"
(page 173, hard copy edition). He further wrote: "God's chosen nation
Israel was white. Jesus was white" (page 148, hard copy edition).
What is the truth? Was Jesus a Jew? Was He white? Can
anything about this issue be found and proven from the pages of your Bible?
The specific purpose of this article is to take the
story of one of Christ's ancestors, Ruth, and make plain what the Bible says
about the lineage of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
The Dilemma of Race in the Book of Ruth
It has always been a DILEMMA, that God would allow a
GENTILE -- a racial Moabite -- to alter the family tree of the Messiah. It was
strictly FORBIDDEN for any Israelite to marry a Moabite FOREVER: "An
Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to the
tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the congregation of the
Lord FOREVER". (Deuteronomy 23:3)
This is a real problem for the Royal House of Judah.
The truth of the matter is, God would never instruct His people NOT to allow a
Moabite into the congregation, and then leave us an example of doing just the
opposite, especially within the Jewish Royal Family. God does not say one thing
and do another. God DOES NOT LIE!
The simple fact is that God kept the lineage of the
coming Messiah pure up to the time of Noah. For we read in Genesis 6:9,
"Noah was a just man, PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS." The Hebrew could
easily be translated: "undefiled in his descent", in what is a clear
reference to his family tree.
It is interesting that the term Semitic goes back to
the time of Noah. A Shemite is the origin of the term Semite, where we get the
modern derivation "Semitic". It comes from Noah's son Shem. These
Shemites lived in Mesopotamia, and later migrated to modern Europe. The
Germanic and Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples are from the line of Shem. The Jews are
not the only Semites.
The kings of the nation of Israel had to come from
the tribe of Judah. The Messiah was to come from that line of Jewish kings. God
instructs: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from
between his feet, until Shiloh comes..." (Genesis 49:10).
God made it clear that no foreigner is to rule over
the nation of Israel. "...You shall surely set a king over you whom the
Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over
you; you MAY NOT set a FOREIGNER over you, who is not your brother."
(Deuteronomy 17:15). God makes race an issue, with the kings of Israel. This is
NOT for man to change!
This is true of Jesus Christ, our Messiah. He had to
be an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah. After all, if He was a gentile or
genetically more gentile than Israelite, He could not come back "to His
own" (John 1:11). He might as well have come back as the Messiah of the
Canaanites or Moabites, if His racial background were such.
The Messiah was born as King of the Jews and King of
Kings. He could NOT be a foreigner.
Several times the lineage of the Messiah could have
been subverted. One example, is when Judah married a Canaanite. The lineage
would have produced NO offspring of PURE Hebrew descent. God intervened through
the Hebrew woman Tamar. She put her life on the line, when she foresaw the
problem was with Judah, not Shelah, Judah's half-breed son. Tamar seduced Judah
and produced twin Hebrew boys, Perez and Zerah as heirs to the Royal House of
Judah, and the throne which Jesus Christ will ultimately occupy.
As Judah himself said of this situation with Tamar:
"She has been more righteous than I..." (Genesis 38:26).
The Lineage of King David
More proof that the lineage of the kings of Israel
had to be of the tribe of Judah, comes from the pages of history. During the
Maccabean Period lead by the Hasmoneans, 142 to 63 B.C., the controversy of
bloodline arises again.
We read in the Encyclopedia Judaica, under the title,
Genealogy: "Thus the Hasmoneans, who had to defend themselves against the
contention that only Davidic descendants could lay claim to kingship, in turn questioned
the purity of King David's blood, in view of his descent from Ruth the
Moabite … Herod, who also had to face a challenge to the legitimacy of his
rule, forged for himself a pedigree going back to King David, after first
DESTROYING THE GENEALOGICAL RECORDS maintained in the temple..."
The racial purity and lineage of the Kings of Judah
were important right up to the time of Christ. That is why Matthew and Luke
record the genealogies of both Joseph and Mary. Genealogy was critical to kingship!
The Messiah had to come from the lineage of King David!
The Book of Ruth
The book of the Bible, that both the Jews and the
Church of God associate most with The Feast of Weeks or "Pentecost",
is the Book of Ruth. The scenario takes place during the spring harvest season.
This story of Boaz finding a wife, Ruth, is analogous
of Christ and the Church -- Christ taking a bride. This book centers around the
Jewish royal family and the redemption of their inheritance, through the child
Obed.
The Book of Ruth is a story of a young ISRAELITISH
widow, who produced offspring for the Royal House of Judah, whose descendants
were residing in the area of Bethlehem.
Ruth had been living in the territory still known as
the land of Moab. This territory north of the Arnon River, and east of the
Jordan River, was occupied by the tribes of Israel known as Reuben, Gad, and
Manasseh. Like their brothers on the western side of the Jordan (who retained
the name of the land of Canaan), the three tribes to the east were said to live
in the "land of Moab".
Ruth moved to Bethlehem, with her mother-in-law, and
married a man named Boaz, of the Royal House of Judah. When she bore the child
Obed, the stage was being set for the future kings of the nation of Israel, and
the coming of the Messiah.
THREE BASIC PROOFS
There are three basic proofs as to Ruth's true
nationality. These are found in a book entitled: Far Above Rubies, by Isabel
Hill Elder, published in 1957.
The first deals with the question of who inhabited
the "land of Moab", mentioned in the Book of Ruth. The second
involves Ruth's own very famous statement to her mother-in-law. The third
relates to who has the legal right to inherit land under the ancient Levirate
Law of Marriage and the Jubilee System of land redemption.
Proof Number One:
The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, east of
the Jordan river, and north of the Arnon River. Israel took all the cities and
killed ALL the inhabitants of the land.
"So the Lord our God also delivered into our
hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he has
no survivors remaining." "And at that time we took the land from the
hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from
the River Arnon to Mount Hermon..." (Deuteronomy 3:3,8).
In another place the Bible records that no racial
Moabites were left alive in the land (Deuteronomy 2:34). The land was now
inhabited by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (Deuteronomy 29:8).
This territory retained the name "land of
Moab", just as the land west of the Jordan remained "the land of
Canaan". Joshua 13:32 summarizes the conquest: "These are the areas
which Moses had distributed as an inheritance in the PLAINS OF MOAB on the
other side of the Jordan, by Jericho eastward."
In the first chapter of the Book of Ruth, the
expression the "country" of Moab is used. This word used for
"country" in the original Hebrew translates best as "land".
The reference is to the PHYSICAL LAND not to the occupying people of the land.
This term is not pointing to the nation, but to the territory.
At the time of Joshua, the most dramatic statement
relating to Israelites dwelling in the plains of Moab, comes in the
twenty-second chapter of the Book of Joshua.
The western tribes of Israel almost went to war with
their brothers living on the eastern side of the Jordan, because of a
misunderstanding over an impressive monument built near the eastern bank of the
Jordan River. The tribes of Reuban, Gad, and Manasseh built a replica of an
altar, to remind the western tribes that Israelites lived on the eastern side
of the river.
Here is the explanation: "Therefore we said,
'Let us now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering nor for
sacrifice, but that it may be A WITNESS between you and us and our generations
after us...that your descendants may not say to our descendants in time to
come, "You have no part in the Lord." ' " (Joshua 22:27)
The tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan were
afraid of losing their identity. In effect they were saying: "We are the
SAME PEOPLE and we worship the SAME GOD." (Remember this, for proof number
two.)
It has been a habit of Israelites to keep the name of
the original inhabitants of the land -- even to this day. Are the men living in
the Dakotas all Dakota Indians? Are Albertans all Albertan Indians? How about
those living in the city of Miami, Florida, are they all Miami Indians. How
about the peoples in the Province of Manitoba, Canada, are they all Manitoban
Indians? (The name "Canada" is of North American Indian origin.)
Again, are they all Native Indians living in these places? The answer is,
certainly NOT! Yet, we have retained the names of the original inhabitants of
the land.
Do you get the point? We do the same thing today in
the United States of America, and in Canada. Ruth was an Israelite living in
the land of Moab, occupied by the eastern tribes of Israel.
Proof Number Two:
The most amazing proof that Ruth was a Israelite, and
possibly a Jewess, comes from her most famous and misunderstood statement to
her mother-in-law, Naomi.
"...For wherever you go, I will go; and wherever
you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.
(Ruth 1:16).
It is important for you to notice that in most
Bibles, the words "shall be" are in italics. This is done because the
words ARE NOT in the original text. Hebrew is written with consonants only, NO
VOWELS. The vowels are added in the spoken language. One of the things this
does, is leave word 'tense' for the individual to add when reading. You have to
understand THE CONTEXT in order to correctly read aloud the Hebrew.
