For universalist Christians, the so-called “Great Commission” is a direct command from Christ to literally preach the Gospels to every people in every nation on the face of the Earth. And once that has been accomplished, they believe, Christ’s return can proceed.
These universalists, however, never stop to ask themselves why 99% of the Christians obeying this command and taking the Gospels to the most remote, hostile, and savage peoples and lands in the world are of white European descent — and conversely, why virtually none of their non-White “converts” are participating in the Great Commission.
These same universalists also fail to see any significance in the fact that the Gospels had already reached all of their white European ancestors over 1,100 years ago — within a 1,000 years after the death of Christ, all of Europe — including remote Iceland. And all had heard the Gospels and converted to Christianity — and stayed converted — without the aid of mass communication, modern modes of travel, or even a modern printing press to distribute the Bible.
Yet despite all those modern amenities to help spread the Gospels today, Christian evangelists struggle to find new proselytes in the Third World — while Islam is by far the fastest growing “religion” worldwide.
Perhaps there are reasons that Christianity has largely failed in the Third World — for reasons that these Christian evangelists have completely ignored — which are spelled out right in the both the New and Old Testaments.
In a chapter from his book Is Universalism Of God?, Charles A. Wiseman addresses the supposed universalism behind the Great Commission — and makes the case that the Gospels were not, in fact, intended to reach every upright biped hominoid — every “creature” — on the face of the Earth — but rather that they were intended for only one people scattered among the nations:
Chapter 6: The Great Commission
Perhaps nothing in the New Testament has been used more often to convey the idea of a universal God, or that God has opened the door to all races to be His special people, than the so-called “great commission.” One conservative Christian stated the usual understanding of the matter this way:
“It is true that in much of the Bible God dealt only with a particular people without regard to other peoples on the earth. But all that changed with the last chapter of Matthew. Now there is concern and love for all people.”
To understand this person’s position, we need to understand the verses he is resting his doctrine upon. After Christ’s resurrection, He walked and talked with His apostles and disciples. Then, in His departing words, Christ gave them one final instruction regarding the spreading of the Gospel:
And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matt 28:18-20).
A parallel account of this statement by Christ is given by Mark:
And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned (Mark l6:14-16).
A similar directive is found in Acts 1:8, where, after being with the disciples for 40 days after His resurrection, Jesus states,
But you shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8).
These last words of Christ directing His followers in regards to preaching the Gospel are often referred to as “the great commission.” The statements appear to be rather universal in nature, and thus are used by Universalists and humanists to assume that God has broadened the scope of His chosen people to include every person of every race. Previous to this Christ specified to whom His disciples were to preach the word to:
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 10:5-6).
Most Christians think this directive was changed with the great commission. Rather this verse was the first step or stage in the process of spreading the Gospel message to Israel. The message was first given to the Judeans — those Israelites who were still God’s people under the Old Covenant (Lk. 24:47; Rom. 1:16). They had the first opportunity to receive Christ and the Gospel — then it was to be given to the “gentiles” or nations since Israelites were scattered in many nations. So if that be the case, then the only change is one of geography — not race.
Universalists and humanist Christians say that the words of Christ are universal without restriction. To them that means that Jesus intended to have every nation and race of people preached to so they can be converted.
But the great commission was not taken literally by the disciples. First, they did not “teach all nations” the Gospel. They did not go to Greenland and teach the Eskimos, or to Japan and teach the Japanese — nor did they go to China, central Africa, Australia, or South America. They did not go to “the uttermost part of the earth,” such as the Hawaiian Islands.
Further the disciples did not “preach the gospel to every creature” — they did not preach to frogs, or horses, or elephants or kangaroos. But are they not “creatures?” If we take this instruction literally and universally, they must have been included, for Christ did say every “creature.” Since the disciples did not take these words literally, then neither should we; otherwise we have no right to claim them for our authority in evangelizing because the words were spoken to the disciples — not to us.