To put things in plain English, it is impossible for
Ruth to become (ie. "shall be") a part of Naomi's tribe, if she was
not of the same genetic strain. "A Gentile in the woodpile", would
make Ruth a Gentile, not an Israelite of pure racial strain. The future tense,
then, is not correct.
If Ruth's ancestors were, at one time, of the same
tribe, then the translation "used to be" would not be correct,
because somewhere a Gentile would have entered her pedigree, changing it to
that of a Gentile. The past tense would not be logical.
The only translation which makes sense, and fits the
situation is: "...Your people are my people, and your God, is my
God." Ruth's statement is one of CONFIRMATION. She is saying the same
thing as her ancestors, of the eastern side of the Jordan, said to the tribes
of the western side, earlier in history. She is paralleling, what was said in
the twenty-second chapter of Joshua. Remember proof number one.
Ruth is confirming that she worships the same God of
Israel, just as her forefathers did in the time of Joshua. That is why God
placed that story of the altar on the western shore of the Jordan River in the
Book of Joshua.
We read in Ephesians 5:31,32: " 'For this reason
a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh.' This a GREAT MYSTERY, but I speak concerning Christ
and the church." There are things which God intends to be known in
"the end time". He has kept these things hidden for His own purpose.
It IS TIME to realize the truth about this woman,
Ruth.
Proof Number Three:
Only an Israelite could inherit land under the
nation's Jubilee System, and receive restoration of that inheritance, under the
Levirate Law of Marriage. An understanding as to the historical background of
these two laws, is necessary to grasp the restrictions placed on inheritances
within the nation of Israel.
Levirate Law Of Marriage
In the story of Ruth, a single man, a relative of her
dead husband, is supposed to intervene and marry Ruth. The purpose of this is
to "...raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance..." (Ruth
4:10). This custom is known as the "levirate Law of Marriage". This
Hebrew law predates the nation of Israel. The purpose is to not let an
inheritance go out of the family. This law protects the inheritance and
birthright of rulers from Adam to Noah and then to his son Shem, after the
Great Flood.
The first time it is mentioned in the Bible is in
Genesis 38:8. "Go in to your (dead) brother's wife and marry her, and
raise up an heir to your brother." This is part of the story of Judah and
Tamar.
Instructions were given to the nation of Israel in
Deuteronomy 25:5,6: "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and
has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside
the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and
perform the duty of a husbands brother to her, and it shall be that the
firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother,
that his name may not be blotted out of Israel."
Note the importance of keeping the inheritance within
the family. No STRANGER is to inherit!
No Gentile would have been allowed to inherit land
under the levirate Law of Marriage. This law was there to keep the inheritances
and the land of Israel in the possession of Israelites ALONE!
From Noah to Abraham
What is not commonly known is that the inherited line
of rulers goes from Noah to Abraham and to the kingly line of David. The story
of Ruth is the rescuing of this royal lineage -- a coveted inheritance!
Noah lived three years into the life of Abraham. Shem
lived seventy-five years into the life of Abraham. Abraham was told to depart
from the land of the Hebrews: "Get out of your country, from your kindred
and from your father's house..." (Genesis 12:1), at the AGE of
SEVENTY-FIVE.
The details of the passing of the authority of Noah
to Shem and Abraham, are not recorded in history or the pages of the Bible. The
principle followed by the patriarchs is using the "laying on of
hands" to pass on an inheritance and kingly authority.
Shem had the authority of God, and an army, which
traveled to Egypt and killed Nimrod. In the Compendium of World History Book I,
by Dr. Hermon L. Hoeh, pages 246-247, we read of Shem's exploits:
"...Mes-kiag-gasher is the Sumerian name of Shem!...Mes-kiag-gasher was
also a high priest. From Egyptian records historians have discovered that
Semsem -- the Great Shem -- of Dynasty I of Thinis was also pictured as a HIGH
PRIEST! This famous man crossed from Asia over the water to the mountains of
Europe. Shem traveled far and wide to put down the government of Nimrod."
Abraham had an army of three hundred and eighteen
"trained men" (Genesis 14:13). Abraham was a PRINCE, who had influence
in Mesopotamia. Abraham was also a priest of God, as he could SACRIFICE on an
altar, and this was acceptable to God. He gave up the opportunity to use this
influence when he followed God's instructions to leave the land of the Hebrews.
Upon Shem's death, and Abraham's leaving the scene, an opening was made for
Gentile world-ruling empires to influence and shape the known world. God was
removing His direct hand from secular history, as was present through His
servants from Seth to Shem.
What is not said, in the Bible, is that if Abraham
had not left for Egypt when God instructed, other Shemites would have conspired
to put Abraham to death. Before he died, Shem laid hands on Abraham and
"anointed" Abraham, passing on his authority given to him from Noah.
Shemites in Assyria, covetous of that authority, and
the birthright carried with it, would have killed Abraham, and claimed the
birthright for their side of the family. This is the same birthright passed on
down to the kingly line of David. Therein lies the importance of the
inheritance. It is the inheritance of KINGS and PRIESTS of God.
God had chosen to grant rulership through a lineage
that came from Seth to Noah, and then to Abraham and the nation of Israel --
His CHOSEN people. This lineage would also provide the Messiah, or King of
Kings. Jesus Christ is to rule over a nation of King-Priests, in the World
Ahead.
Racial Purity a Must
The significance of an unbroken link between Adam and
Jesus Christ is of the utmost importance. That is why God inspired us to know
that up to the time of Noah, there is a chain of inheritors to the kingly line
-- an unbroken genetic racial strain (Genesis 6:9). God is particular of the
national characteristics which would be inherent in His nation of Priest-Kings!
National characteristics are PASSED ON by our genes. There is other evidence in
the Bible that genetic background is important to God and the nation of Israel.
Levites were not to marry outside of their tribe, in
order to preserve their characteristics as teachers and men who could carry out
duties as priests. God instructed in Leviticus 21:14,15: "...he shall take
a virgin OF HIS OWN PEOPLE as wife. Nor shall he PROFANE his
POSTERITY...". The Levites were to set an example for the nation, by
marrying within their own tribe. Racial purity WAS an ISSUE in ancient Israel.
The sons of Shelah (Shelanites) were considered
half-breeds (half-Canaanites). They were not granted the same status within the
nation of Israel as were the rest. This family became the weavers of cloth,
gardeners and greenhouse workers (I Chronicles 4:29-23). They were not given
the same royal duties as the families of Perez and Zerah.
What is interesting, is that Shelanites were allowed
to rule over Moabites. (I Chronicles 4:22) They were not rulers in Israel.
During the Second Temple Period, Jews were very
conscious of the purity of their family tree. They established ten categories
of families to determine eligibility to work in the temple. Record of descent
was of prime importance.
The Israelites would not even eat a meal with a
Gentile, never mind allow one of them to marry into the Royal House of Judah.
This presence of mind carried right on into the time of Christ. Gentiles were
considered "unclean". A Jew considered his posterity
"defiled" if any of his family married a Gentile.
A Modern Perspective
A simple way of looking at it today, is with the
present royalty in Britain. Would the English take it lightly if Prince Charles,
the heir of the throne of England, brought home from the British Commonwealth,
a dark woman to be his bride and the next Queen of England? The British
tabloids would have a field day with that one. It is not acceptable today! It
was not acceptable then.
You would think that church historians would have
seen the paradox of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, listed amongst the
lineage of Christ, in the book of Matthew, and the fact that both the
Protestant and Jewish communities falsely consider all four women to be all, or
part Gentile, in their racial origin.
The truth is, Tamar was a Hebrew woman, the other
three were Israelites. Their stories are fascinating and inspiring, as to God's
intervention in the lives of His chosen people, Israel.
" A Restorer of Life "
The Book of Ruth is one of RESTORATION. Naomi was the
equivalent to the "Queen Mother" in Britain today. She was as beloved
then as the Queen Mother is today. Notice Ruth 1:19: "...ALL THE CITY was
EXCITED because of them; and the women said, 'Is this Naomi?'" It was
Naomi who anguished over the possibility of her family name and inheritance
disappearing into oblivion.
The essence of the story is in Ruth 4:13-17: "So
Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the Lord
gave her conception, and she bore a son." (It appears that God intervened
and made sure that a male heir was conceived.) "Then the women said to
Naomi, 'Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a NEAR
KINSMAN ; and may his name be famous in Israel! And may he be to you a RESTORER
OF LIFE...'. "Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, 'There is a
son BORN TO Naomi.'"