While Christ’s words are general or universal in nature, they obviously have a limited purpose and scope. What then was Christ’s intent, objective and reason for this directive? This cannot be obtained by only reading these words of the great commission — as that would obviously lead to confusion and erroneous conclusions. We must look at the context of the whole Bible. We need to consider all of the words of Christ to arrive at the context and what was His objective and intent behind His great commission to His disciples.
As we saw Christ wanted His disciples to go only to Israel (Matt. 10:6). He stated that “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24). We also read that the New Covenant — which was instituted by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:ll-14) — was made with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8). Christ was to cause “many of the children of Israel to turn to the Lord their God.” (Luke 1:16). It was also prophesied that the “children of Israel shall appoint themselves one head” which is Christ (Hos. 1:11). Christ said that He was the “door” or the way only for the “sheep” — and that as the shepherd He “gives His life for the sheep” — or died on the cross for them (John 10:7,11). Only Israel were called “sheep.”
So it is clear that the context of the New Testament tells us that God — through Christ — is still dealing with Israel. From Genesis up to this point in time, the concern is with this specific race of people. The rules of logic lead us to the conclusion that Christ’s great commission was intended to reach Israelites — unless the contrary is clearly indicated. As Jesus said, “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” — that is, not in Judea, which Christ must bring to Himself (John 10:16). Christ was going to bring these other sheep to Him by having His disciples preach the Word to all nations, i.e., by the great commission.
That reaching Israelites was the objective of Christ’s “great commission” can be further understood by what Christ said about this thing we call “Christianity.” In John 6, Jesus revealed that belief in Him is not that much of a free choice as most like to think. The Christians at that time were eager to follow God’s ways, as they asked Christ, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” (v. 28) Christ told them that the work of God was that they believe in Christ (v. 29). When they asked for a sign that they might believe, Jesus told them about the “bread from heaven” which if they eat will give them life (v.33). They thus asked Jesus to give them this bread so they could eat it, but He told them:
I am the bread of life; he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst.
Most Christians today think coming to Christ or being in Christ is some voluntary act that they can undertake on their own. That is what Christ’s disciples thought as well. They wanted to eat of the bread of life, but did not understand it was not up to them. Christ told them that only those whom God gives to Christ will partake of the bread of life or be in Christ:
All that the Father gives me shall come to me (v’ 37)….No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him (v.44).
Only those people that God draws or gives to Christ would be true believers and followers of Christ. Obviously God did not want or intend for all people on the planet to be Christ’s sheep.
Even though these people Christ spoke to were His disciples who followed Him and had seen His miracles, they did not believe Him about the process for being a Christian. They continued to question Him and said, “this is a hard saying, who can hear it?” Thus Christ reiterated the bottom line of Christianity for them:
There are some of you that believe not. . . .Therefore said I to you, that no man can come to me, except it were given to him of my Father (John 6:64,65).
The eating and drinking of the spiritual flesh and blood of Christ does not take place through the medium of faith, as commonly thought. Instead, when God causes people to consume these things, they are led to believe and have faith. Christians erroneously think that if you believe, you get the Spirit — whereas Jesus said if God gives you the Spirit, you get belief.
Faith is the result of having this new Spirit — it is not the catalyst that causes God to give this spiritual quickening. Like being born again, it is something God causes (1 Pet. 1:3). Thus, you can’t be a believer in Christ and have Christ in you unless God chooses to give you His Spirit. This message was so offensive and ludicrous to Christ’s own disciples, that most of them left Him on that day:
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WilI you also go away? (John 6:66-67).
Christ lost all of His followers (except the apostles) when He told them that Christianity was not like all the other religions of the world in which the people choose their own god. Some people will choose Baal or Molech as their god, others will choose Zeus, Mohammed, Buddha or Allah.
But with Christianity, God chooses the people He will have follow Him and be His people. All religions of the world are based upon a chosen god concept — whereas Christianity, like Hebraism, is based upon a chosen people concept. Yet Christians today, just like the first followers of Christ, find this chosen people concept to be horrible and offensive. Most Christians today have fallen to the ways of humanism, and the humanistic mind is in sharp conflict with the ways of God.
It is ironic that Christians today don’t realize that they, as white European people are Israelites, racially and physically, and that is why they are Christians and believers. But they can never accept that belief in Christ is based upon the chosen people concept and not just a matter of personal choice.
Christ said that there will be those who will have chosen Him, who call Him “Lord,” and make an effort to do good works in His name, but Christ will say to them, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23). Religions which are based upon a chosen god concept allow for universalism, since whosoever wishes to be involved may do so. But a religion based upon a chosen people concept is exclusive and not adaptable to Universalism.
Scripture makes it plain that the Gospel was not intended for everyone. Christ often spoke in parables so certain people could not understand (Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11,l2; Luke 8:10). In Mark 16:16 Jesus stated that when the disciples go to other nations, some will believe and some will not. Why? Because some were chosen or led by God to believe and others were not.
We also find that there were certain cities and provinces in Asia which the Holy spirit prevented Paul and Silas from going to and preaching the Gospel (Acts 16:6,7). This is another indication that the Gospel was not universal to all people. Paul told the Philippians that “unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ….to believe on him” (Phil. l:29). Belief was not totally a free choice with them — but rather God gave them the inclination to believe. Christ told Peter to “feed My sheep” (John 2l:16,17) — He did not say to feed the goats or the dogs.
Although the intent of the great commission was to reach Israelites, why did Christ use words that were so general in nature? Did Christ with these verses have His disciples and others to go to people that were non-Israelites? The answer is yes, He did. The commission would have them preaching and teaching to those who were not Israelites. Jesus never said to go only to the lost sheep of Israel because the disciples did not know who they all were.
For many centuries Israel migrated and was scattered throughout the nations, and were now part of those nations. Most were not known as Israelites or descendants of Abraham; instead they were known as Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, Scythians, Galatians, Laodiceans, Macedonians, Corinthians, Gauls, Goths, Parthians, and Hibernians.
The command of Jesus to preach to all nations was general or universal not for the purpose of converting all people and races, but so as to convert all Israelites, no matter where they lived or by what name they were called. Jesus never specified Israelites in His commission because the majority of Israelites in the world then had lost track or their heritage and identity as Israelites. When Christ had His disciples evangelize in their home territory, He specified that they were to go only to Israel because they knew who were Israelites and who were not.
In other nations, however, the disciples did not know in all cases who were the sheep (Israelites) and who were the goats. They did not need to know. They were to preach the word “to every creature” and the Holy Spirit would do the rest by selecting and guiding the true Israel people to Christ and the Bible. And what have been the results of the great commission? The white European people have embraced and adopted Christianity and the Bible while it has been ignored or rejected by all other races.
The New Covenant was instrumental in gathering the sheep to Christ. With this Covenant God said, “I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Heb. 8:10). By placing His law in their hearts and minds the Israel people would be compelled to follow God, the Bible and Jesus Christ. Only one people has exhibited this drive and motivation to follow Christ and the word of God — the Europeans.
The early European people had been entrenched in pagan ways and had pagan gods just like most people of the world. But when they heard the word of God and the Gospel, they quickly forsook their pagan ways and gods and accepted the Gospel and Christ. Although the Gospel has been preached to every nation and race since the first century, the white, European people are the only ones who responded to the great commission. As Christ said, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine….My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:14,27). Only the sheep — Israelites — would hear and follow Christ.
For centuries missionaries have tried to bring the Gospel and Christianity to India, Africa, Egypt, Arabia, China, Central and South America, the Pacific Islands, and American Indians. However, they have failed miserably in their efforts. It is only by duress or temptations of material necessities (food, clothing, money, farming equipment, building supplies, etc.) that the white man has been able to get even a small percentage of other races to go along with Christianity. In Mexico, the people follow a corrupted form of Catholicism which is entrenched in superstitions and pagan traditions, some of which were introduced by Spanish Jews. It is not at all Christianity.