This ancient levirate Law of Marriage was fulfilled
and the Royal House of Judah was rescued, with an heir to the future throne!
Boaz tells of his actions in Ruth 4:9-10: "You
are witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's and all that
was Chilion's and Mahlon's, from the hand of Naomi. Moreover, Ruth the
Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to raise up the name
of the dead on HIS INHERITANCE, that the name of the dead may not be cut off
from among his brethren and from the gate of his place."
Boaz paid off the family debt of Naomi, and
proclaimed the occupancy of the property to be given back to Naomi, all
according to the Jubilee System of the restoration of property rights.
Furthermore, the elders of the city proclaimed their
knowledge of the importance nationally, of this event. Following the story in Ruth
4:11,12: "And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said,
'We are witnesses. The Lord make the woman who is coming to your house like
Rachel and Leah, the two WHO BUILT the house of Israel; and may you prosper in
Ephrathah (the equivalent to the Queen's Windsor castle, in England) and be
famous in Bethlehem. May your house be like the house of Perez, whom TAMAR bore
to Judah, because of the offspring which the Lord will give to you from this
young woman.'"
These elders saw the parallel to the story of Tamar
rescuing the Royal lineage for Judah. They saw how critical the situation was
for the nation.
Conclusion
In looking into the concepts surrounding the Book of
Ruth and facing the reality of the details of the story, it is obvious that the
lineage of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, has to be of pure racial strain. This is
only one aspect of the message -- that of RACE.
The aspect that most concerns us is that of
GRACE, that is: redemption, salvation, inheriting the Kingdom of God, and the
analogy of Christ and the Church. These are weightier matters. In order to
understand these things we must FIRST get the story of Ruth correct.
Ruth was an Israelite, who in analogy, represents the
Bride of Christ.
by
Roger Waite
Just
as God created many different plants and animals - for example, many varieties
and colours of roses - for greater beauty, so God created the three broad races
and colours of human skin - white, yellow and black. God does not reveal in the
Bible the precise origin of the different races but is fair conjecture based on
Acts 17:26 that in Eve were created ovaries containing yellow and black genes
also, so that some of Adam and Eve's children were black, yellow as well as
white.
There
is no specific command that says "thou shalt not marry someone of a
different race" in the Bible. You can look from Genesis to Revelation and
you will not find one. There are many scriptures where God forbid Israel from
marrying Gentiles. Those commands are primarily religious in nature to prevent
them from straying from God's ways.
Because
of other verses and principles in the Bible, the church under Mr Armstrong
concluded that those scriptures where Israel was forbidden to marry Gentile
nations are, secondarily, racial in nature to preserve the wonderful varieties
that God has created in the human race.
In
the WCG under Mr Armstrong the teaching against interracial marriage was built
upon principle much in the same way that smoking was declared a sin. You will
find no specific command against smoking but it does violate the principle of
glorifying God in your body. In this article I would like to go through the
principles Mr Armstrong looked at when he made the church judgment that
interracial marriage was considered a sin and why I personally still hold to
that point of view.
I
wish this doctrine was much more easily proven one way or the other in the
Bible as this doctrine does affect people's lives, but, from my humble point of
view the evidence leans more against it than for it.
God
originally set the bounds of national borders, intending nations to be
separated to prevent interracial tension which destroys peace and harmony.
"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance (speaking of
land or geographic boundaries) He separated (notice, HE separated) the sons of
Adam, He set the bounds of the people"(Duet.32:8). God intended nations to
be SEPARATED to prevent intermixing on a large scale.
This
is a major reason why God confused the languages and forced the nations to
spread out from each other at the Tower of Babel.
God
desires to have pure races and not mixed ones and interracial marriage goes against
that desire of God's. That's why generally in the heart of men and women
we are usually genetically more attracted to those of our own race. Racial
differences and their accompanying cultural differences also present serious
hindrances to a successful marriage.
God
commanded Israel in Deuteronomy 7:3, "Nor shall you make marriages with
them(Gentile races). You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take
their daughter for their son. For they will turn away thy son from following
me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled
against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
There was
an exception to this law that God made in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. If they went to
war against certain nations around them and saw a beautiful virgin they could
marry her with certain conditions. Some would argue that God allowed them to
marry someone of a different race. The majority of the nations around them were
white at this time with the exception of the Canaanites, Edomites and Ishmaelites.
Much like divorce, this situation God only allowed because of the hardness of
their hearts. It was, in a sense, the lesser of two evils. The parents of the
woman they spared in these cases had been killed in the war and she would have
lacked for someone to provide for her.
This
exception may have, in an unwritten way, been only with the white nations near
Israel. Because Israel was a physical carnal nation, unlike the church today,
God allowed this exception. This case law was also an exception to the command
not to marry a non-believer. In Deuteronomy 7:3 they were commanded not to
marry with Gentile women lest their hearts would be turned away from God. This
case law where they could take a captive Gentile woman to be wife where she had
lost her parents was the only exception God allowed because they were carnal
men without God's spirit, unlike in the church today where we have no such
exception(1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14).
When
Israel disobeyed God and He said to them in Jeremiah 2:21, "I planted you
a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and
become a wild vine?"(KJV). As Nehemiah pointed out strongly, it was by
marrying amongst the other races around them(Neh.13:26-27) how this happened.
If God
does want the races kept pure and doesn't condone interracial marriage there is
a simple reason for why there is no specific "thou shalt not marry outside
your race" command to the Israelites. The command not to marry someone of
the Gentile nations covered that. It was primarily to keep them religiously
pure but it also served to keep them racially pure.
We have an
earlier precedent to the command God gave to Israel in Deuteronomy 7:3 not to
marry outside the nation of Israel. Abraham prevented his son Isaac from
intermarrying among the dark Canaanites then in the land. To his chief servant
he said, "You will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the
Canaanites, among whom I dwell but you shall go to my country and to my
kindred(his own racial people) and take a wife for Isaac"(Gen.24:3-4).
This was
not a religious matter because the white kindred back in his former land were
pagans. This was a racial matter. In Israel's time the command not
to intermarry with the foreign peoples was a blended one - primarily religious in
order to keep them in the worship of God and secondarily a racial one to keep
their seed pure.
In
Leviticus 19:19 God says; "You shall not let your livestock breed with
another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment
of mixed linen and wool come upon you." In Deuteronomy 22:9-11 we also
read, "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds: lest the fruit
of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a
garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."
Dr Hoeh
makes the following comments about these passages:
"Why
does God even wearing a garment of mixed fabric which is not going to harm or
poison the wearer?...God wants His people to learn the lesson - don't mix
varieties - keep each variety PURE - DON'T MIX THE RACES!...It is a sin,
violating God's law, to interbreed even different breeds of animals! God makes
it unlawful to interbreed varieties He has created through different mutations.
"When
God, for a wise purpose beneficial to mankind, blesses us with different
varieties HE WANTS THOSE KEPT PURE! He does not want man to UNDO what He has
wisely DONE!...Every breeder of fine livestock knows that champion
prize-winning animals must be PURE-BRED! Stock-raisers recognise this law, as
applied to animals. We should be able to recognise it applied to
ourselves"(Plain Truth, October 1963, p.29-30).
Rushdoony
adds these comments about the same passages:
The
commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is a law which clearly favors
fertility. To harm or destroy the fertility of men, plants, and animals is to
violate this law. Hybrids are clearly a violation of this law, as these case
laws of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 make plain. Hybrid plants and
animals are sterile and frustrate the purpose of creation, for God made all
plants with their seed "in itself" (Gen. 1:12). Hybridization seeks
to improve on God's work by attempting to gain the best qualities of two
diverse things; there is no question that some hybrids do show certain
advantageous qualities, but there is also no question that it comes at a price,
bringing some serious disadvantages(The Institutes of Biblical Law, p.255).
Now Dr
Hoeh probably went a little too far in some of his comments, as can be seen in
comparing his comments with Rushdoony's commentary. The law against
interbreeding different breeds of animals is directed primarily against
interbreeding different species that produce sterile offspring(such as a horse
and donkey to produce a sterile mule), not primarily against cross-breeding
within the same species.
His point
about pure-bred animals being better prize-winning stock compared with animals
cross-bred within the same species(eg. cattle) still is a valid point.
God wants
us to keep the racial strains pure in order to bring out the best qualities in
each. Occasionally genetic qualities are enhanced with racial interbreeding but
this is much more the exception than the rule. I am personally not one for
children being racially interbred as a result of mixed marriages. I personally
see this as eroding a child's sense of racial identity.