In America the white colonists from the very beginning attempted to convert the native Indians to Christianity. Many of the founding documents specifically stated that one of the aims of settlement was for the “conversion of the poor ignorant Indian natives;” or “for the propagation of the Christian faith amongst the barbarous and ignorant Indians.” Missionaries in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries continued to try to teach the Bible and Christianity to every Indian tribe, but after four centuries the concept of a Christian Indian is practically unheard of. It is clear that God did not draw the Indians to Christ
[See: Declaration of the Lord Proprietor of Carolina, 1663; The Charter of New England, 1620; Charter of Rhode Island, 1663; Charter of Virginia, 1606 & 1611; Charter of Massachusetts Bay, 1629, et. al.]
Many other races, such as the blacks and many Hispanics, find an emotional fulfillment in following the rudiments of the Bible and Christianity. For them it is essentially a release of emotions — the shouting, dancing, laughter and feeling good. This is what attracts them to Christianity.
The small degree to which the colored races of the world have followed the Bible and Christianity is primarily because they are driven to do so by materialistic desires and needs, superstitions, or emotional stimuli. The white race on the other hand are spiritually driven — or rather drawn by the Holy Spirit — to the Bible and Christ. The colored races are following religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam. It is Islam which is the largest and fastest growing religion in the world — not Christianity.
The Christian missionaries took the great commission literally, and brought the Word of God to every corner of the globe and every person they could find. There was, however, nothing wrong in their doing so — they were actually doing what God wanted them to do but not for the reasons God intended.
The Christian missionaries thought the purpose of the great commission was to convert everyone to God’s ways and Christian living which was a big mistake, as attested by the lessons of history. God had a two-fold purpose behind the universal implementation of the great commission: 1) It would result in God’s Word reaching all Israelites, and thus converting the great mass of them; and 2) By including every nation and race, it would prove who are His chosen people and who are not.
This is not to say that the ways of God are not for all races of the earth — since the laws of God and biblical principles can benefit any people. It is just that they will never possess and follow God’s ways by evangelizing and preaching to them. This as been tried for nearly 2,000 years — and the results are self-evident. However, God’s people can use their material blessings to help guide and direct other people to the ways of God.
Luke
If our Lord said this.
Matthew 28:19 KJVS
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Then why just a few days later did Peter say this.
Acts 2:38 KJVS
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Every incident in the book of Acts where someone was baptized, it was in the name of Jesus Christ.
Is it important in regards to theology?
Romans 6:3-6 KJVS
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Tracy
Doesn’t the Bible say you can be grafted in? And, conversely, doesn’t the Bible say even if you are part of the vine, you can be cut off?
Doesn’t the Bible say in heaven are those from every nation, every tribe, every tongue?
Mark
There is a lot of confusion among Christians over Paul’s metaphor here in Romans 11.
The olive (or fig) tree is Israel, all twelve tribes. But Israel was broken up into the northern and southern tribes and sent into captivity. The southern tribes, Judah, Benjamin and Levi largely stayed in Judea after the Babylonian captivity. But the ten northern tribes remained “wild” or “uncircumcized”.
Christ came to reunite all the Israelite tribes, as Christ said in Matthew 15:24, “I come only for the lost tribes of the House of Israel”.
Yes, some branches could be permanently broken off — those Israelites who refused to believe in Christ.
The “wild” olive branches are from those “lost” ten northern tribes of Israel, and it was those tribes who were to be grafted back into the tree of Israel. That’s what Paul meant when he said, “All Israel shall be saved”, meaning not just the Israelites in Judea but also the ten “lost” northern tribes.
Christians often misunderstand what the meaning of “nations” is. A “nation” is not a geo-political entity as we understand today, that is, it’s not a “country”. A “nation” is defined in Genesis 10 as the original tribes or bloodlines that legitimately descended from Adam and then from Noah’s family.
The word “nation” is translated from the Greek “ethnos” into “gentile” in the NT, which is very confusing because people think it means “non-Jew”, but that’s not what it means. Depending on context, it can refer to those original Genesis 10 nations or it can also refer to those ten northern tribes of Israel who were to be “grafted” back in to the tree of Israel.