We do have
people who are children of mixed marriages and, of course, the question would
be asked, "How would a interracial marriage prohibition affect their
options for marriage?" We don't live in an ideal world and the church's
policy under Mr Armstrong was that such a person was free to marry of the race
they were closest to physically(sometimes this will give them two options).
he
decision cannot be undone once made. If we want to quietly tell them whether we
agree with them or not that's O.K. as long as we do it kindly and continue to
be friendly. Today, in the church, we have to marry amongst spiritual
Israelites only. Marrying outside the church is, in effect, a case of
interracial marriage in the spiritual sense.
In
conclusion, Rushdoony offers the following comments about the importance of
marrying someone compatible to us:
Man was created
in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in
man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2: 18, 21-23). "Helpmeet"
means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must
have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The
burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and
inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community
which marriage is designed to establish (The Institutes of Biblical Law,
p.256-257).
Review by Richard
Nickels: Do All Races Share in Salvation?
For Whom Did Jesus Die?
(by Dan Gayman, 1995: Schell City, MO, 216
pages.)
What is the origin of the races? The
Bible gives few clues. Was Adam the
first human being? Most professing
Christians believe that Adam was the first man, created by God in the Garden of
Eden. However, there is a variant view,
with substantial theological implications.
Dan Gayman and his
group in Missouri came into the Sabbath in 1987. A dynamic speaker, Gayman received glowing reviews for his
presentation at the Friends of the Sabbath seminar in Sydney, Australia, in
July, 1996. In his book, Sabbath
Under Crossfire, pages 276-277, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi uses Gayman’s
record of his church’s conversion to the Sabbath as a sterling example. There are indeed positive aspects of
Gayman’s ministry. But, on the subject
of race, Gayman’s views are diametrically opposed to our understanding of the
Bible.
Gayman’s Wrong Ideas on Race
In summary, Gayman
believes that non-white races originated before Adam. God created them along with other living
creatures. They can know God, worship
God, but can never comprehend deep spiritual truths. Gayman believes that Adam was white and ALL his descendents are
Caucasians. Only Adamites, Gayman
holds, can have a covenant relationship with God, and can receive eternal life
in His Kingdom. Nonwhite races do not
sin, and are not under the penalty of breaking God’s Law, and hence, do not
need salvation. According to Gayman,
Jesus Christ died only for white Caucasians, and there is no Bible support for
foreign missions to the third world.
The Christianity of Gayman’s Church of Israel is only for white people.
Because these racial
views are so twisted and pernicious, I will take the time to answer Dan
Gayman’s false teachings on race.
Origin of Races: After His Kind
The core of Gayman’s
theology of race centers on the issue of the origin of the races. He says, “The belief that all races
descended from Adam is rank evolution
. . . No Christian can buy this outrageous and unscriptural
teaching,” p. 145 of Do All Races Share in Salvation? He points out what to him, are vast
differences between the races. “To
believe that all of these evolved from one common beginning is ludicrous, alien
to all common sense,” ibid.
In studying the
Biblical account of Creation, one is struck with the frequent use of the phrase,
“after his [or their] kind,” Genesis 1:21, 24-25. And then, in verse 26, mankind was created in the image of God,
after the God kind. In Genesis
6:19, 20-22, Noah was instructed to bring into the ark birds and animals “after
their kind.” The Hebrew word for “kind”
is Strong’s #4327, meen, meaning “to sort, or portion out, or
divide.” The animal “kinds” cannot mix,
there is a genetic divide created by God.
Even if different kinds are forced to mate (e.g., donkey and horse), the
result is usually sterile (e.g., a mule).
Dogs come in many
shapes, sizes, and colors (black, white, brown, yellow). Noah did not have to take the many distinct
varieties of dogs onto the ark. They
are all the dog kind. Human
beings are of the same kind. In fact,
there appear to be more differences between dog varieties than human
varieties. Do kinds produce a
great multitude of varieties?
Certainly, they do! This kind of
“evolution” does occur. But a dog never
becomes an ape, and a monkey never becomes a human.
So, how did God
create the different races? Gayman
does not know, and admits that “the Bible is silent on the development [and
origin] of the other [nonwhite] races,” p. 152. “If the Bible includes the record of how the non-Adamic races
were created, it is found in Genesis 1:25, where the chay neffesh
creation, or living creatures, are named.
The living creatures here could have been biped as well as quadruped,”
p. 150. Since the Bible is silent with
regard to the origin of races, why should we join Gayman in supposing (without
proof) that every race was created separately and distinctly? There is no proof races were created at
all. With no proof, Gayman holds as a
postulate and presupposition (his own admission), that “The Bible was not
written for all the races of the earth,” p. 147.
The word man
(Strong’s #120, adam) in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 comes from the same Hebrew
root word, Strong’s #119, adam, meaning, “to show blood in the face,
flush or turn rosy, be dyed red, red (ruddy).”
Since many nonwhites do not blush to the extreme that whites do,
therefore, according to Gayman, they are not descended from Adam because Adam
was Caucasian, white-skinned and able to turn rosy and ruddy.
Dangerous Lack of Historical Knowledge
With no proof
whatsoever, Gayman believes only Caucasians are descended from Adam, and the
Bible is a book only of the generations of Adam (which he believes is
the white race), Genesis 5:1-3. Gayman
says, “There are no genealogical tables giving the history of the Egyptians,
Chinese, Hindus, Japanese, Negroid, and others because the Bible is the history
of the Adamic race in general, and Israel in particular,” p. 149. Is Gayman’s Bible lacking Genesis 10, which
gives the Table of Nations descended from Noah’s sons, Japheth, Ham, and
Shem? Three times the Bible refers to
Egypt as the “land of Ham,” Psalm 105:23, 27, 106:22. The word, “Ham” in the Hebrew is cham, Strong’s #2526,
meaning “hot” (from their tropical habitat).
If Gayman is correct
that white people alone are Adamites, and nonwhites are not descended from
Adam, then he must prove where the non-Adamites are living today. The Genesis 10 nations are all descended
from Noah, who was descended from Adam, and repopulated the whole earth after
the flood. “These are the families of
the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were
the nations divided in the earth after the flood,” Genesis 10:32. If the whole earth was filled with Adamites
after the Flood, where did the non-Adamites go? Like others of his ilk, Gayman probably believes non-Adamites
were on the Ark of Noah as servants (beasts). Of course, there is not a hint of
such a fantasy in the entire Bible. We
must not base our whole theology on unproven presuppositions as Gayman does.
Like a house of cards,
Gayman’s whole theory of race and the Bible is built on the theory, unproven
and presupposed, that God created the races each for a different purpose,
whites to salvation, and nonwhites to secondary status and physical life
only. Since the Bible is silent on the
origin of the races, the question is one of interpreting history.
History is not Dan
Gayman’s strong suit. Here are some of
the pathetically erroneous historical “proofs” he gives: “The question of a multi-racial Church never
entered the minds of the Churchmen who occupied the pulpits and altars of the
Living Church from the days of the Apostles to the time of the Protestant
Reformation.” What does Gayman do with
Acts 8 where the Ethiopian eunuch was converted, and Acts 13:1, where Simeon
called Niger (black) was a prophet and teacher? Gayman: “A quick survey of Church history confirms the
fact [sic] that until the dawning of the 17th century, Christianity
was confined to the Caucasian population of Western Asia, Europe, Scandinavia
and the British Isles.” Perhaps Gayman
has not read about the black Ethiopian Sabbath-keepers, the St. Thomas
Sabbath-keeping Christians of western India, Chinese and Japanese and Filipino
Sabbatarians, all of whom existed 900 to 1000 years before the 17th
Century. See the book, Truth Triumphant,
by Benjamin Wilkinson, $12.95 from Giving & Sharing. A poor understanding of the history of true
Christianity has damaging effects!
Gayman is ignorant of critical historical facts, which destroy his
unfounded racial theories.
Gayman: “Every race was
created to know their Creator in a different way and by a different means,” p.
28. In other words, he believes
religion is genetic. Negroes, Gayman
believes, have always worshipped the Creator in various forms of voodooism,
ancestral spirits, and physical objects.
Any attempt to alter and change their method of knowing and worshipping
God has not remained permanent. Left
alone, “they always revert to the gods of their ancestors.” He says whites fight God when they try to
convert nonwhites. Gayman has the
audacity to believe that God created Arabs to believe in the Moslem faith,
Orientals to believe in Buddha, and black Zulus to worship the gods of
Voodoo. “Christianity is the religion
of the Caucasian race,” p. 29. Nonwhite
temporary Christian “converts,” he says, quickly mold their newfound
Christianity into the image of their cultural gods.