The Book of Revelation tells us that there are 12 gates to the Kingdom of Heaven. Those gates refer to the 12 tribes of Israel. Clearly not all people on earth descend from those 12 tribes. In fact, most don’t.
How do you know if you are from one of those tribes? The ten northern tribes of Israel migrated up into Europe, so people descendant from those original tribes, whether they know it or not, are actually from those “lost” tribes. All original Christians were from those tribes before the Europeans colonized the world and took the Gospels to people who are not Israelites or from the original Genesis 10 nations. Those nations, outside the Adamic creation, are not ever referred to in the Bible, nor can they be “grafted” in.
Early Church Father, Justin Martyr explained it this way: ““Christ is our King, and Christianity is our race which you knew once as Israel”
Explanation of who the “nations” are:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
Explanation of who the “gentiles” are:
https://christiansfortruth.com/a-closer-look-at-the-meaning-of-gentiles-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
West
Mark ……………..
Thanks for confronting these objections and defending the truth.
Just wanted to ask you your thoughts on the Martyr quote. It isn’t “word for word”. It is a paraphrase, and just wondered if you thought it was a fair rendering.
I hate getting called out for either quotes that were never said (i.e., the Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview) or other quotes that are taken out of context or re-worded etc., etc.
I love the Martyr quote …. don’t get me wrong. And no doubt Martyr understood that White people were the Israelites of Scripture. I think this is one of those —- “Is water wet” comparisons. They just knew it, so therefor they didn’t have to explain it.
However, the actual quote is — …As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race….”
Maybe we should just quote the original, instead of the paraphrase.
Thoughts?
Mark
West, fair question….
I think the original literal translation is far more difficult for most Christians to follow or understand, especially if they don’t really get the racial foundation of the covenants.
I prefer the paraphrase because it is direct and to the point without changing its meaning in any significant way.
Our priority is to win hearts and minds, and their attention spans are limited.
West
I agree …………….. I appreciate the paraphrase much more.
I guess I’m just now very cautious.
I’ve made so many mistakes over the years — I once promoted Alex Jones as an example.
So, now, all those people remember me as an Alex Jones supporter DESPITE the solid Biblical Truths I may present to them today. If that makes sense.
I’m always now trying to avoid the StrawMan argument against me. Amazing how easily people will find something so miniscule, to avoid facing facts and truths.
Thanks for weighing in.
Guy
Precisely, Tracy! Revelation 5 has the 24 Elders (representing glorified mankind) worshipping the Lamb because He redeemed them “…from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Israelites were a very specific people, and Israel is a very specific nation. Whatever holy mechanism creates a believer, those redeemed will be of every people and every nation, not just Israelites of the nation of Israel. Praise God, His Word is Truth!
Noland
It is necessary first to preach to all nations – and those that reject it, or accept it without sincerity – get destroyed when Christ returns:
” When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:” Deuteronomy 20:10-13
” But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Luke 19:27
sszorin
Christ says to the Jews : ̎Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you… ̎
Therefore, the argument of the article is wrong.
Hardy
You’re talking about Matthew 21:43, ““Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.”
So tell us, what is the “nation producing fruit” who was given the Kingdom of God in lieu of “the Jews”? Where is that mentioned? If it actually happened, that “nation” would be named, I assume….
Thomas H Mitchell
Isaiah chapter 65, verse 15 speaks of the kingdom of God being taken from the Israelites and given to another people called by another name. Jesus repeated that prophecy. This essay has numerous misreading, false interpretations, etc….
Hardy
God said emphatically over and over again that He would never completely cut off Israel, and that He would have a covenant with them forever:
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-Eternal-Covenant
Not only that, He made it very clear that the New Covenant would be with Israel, no mention of making any covenant with any other people (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
“31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Notice it says the covenant will be with Israel, not just Judah. But mainstream Christians claim that the 10 northern tribes of Israel were lost in the mists of history. If that is true, the Jeremiah is a liar. God promised to regather all of Israel. So where are those 10 northern tribes today?
https://christiansfortruth.com/heirs-of-the-promise-what-happened-to-the-ten-lost-northern-tribes-of-israel/
Thomas H Mitchell
John 3:17 ” For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world thru Him be saved.”