The “god” of Pastor
Gayman has programmed nonwhites to naturally follow false religions, yet
these false religions are deemed acceptable to the Creator and the God-ordained
means for nonwhites to know the true God as Creator and worship Him. This is a purely Satanic belief! See II Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2.
Have not white Caucasians
butchered the faith of Jesus Christ in more ways than non-whites ever thought
of doing? Certainly they have! The blasphemy of Roman Catholicism stands as
a stark testimony refuting Gayman’s utter lack of historical knowledge. Today, whites in the Western world are
turning from Christian principles to rank occultism and paganism, while many
nonwhites are flocking to Christ and the Bible. Gayman is woefully ignorant of the worldwide explosion of
interest in God and the Bible by non-whites, a movement which began in spite
of, not because of, white missionaries.
Gayman falsely says
that after 200 years of white missionary activity, Africa is stuck in its
variant forms of Voodooism. However,
the book, Sabbath Roots: The African Connection, by Charles E. Bradford
(available from Giving & Sharing for $15), shows that multitudes of black
Sabbath-keeping Christians existed for many hundreds of years before white
missionaries ever set foot on the sub-Saharan continent. Today, about 340 million Africans profess
Christianity. According to reliable estimates, Africa has the world’s largest
concentration of Sabbath-keepers, some twenty million people, of which only
about three million are Seventh Day Adventists. The Sabbath is natural to black
Africans; they have a natural proclivity to accepting God’s Holy Sabbath. God
is doing a work in Africa! Gayman says
black Africans cannot maintain their Christian religion. But, the Ashantis of Ghana, for example,
have maintained Sabbath-keeping for many hundreds, probably thousands, of
years. Truly converted nonwhites today
are the strongest proof that Gayman’s racial theories are dead wrong.
Once again, it is
dangerous to be so ignorant of historical facts!
Gayman’s circular reasonings and glaring
contradictions have deceived him into thinking he has an answer to most of the
Scriptural objections one can raise against his false theory, that salvation is
limited to white people.
Galatians 3:29 says, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s
seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Gayman would translate this verse to mean, “Only if you are Abraham’s
seed can ye be Christ’s,” but that is NOT what it says, or means. This verse proves that salvation is not
limited to the physical seed of Abraham.
Those who are called of God must give up their pagan, heathen ways, and
become spiritually the seed of Abraham.
God, the Holy One of Israel, is “The God of the whole earth . . .” Isaiah
54:5, not only white Caucasians. In
the World Tomorrow, the whole earth will keep the Feast of Tabernacles,
including Egypt, the land of Ham, Zechariah 14. Blacks from Egypt will still be black, and
worship along with Israel and Assyria, Isaiah 19:23-25.
Acts 17:26 says that God “hath made of one blood [one
creation of mankind] all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their
habitation.” We all go back to Adam,
not Adam and other biped living creatures.
Romans 11:17 speaks of Israel, the “natural olive tree,” and the
Gentiles, “a wild olive tree,” who, contrary to their nature, became grafted
into the natural olive tree (Israel), verse 24. Gayman says the Bible uses the word,
“Gentiles” to refer to Israel in dispersion, the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel. But, this is a contradiction. He told us that Israel has a natural
inclination toward God, that Christianity is the religion of the Caucasian
race. If so, how could the Gentiles be
the lost tribes of Israel who need to be grafted into the natural olive
tree? The Gentile Ephesian converts to
Christianity were formerly “strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world,” Ephesians 2:12.
With no proof, Gayman claims the Gentile Cornelius who was converted in Acts
10, was a genetic Israelite.
The first Bible use of the word, “Gentile”
is in Genesis 10:5, referring to Japheth’s sons. Japheth was not an Israelite. Micah 5:8 says “the remnant of
Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people . . .
.” Matthew 10:5-6 gives Christ’s
instructions to the Apostles, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles. . . . But
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Israel in
dispersion].” Luke 21:24 says, “Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled.” When has this
happened? Jerusalem is not run by
Israel in dispersion. The Lost 10
Tribes are not Gentiles, as Gayman claims.
When you have a wrong Bible teaching,
there is a temptation to attempt to force all Scripture to conform to your
theory. Exodus 12:48 shows that
a stranger [Strong’s #1616, ger, “alien, foreigner”] that
sojourns with Israel, and wants to keep the Passover, may do so if he and all
his males are circumcised. Gayman says
the “stranger” is an Israelite born outside the Promised Land. However, Solomon’s prayer at the dedication
of the Temple asks God to answer the prayers of “a stranger, that is not of Thy
people Israel,” I Kings 8:41-43.
One of the cursings that will fall upon Israel for disobedience to the
Eternal’s laws is that “The stranger [ger] that is within thee shall get
up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low,” Deuteronomy
28:43.
I Timothy 2:4 says the God of Scripture “Who will have all men
[not only white people] to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth.” The “Great Commission” to the
Church is, “Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations [ethnos,
Strong’s #1484, “foreign, non-Jewish, pagan, Gentile, heathen, nation],
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
[Spirit],” Matthew 28:19. Again,
Mark 16:15 reads, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature,” (See also Colossians 1:23). Gayman says the “nations” to whom we are to preach the Gospel,
are limited to the two houses of Israel.
Revelation 2:26, 5:9, 7:9, and many, many other Scriptures say
just the opposite.
In Revelation 14:6-7, we see that
the first angel has “the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on
the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying
with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His
judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
the fountains of waters.” In Gayman’s
view, this angel is wasting his time because nonwhites cannot comprehend the
Gospel. The Third Angel’s message of verses
9-12 indicates, “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive
his mark . . . The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” Nonwhites can worship the beast. Their punishment will be the same as whites
who receive the mark of the beast. Same
punishment, same reward.
The 144,000 special converts of Revelation
7:1-8 are followed by “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all
nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, [which] stood before the
throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their
hands. . . . These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have
washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” verses
9-17. Out of all nations, kindreds,
and tongues, converts will turn to the Almighty, not to their native voodoo
religion with which Gayman says they are stuck.
According to Gayman, nonwhites should not
be ruling any nation on earth. In the
beautiful “Song of Moses” of Deuteronomy 32, the old patriarch says,
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated
the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of
the children of Israel. For the Lord’s
portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance,” verses 8-9. The earth is divided into lands for Israel,
and lands for non-Israelite nations, and all are sons of Adam. However, blacks rule mid and southern
Africa. If they are non-Adamites as
Gayman says, then something is wrong with these verses. There should be Caucasians ruling all
Africa. And the Chinese have been squatting on the land of China for thousands
of years, since the land should belong to one or more of the so-called
Caucasian sons of Adam. What a
tragic perversion of Scripture!
Dan Gayman’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 produces a
powerless God who has not set the bounds of peoples and nations.
On page 171, Gayman says that the Moabites
during the time of Balaam “had mongrelized themselves with a variety of heathen
peoples.” On page 179, he says, “Blood
pollution is forever; it’s irreversible!”
Yet, on page 189, he says hundreds of years later, Ruth the Moabitess,
wife of Boaz, in the lineage of David and Jesus, was racially pure. Here again, he blatantly contradicts
himself.
Jeremiah 31:27 says, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and
with the seed of beast.” Gayman says
this is a prophecy of racial mixing just before the return of
Christ. However, the context precludes
this interpretation. This is a prophecy
of the time after the return of the Messiah, when unified Israel and
Judah, who have returned after national captivity, verses 7-11, will
repopulate the earth. God will plant
Israel and Judah to be the model nation, and numbers of men and beasts will be
multiplied after much devastation. In
no way does this predict racial mixing before the return of Christ. Nonwhites are not “beasts” as Gayman claims.
Gayman does not define the bounds of what
he believes to be the Adamic (Caucasian) race. Bounds should be largely defined by Shem, Ham and Japheth and the
sixteen grandsons of Noah. Let us
examine Scriptures, which indicate, however, that racial mixing is not God’s
intent.
In Genesis 6:2, we see “that the
sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all which they chose.” Adam
was called the Son of God, Luke 3:38.
Angels do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, Luke 20:35-36. Genesis 6:2 refers to marriages that
are not authorized by God. Many of the
followers of God (sons of God) intermarried with those (daughters of men) who
were not following the Almighty. The
Eternal was not pleased with this perversion, verse 3. The result was offspring that became giants,
mighty men of renown who were worshipped as gods, verse 4. This great increase in wickedness began with
marriages that God did not favor, but nevertheless, He allowed these illicit
unions to take place. “And God saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” verse 5. God then decreed a flood of
destruction. Only “Noah found grace in
the eyes of the Lord. . . . Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations
[pedigree], and Noah walked with God,” verses 8-9. Noah had not mixed with those who were full
of wickedness. He was morally and
racially pure.
The sins leading up to the Flood primarily
involved wrong marriages. Verses
11-12 confirm this, “The earth was also corrupt before God, and the earth
was filled with violence [Hebrew: chamas, Strong’s #2555, “wrong,
violence, injustice”]. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was
corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.” Malachi 2:16 and Genesis 16:5
use the same word chamas, which demonstrates that the violence
preceding the Flood involved wrong marriages, wrong sexual practices. The Saviour said that prior to His return, “as
the days of Noe [Noah] were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man
be. For as in the days that were before
the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until
the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and
took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be,” Matthew
24:37-39.
Certainly these sinful marriages involved
mixing of heathen religions with God’s Truth.
It also appears that these sins were racial and religious in
nature. Yet, there are unanswered
questions that I have, about the details that are not given in Scripture. If Noah was spared because he was morally
and religiously pure, why were two of his sons, Ham and Japheth, saved with
him, if they had married black and yellow wives respectively? We must be silent where the Bible is silent,
and speak where the Bible speaks. I
have a few questions to ask Noah someday when I will, God willing, be blessed
to visit with him in the World Tomorrow!
Genesis does not give the precise racial
boundaries that man is not to cross.
The three sons of Noah repopulated the earth after the Flood. It appears that the three basic races
descended from Shem (Caucasian), Ham (Negroid), and Japheth (Mongoloid). Genesis 9:25-27 prophesies that the
descendents of Shem would continue the knowledge of the Eternal (“Blessed be
the Lord God of Shem.”); Japheth would be enlarged (have vast numbers of
people); and Canaan (fourth son of Ham) would be servant to both Shem and Japheth. Racial groups are, of course, much more
complicated than merely defining three distinct groups of white, black, and
yellow. That is why a knowledge of
physical anthropology and human biology are so useful and interesting. The
subject is complex — reflecting the depth and detail of God’s creative capacity
— dare we try and destroy His creation through amalgamation?
Genesis 10 gives the famous Table of Nations descended from
Noah. Descendents of Noah’s three sons
settled the whole earth, not part of it.
“These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in
their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the
flood,” verse 32. The earth was
divided (verse 25) along racial lines.
The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), was an ill-fated attempt by
Nimrod, grandson of Ham (Genesis 10:6-9), to unite all men in one
government and one race. God foiled the
rebellion and scattered men across the earth by confounding their
languages. He intends the different
races and peoples to be separate.
In Acts 17:26, during Paul’s Mars
Hill sermon in Athens, he said, “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of
men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed [for their rise and fall], and the bounds of their
habitation [where they should live].”
We should study the history of mankind, “Remember the days of old,
consider the years of many generations . . . . When the Most High divided to
the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set
the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel,”
Deuteronomy 32:7-8. Israel was
to be blessed with the best land, so they could fulfill their role of the
leading nation.
Today, mankind is again building a racial
Tower of Babel. Turks have moved to Germany,
black refugees to Sweden, Pakistanis and Indians to England, and a multitude
of races and peoples have flocked to the United States. In Australia, the British-descended peoples
have fallen to 60% of the population and 90% of immigrants are non-White.
Israel is a “holy nation,” separate from
other nations, to be an example for other nations, a “holy seed.” How can they be holy if they mix and destroy
their racial features and mental characteristics and attributes?
The movement towards a “Universal Brown
Man,” one race and a one-world government, is in full swing. God is not in favor of this amalgamation of
races and peoples!
But, what are the exact bounds of
habitations, according to God, and what are the specific racial
boundaries we are not to cross? While
the Bible gives great detail on which unclean meats we are to avoid, it gives
few details on the important question of racial intermarriage. Common sense application of Bible principles
should be our guide.
Scriptures forbidding Israel to intermarry
with the heathen nations appear to be based on both racial and religious
reasons. There were seven heathen
nations in the Promised Land: Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, Deuteronomy 7:1. These peoples were descended from Ham, Genesis
10:15-20. God told Israel to
utterly destroy them, “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy
daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take
unto thy son. For they will turn away
thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of
the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly,” Deuteronomy
7:3-4. See also Joshua 23:11-13
and Exodus 34:14-17. As a
punishment for disobedience to God, one of the curses to come on modern Israel
is that “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high;
and thou shalt come down very low,” Deuteronomy 28:43.
Leviticus 19:19 is a statute which tells us “Thou shalt
not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field
with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come
upon thee.” The principle of
this statute can well apply to mixing races and peoples.
When the Jews returned from Babylonian
Captivity, they had not learned the lesson that they were to be a separate,
distinct, people. The people, including
the priests and Levites, had not separated themselves from the Canaanites,
Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites,
but instead were intermarrying with these peoples, Ezra 9:1-2. Ezra confessed this sin to God, reminding
His people that they had previously suffered punishment for departing from God,
and were now repeating these same sins by “join[ing] in affinity with the
people of these abominations,” verses 3-15. Taking these “strange wives” was a great sin, and Ezra called for
a fast, and assembled the people, exhorting them to repent, and to “separate
yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives,” Ezra
10:11. Verses 15-44 lists
the names of those who had taken strange wives and agreed to put them away, and
offer a ram for a trespass offering.
A few years later, Nehemiah labored
against the same sin, when he discovered that some Jews had married wives of
Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. He got really
upset, and contended with them, cursed them, smote some of them, and plucked
off their hair, forcing them to vow that they would not give their daughters
unto the sons of heathens, nor take strange daughters unto their sons or
themselves, Nehemiah 13:23-27.
Nehemiah cried, “Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? . .
. even him did outlandish [foreign] women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all
this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?” Priests who had done this had “defiled the
priesthood,” and Nehemiah sought to cleanse them from all strangers.
Not only was Israel not to mix with the
Canaanite nations, as well as Moab and Ammon, but also they were to keep the
inheritances of the individual tribes intact, Numbers 36:1-13.
Today, like it was in ancient Rome, the
Anglo-Saxon peoples of the United States, Great Britain, South Africa,
Australia, and New Zealand, are under attack.
Other races are inundating them, and the Anglo-Saxons are in danger of
losing their unique racial identity.
Newsweek magazine of January 1, 2000, stated, “Between 1960
and 1992, the number of interracially married couples [in the United States]
multiplied more than seven times over.
Black-white unions are still not the norm, accounting for only 20
percent of interracial marriages, but the marriage color line has all but
dissolved between Asians and whites,” pp. 29-30. The article goes on to say that Hispanics are projected to become
the largest racial-ethnic group (after whites) by 2010. By 2030, non-Hispanic whites will be less
than half the U.S. population; a few decades later, whites will be the
minority. Latinos themselves are a very
mixed conglomeration of black, Indian, Asian, and Pacific Islander stock.
Famous golfer Tiger Woods is an example of
the growing segment of “Universal Brown Man,” coming from Caucasian, black,
Indian, and Asian ancestry. As racial
walls are being eradicated in today’s society, race has lost much of its
meaning. History is repeating itself,
as America (like ancient Rome) loses its racial distinctions. (See “The Race Change in Ancient Italy,”
by Ernest L. Martin, available from Giving & Sharing, for $4.00.)
Where does this leave us? God wants His chosen people, Israel, to be
racially and religiously intact. Any
improper marriage, any departing from God’s Truth, is fighting against Israel,
and fighting against God. The Bible
principle is against interracial marriage.
Applying the Bible principle in this age is difficult. It is a personal responsibility of each
believer to apply God’s laws with the aid of His Holy Spirit. May God guide our young people today!
Is it a sin, for example, for a black
person to marry an Asian? The Biblical
principle that God has created variety and that Israel was supposed to be a
microcosm of how all nations were to behave, is proof that He does not wish
them to racially mix. The principle of Deuteronomy 32:8 and Acts 17:26
does, in our belief, cover this issue.
Will there be different races and peoples
in the Kingdom of God? Absolutely yes! Egypt will join other nations to come to Jerusalem to celebrate
the Feast of Tabernacles, Zechariah 14:16-19. This means that neither Egypt nor Israel will be reduced to a
“Universal Brown Man,” but continue to be distinct people in the Millennium.
It limits the power of God to say, as
Gayman does, that illicit race mixing is irreversible. If the Almighty can create a river of pure
water to clean up the pollution of the world’s water supply, Ezekiel
47:8-12; Zechariah 14:8. He can
certainly clean up the pollution of mixed races, if He so wills. Because He allows mankind to go the
wrong way, does not mean that the Almighty sanctions such wrong
practices.