Acts 2:21 “And it shall come to pass that WHOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
West
sszorin …..
Have you read — https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
That word “jew” is typically not used on this site to refer to the Israelites of the Scriptures.
Hope you read the above article if you continue to comment here. And I hope you do.
Rexel
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+11&version=KJV
revelation 11:3-4 two witnesses are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+4&version=KJV
Zechariah 4:2 seven lamps are the seven angels/stars of the churches
Zechariah 4:3 olive trees beside the cup of life/bowl are the 2 witnesses.
Zechariah 4:11 olive trees
Zechariah 4:14 the two anointed ones
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation+1&version=KJV
Revelation 1:11 seven churches Ephesus,Smyrna,Pergamos,Thyatira,Sardis,Philadelphia,Laodicea.
Revelation 1:20 seven stars are the angels.Seven candlesticks are the seven churches
Only two churches God is pleased with in Revelation. Philadelphia&Smyrna.
https://www.biblestudyforlife.com/seven_churches_in_revelation.htm
Philadelphia&Smyrna are the two witnesses in the end times.
edom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDEZg9QZtw
CFT Team
Rexel,
What does all this have to do with the article? Please explain. It is not self-evident.
Luke
Matthew 28:19 KJVS
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
If this verse is authentic then why a short time later did Peter say this.
Acts 2:38 KJVS
[38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
A distinction you may not have covered in this article.
Galatians 4:21-26 KJVS
[21] Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? [22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. [23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. [24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. [25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. [26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Verse 26 also sheds light on who the woman is in the 12 chapter of Revelation.
West
What is your point? Very unclear at least to me.
Maybe you could elaborate.
What are you trying to say? Are you agreeing with the article — disagreeing ……….???
Luke
Matthew 28:19 is used to justify not only the trinity but the great commission.
The bedrock of many of the large mainstream denominations that have been around for centuries.
As for the Scriptures in Galatians, there’s two covenants, the law in the covenant of promise. The Jews of our Lord’s day were covenant of the law and would not inherit the promises made to Abraham. That’s why Jesus said that Abraham was not their father.
West
Hey Luke,
Before I comment in more detail, would you mind explaining what you mean by saying —
“……..The Jews of our Lord’s day were………”
I know this may sound like a stupid question. But that word “jew” is very controversial here on this website.
You are speaking of “Israelites” of Christ’s time ……………. correct?
Again ………. apologies for what might seem like a stupid question. But again …… the word ‘jew’ is controversial, because it really is a bad translation of the intended word.
It should be translated one of 3 ways —- a Judean; a Judahite, Judea, or in my opinion, a broad or universal word for an Israelite.
RB
But not all Judeans, people in Judea, were Israelites?
West
RB….
I believe you are correct.
Luke
I use it in the same way that apostle Paul used it.
Acts 13:5 KJVS
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
Acts 13:45 KJVS
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
But then Paul had this to write in Romans.
Romans 2:28-29 KJVS
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Gil Robles
No he came for us. His people. We need to be focusing on our people.
Merchant fever
Jesus Christ, an Israelite, and as an Israelite would have kept the command to be a separate and holy people, and the idea that He invited all racial non-Israelites into his ministry makes no sense at all. It makes me wonder if Paul really did go behind Christ’s back after he was gone and promote Christianity to non-Adamic people? I can’t believe that, but every mainstream Christian believes that.
Menard
Ezekiel 44:9 makes it really clear that God does not tolerate non-Israelites anywhere near “his sanctuary” and his “house”. Yet universalist Christians claim God “changed his mind” and now allows anyone and everyone in His sanctuary and House, meaning congregation.