A marriage being contemplated today should
only be considered lawful if it satisfactorily answers two vital
questions: (1) Does this marriage
further the cause of God’s Truth?
Believers are not to marry unbelievers, I Corinthians 7:39,
“[you must marry] only in the Lord [fellow believers].” (2) Does this marriage further the
quality of the race or ethnic group of the parties involved? Race mixers today are attempting to build a
modern Tower of Babel, to annihilate the various races and peoples. This is racism at its worst!
Hate Group?
One of the most abused phrases in the
modern world is the term, “hate group.”
Liberals will label almost anybody they don’t like as a “hate
group.” According to the U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Hate Crime Data
Collection Guidelines,” October, 1999, page, 3, this is the American government
definition: “Hate Group — An organization whose primary purpose is to promote
animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from
that of the members of the organization, e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi
Party.” This is a good definition of “hate group.”
Using this definition, Dan Gayman’s Church
of Israel can in no way be classified as a hate group. In fact, Gayman teaches that all races
should be appreciated and respected, since they are creations of the
Almighty. The Church of Israel’s
statement of beliefs says, “We hold no malice or hatred for other races. However, we choose to worship with our own
ethnic people….” Although I vehemently
disagree with Gayman on the subject of race, it would be false to accuse him of
hate.
If a planeload of blacks crashed on their
property, I am sure that Gayman and his followers would be quick to help
relieve suffering, and prevent further loss of life
Israel is special to the Eternal. They are special because they have a special
job to do. If Israelites are racially
destroyed, they cannot perform the responsibility God called them to do. Deuteronomy 7:6-8 explains, “For thou
art [are to become] an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a
special [Hebrew: segullah, Strong’s #5459, ‘to shut up (because it is
precious), wealth, treasure, jewel’] people unto Himself, above all people that
are upon the face of the earth. The
Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye are more in
number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the
Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He had sworn unto your
fathers. . . .” They were to become a
“kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” Exodus 19:5-6. In other words, Israel is God’s instrument
to share His Truth and way of life with all other peoples.
Isaiah 43:10 adds, “Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My
servant whom I have chosen.”
God gave His statutes and judgments to
Israel for a purpose: “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and
your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these
statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding
people. For what nation is there so
great, who hath God so nigh unto them. . .” Deuteronomy 4:6-7.
Do the marriages of the Anglo-Saxon peoples of North America, Western
Europe, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand further the advancement of the
purpose of Israel? May God guide His
people to make wise marital unions. As
Gayman properly concludes, it would be wrong for us to judge another person as
“racially unfit” for membership in the Church of God. Let God be the judge, as we work out our own
salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12. W
RESHAPING
THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER:
Samuel Huntington
is a Professor at Harvard University and director of the John M. Olin Institute
for Strategic Studies and was director of security planning for the National
Security Council in the Carter Administration.
He is noted as one of the world’s most distinguished political
scientists.
His recent
work, The Clash of Civilizations and The
Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996, 369 pages,
ISBN: 0-684-81164-2), has drawn major acclaim and comment from around the world
for daring to inform liberal Western leaders that their reshaping of the world
is doomed to failure and will backfire if they continue on their current track.
While our
leaders go about their business attempting to build a world trading and
cultural framework, an international order which would supposedly bring about
world peace and prosperity for all - Samuel Huntington raises some concerns
which, if ignored, could spell the end of Western civilization as we know
it. His argument, based on current
trends and historical precedence, will see the West subsumed into other
cultures and civilizations, unless current trends are arrested. His reasoning should not be lightly
dismissed.
For
decades, the post World War II generation has assumed a world divided on
ideological and economic lines. But
with the collapse of communism, the Cold War system which we were so accustomed
to is no longer the model for international relations or understanding the
world’s conflicts.
Today the
most important distinctions between peoples are no longer political/economic --
but once again cultural. People define
themselves in terms of values, history, ancestry, language, customs and
religion. As such, future conflicts
will be between civilizations. They
will become the battle lines of the future.
These probable clashes pose the
greatest threat to peace.
He further
argues that while the West assumes that its civilization, language and values
are being superimposed upon the rest of humanity, trends and statistics bear
out the very opposite. Western
civilization is in a steep decline and is taking on board the features of other
civilizations. For instance, English is
not becoming the world language and its usage is declining in real terms. And there certainly is no evidence that a
global culture is emerging that is based on Western values.
In
recognition of the “right to life” of all civilizations, Professor Huntington
proposes a new model for world peace: a new international order based on
civilizations maintaining their existence and co-operating, rather than one
civilization imposing itself upon another, or being subsumed. Building a new world system that attempts to
reshape other civilizations in the image of the West has not been successful
and will not be attained.
Yet his
wise deliberations have been largely ignored by the liberal-left ruling
classes, universities and media. Sections of the old ruling classes go along
with it, but they no longer control the institutions that could bring his
proposals to pass.
Western
society, with its tremendous economic prosperity, fresh from its triumph over
European Communism, has a successful facade which belies its weakness which
lurks beneath the surface. Society is
in deep decay and our civilization displays evidence of a lack of will to survive. Historically, civilizations experience a phase which may be
described as a “blissful golden age with visions of immortality ... ended
either dramatically and quickly with the victory of an external society, or slowly
and equally painfully by internal disintegration.” (Page 103)
Professor
Huntington’s warning to Western leaders is clear: our civilization has a “right
to life” on mother earth, but trends indicate that it will disappear unless we
display leadership and a will to ensure that it continues.
Yet
our leaders do not mind if we are being bred out. Some are actively encouraging
it, being direct political and philosophical descendants of the 1968
melting-pot generation, and thus enemies of the West (and God Himself).
By MICHAEL MADIGAN
07jun01,
www.news.com.au
THE average Aussie is rapidly turning into a young Asian woman living in
Sydney or Melbourne.
The latest snapshot of our population reveals the Australian-born
Caucasian is a dying breed, replaced by predominantly Asian immigrants and
their offspring.
The national social sketch, released yesterday, also shows that
Australians are living longer and are less likely to die of cancer, heart
disease and car accident than they were 10 years ago. It also reveals that grandparents are the most popular form of
child care.
The gap between male and female life expectancy hovers at around
5.5 years with today's women likely to live to 81.8 and men to 76.2. Alcohol
and tobacco consumption have fallen dramatically while the number of doctors
has grown to 241 per 100,000 people.
The national sketch, released by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, also shows:
BOYS are falling further behind girls at school;
THE elderly are living with fewer household luxuries.
AVERAGE hospital stays have dropped to 3.9 days which is two days
below a decade ago.
According to the snapshot, a quarter of Australia's population in
2000 was born overseas (4.5 million).
The Asian-born segment comprised one quarter, quadrupling from
1981 to reach nearly 1.1 million in 2000.
They in turn have produced nearly 300,000 offspring who are
inheriting elements of their parents' culture. The Asian population is
concentrated heavily in the 20 to 44 year agegroup with about 91 per cent
living in capital cities.
Females outnumber males among the Asian-born, most significantly
among the Philippines immigrants where males are outnumbered two to one. The
most common Asian country of birth is Vietnam at 174,400 or 3.9 per cent of the
Asian-born population.
The high number of Vietnamese stems largely from the flood of
"boatpeople" who arrived in Australia following the Vietnam War.
The Bureau of Statistics Australian Social Trends 2001 says
numbers swelled further after new settlers sent for their families and more
recent refugees arrived. The number of Australians leaving their country
permanently also doubled in the five years to 2000.
"The recent higher levels of emigration are causing concern
that skill shortages are being created or exacerbated in some fields," the
ABS said.
quotes from old WCG
literature
“THE REAL CAUSE OF THE RACE CRISIS” by
HWA
OCTOBER 1963, PLAIN TRUTH (page 27):
"In the days of Noah, likewise, THERE WAS ONLY ONE MAN WHO WAS NOT GUILTY OF THIS PERVERSION OF INTERMARRIAGE! God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever! "Noah was the ONLY man on earth who was not guilty of this SIN of intermarriage! Otherwise God would have shown respect of persons. ALL other living humans were destroyed - PUNISHED for this sin of interracial marriage. "Notice it, now again! "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Eternal" (Gen 6:8). WHY? Notice the next verse: "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations" (Verse 9). "The original word Moses used for "perfect", in the Hebrew language, was "tamiym" (pronounced taw-meem). You will find, in the lexicon, it means "without blemish, complete, full, perfect". The Companion Bible, commenting on this verse, says: "Perfect - Hebrew, tamiym: without blemish as to breed or pedigree. All flesh corrupted but Noah." "Further, this same work comments: "This shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection, but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption." "Now, consider what this means. "Noah's wife, also, was of PURE racial stock - pure white, in the likeness of Adam. Otherwise, Noah would have been guilty of racial intermarriage. So all three sons, born from Noah and his wife, were WHITE - the original stock kept pure." "The subject matter of the chapter is the generations ancestry of Noah. Exceeding wickedness had developed through those generations reaching a climactic crisis that ended that world. What was this universal evil and corruption? Jesus described that universal, corrupt evil as "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage". Eating food and drinking is not evil. Marrying is not evil in itself. There had to be a wrong use and excess in eating, drinking and marrying - the evil was in the manner, and in the extent of eating, drinking and marrying." "......Marrying, to be evil, had to be as in Genesis 6:2 when men "took them wives of all which they chose". There was rampant and universal interracial marriage - so exceedingly universal that Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations...." "God originally set the bounds of national boarders intending nations to be separated to prevent interracial marriage....... when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of people" "Mankind should have learned it's lesson by the flood, but man cut off from God, and swayed by Satan had not....." -------------------------------------------------- Why AMERICA Is Cursed!Good NewsNovember 1957Vol. VI, Number 11 "Regarding other races and nationalities, "Thou shalt make no covenant with them ... neither shalt thou make marriages with them" (Deut. 7:2-3). America made herself the ally of godless, heathen Russia. America is falling victim today to the Communist propaganda of MIXING THE RACES, contrary to God's commands! God Himself scattered the races at the tower of Babel. God decreed they shall remain SEGREGATED until the end of this world, and the coming of Christ". -------------------------------------------------- EXPLORING ANCIENT HISTORY -- THE FIRST 2500 YEARSCompiled by Roy SchulzSocial Studies Department, Imperial Schools at PasadenaPasadena, California, 1967 "Lamech and Adah Lamech was a "pioneer" -- in the wrong direction. He was not only a strong, violent man who practiced bigamy. He was the first man to initiate RACIAL INTER-MARRIAGES. Notice, again, Genesis 4:19. Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah. Zillah was of the line of Cain. Racially she was of non-white stock as was probably Lamech. It was perfectly all right for Lamech to marry Zillah. But Adah was very probably of the family of Seth. She came from the white line before the Flood.* (* This statement appears in the 1961 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Article "Lamech".) In marrying Adah, Lamech had DARED to bridge the gap between the races. He had rebelled grossly against God -- and did it knowingly." --------------------------------------------------
|
Coon, C S (1939) |
The Races of Europe. The Macmillan Co, New York. |
|
Fernandez-Armesto, F (1994) |
The Peoples of Europe. Times Books, London. |
|
Gaisford, J (ed) (1978) |
Atlas of Man. Cavendish
Books, London. |
|
Grant, M (1995), Hrdlicka, A |
The Racial Origins of the Founders of America. Scott-Townsend Publishers |
|
Haddon, A C (1912) |
The Wanderings of Peoples. Oxford University Press. |
|
Huxley, F (1975) |
Peoples of the World in Colour. Blandford Press. |
|
Johnston, H |
The Living Races of Mankind. Hutchinson & Co, London. |
Patrick, T (ed) |
The World of
Mankind. Paul Hamlyn, London. |
|
Ripley, W Z (1899) |
The Races of Europe. Johnson Reprint Corporation. New York. |
|
Robertson, W (1981) |
The Dispossessed
Majority. Howard Allen, Florida. |
Human Biology – Suggested Reading
|
Baker, J (1974) |
Race. Foundation for Human Understanding. Georgia. |
|
Barnett, S A (1971) |
The Human Species. A Biology of Man. MaGibbon & Kee, London. |
|
Kuttner, R E (1967) |
Race and Modern Science. Social Science Press, New York. |
|
Mather, K (1964) |
Human Diversity. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. |
|
Pearson, R (1974) |
Introduction to Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. |
|
Pedder, I J (1972) Wynne, E G |
Genetics: A Basic Guide. Hutchinson Educational, London. |
|
Batterson, R F (1984) |
“America’s Post-War Immigration Policy”, Journal
of Social, Political and Economic Studies, vol 9, no 3. |
|
Bilbo, T G, Senator (1947) |
Take Your Choice. Separation or Mongrelization. Mississippi. |
|
Blainey, G (1984) |
All for Australia. Methuen Haynes, Sydney. |
|
Bohm, F (1986) |
“Europe: ageing before its time”, Europe,
Jan: II ff. |
|
Bouvier, L F (1983) |
“The Future Racial Composition of the United
States”, The Mankind Quarterly, vol 23, nos 3&4. |
|
Brimelow, P (1995) |
Alien Nation. Common Sense about America’s Immigration
Disaster. Random House |
|
Campbell, B (1960) |
American Race Theorists. USA. |
|
Campbell, G (1991) |
Immigration and Consensus. A discussion paper. |
|
Campbell, G (1991) |
Immigration Policy Proposals. |
|
Castles, F G (2000) |
“Population Paradox. A declining fertility
rate is a greater threat to Australia and the West than overpopulation”, Sydney
Morning Herald, 12 January |
|
Dalton, H (ed) (1993) |
Will America Drown? Immigration and the Third
World Population Explosion. Scott-Townsend
Publishers, Washington. |
|
Dayton, L (1995) |
“The Race is Over”, Sydney Morning Herald, 14
April. |
|
Ehrlich, P & A |
The Population Explosion. |
|
Huntington, S (1986) |
The
Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon
& Schuster, New York. |
|
Jacob, A (1965) |
White Man. Think Again! California. |
|
Jamieson, J (1991) |
“Marxian Biology”, Conservative Review,
Feb: 23-26. |
|
Kristol, I (1998) |
“Petrified Europe”, Wall Street Journal,
2 February. |
|
Nn (1990) |
Wake Up! Magazine
(entire edition) |
|
Norton, C (1998) |
“True Love an Uneven Race”, The Australian,
1-2 August. |
|
Raehn, R V (1990) |
“Two Irreconcilable Worldviews: The West
versus Marxism”, Conservative Review, May: 12-17. |
|
Rhodes, T (1996) |
“American whites in decline”, Weekend
Australian, 16-17 March. |
|
Rimmer, S J (1991) |
The Cost of Multiculturalism. Flinders Press, South Australia. |
|
Stacy, G P (1985); Lutton, W |
“The U.S. Immigration Crisis”, Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies, vol 10, no 3: 333-353. |
|
Stevens, W P (1985) |
“The evolutionary implications of the
contemporary world population explosion and the mass migration of Human
Populations”. The Mankind Quarterly, Spring: 260-273. |
|
Stewart, C;
Sexton, J |
“World migration nearing crisis level, UN
warns”, The Australian, 7 July. |
|
Teegardin, C (1996) |
“American melting pot to darken”, Sydney
Morning Herald, 16 March. |
|
Thomson, M (1985) |
“The Immigration Bomb”, Conservative Digest,
Nov: 65-68. |
|
Usdansky, M (1992) |
“Minorities are headed toward the Majority”, USA
Today, 4-6 Dec: 1 |
|
Various authors (2000) |
“Last Days of a White World”, The Guardian,
3 Sept |
|
Vining, D R (1984) |
“The Demographic decline of homo occidentalis:
a review of Germaine Greer’s Sex and Destiny – The Politics of Human
Fertility. The Mankind Quarterly, vol 24, no 4: 447-458 |
|
Walsh, K (2000) |
“Your average Aussie. The face of Australia is
changing in more ways than one. Cultural changes are likely to reflect
changes in our physical features.”, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 March. |
|
Yurco, F (1989) |
“Were the Ancient Egyptians Black of White?”, Biblical
Archaeology Review, Sept-Oct: 29 |
|
Armstrong, G T (1965) |
“The Race Riots of the Future”, Plain Truth,
Oct: 5-6, 28-32. |
|
Armstrong, H W (1963) |
“The Real Cause of the Race Crisis”, Plain
Truth, Oct: 3-4, 6, 22-23, 26-31. |
|
Armstrong, H W (1980) |
“Why did God raise up the Nation Israel – and
Deny them spiritual salvation?”, Good News, March: 2-27. |
|
Hoeh, H L (1957) |
“The Race Question”, Plain Truth,
April. |
|
Hogberg, G H (1987) |
“The most overlooked news trend today”, Worldwide
News, 1 Dec: 7. |
|
Nn (1978) |
“Adopted children get new home”, Good News,
20 Nov: 15 (most children available for adoptions are those of mixed race). |
|
Personal Correspondence Dept (1980) |
Origin of Races. WCG. |