Why would Christ, who knew these Israelite commands from God, do a complete 180 turnaround on this issue? Because some of the “Jews” rejected Him? Why would that change His mind? To make the “Jews” jealous of the Africans and Asians? Seriously?
“Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, 7In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. 8And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. 9Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.”
Meanard
By the way, Ezekiel 44:9 is proof that the Ethiopian in Acts 8 could not have been a black African, because as such he would not have been allowed to worship with the Judeans in their congregations.
Thomas H Mitchell
I cannot at this moment reference the prophet, chapter and verse; but, paraphrasing as to it being a small thing to save the House of Israel and the House of Judea only, but to save all the nations of his creation.
Hardy
You mean Isaiah 49:6, “And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”
Who were the “gentiles” referred to here? The “goyim” in Hebrew? This refers to the original Genesis 10 nations — which are tribes of people originally descended from Adam, via Noah, and cannot possibly refer to every “person” and “country” in the world today.
Thomas H Mitchell
1Corinthians 4:6 “… that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
Thomas H Mitchell
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
Thomas H Mitchell
Romans chapter 10, verse 12 & 13
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek…..
West
Thomas,
What is your point?
“Who” are the Gentiles — aka “The Nations” in your understanding?
For your edification —
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
Thomas H Mitchell
I am only quoting scripture. Getting into the parsing of words and the nuance of the English translation of Hebrew and Greek languages leads to disputes. Scriptural discernment is in the eye of the beholder.
West
Thomas….
“…..Scriptural discernment is in the eye of the beholder……….”
What an odd thing to say. There is Truth and then there is Error.
You seem to be trying to correct CFT but you won’t defend your position with “interpretation”. Just quoting Scripture isn’t always self-evident.
Scripture Interprets Scripture. I hope you would agree.
It would be a ridiculous game for two people to simply throw their favorite verses at each other without explanation — somehow each person believing their “scripture” carries more weight, thus winning the debate.
If you disagree with CFT and some of the commenters, but aren’t willing to explain “why” …………………… why would you waste your time here?
Seems egotistical quite frankly. And the opposite of “to sharpen iron” which we are called to do.
If you feel we are in error ……………….. please tell us. This is your duty.
“…Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Fabrizio Lopez
One of my biggest beliefs is that Christianity started being corrupted when it became “organized”.
Maybe I am wrong but I believe that faith should be kind of individual because when it becomes organized like for example the catholic church then if someone does a wrong interpretation and it gets accepted and promoted as an objective universal truth then Christianity become just another corrupted variation which impose through force, coercion or just simple teaching these wrong doctrines.
By leaving faith as an individual thing at least this imposition of the false doctrine either doesn’t happen and the only risk is that these individual Christians get the wrong opinions on doctrines directly by themselves like way too many people who follow no demoniations do.
Sometimes I also wonder what led early Christians to become catholic and what these early Christians would think about us modern Identity Christians? I kinda think that even back then they wouldn’t agree that much on our ideas of race even if they are correct because they never lived in a multiracial place and saw no reason in underlining the racial aspect and this led to “confusion” and flat out lies and wrong acts like the catholic church making saints for blacks and mongrels and condemning racism and etno-nationalism even before the second vatican council.
Also let’s not forget the blasphemous and heretic cult of saints, It is particularly strong in Italy where my father is from, there are some saints who are black or who are wrongly believed to be black and regardless it sickens me how catholics worships these modern icons like this image shows:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Festa_di_San_Calogero%2C_bacio_statua_%28Agrigento%29.JPG
Coming from a catholic background I also have to admit that catholics are almost totally closed to the ideas of Christian Identity, many of them don’t like the church but they believe that “traditional catholicism” is the solution and that the only mistake was the second vatican council, they are blind to the lies that catholicism is based on and its fallacies and I can guarantee you that they don’t even know anything about their religion they just do it to do it without knowing what they are even doing or what it is about.
Protestants, lutherans and others instead are more open to it cause they seem to actually worship Jesus and not the pope and the church itself and the abscense of the strict gerarchy I previosly mentioned makes seeing the truth way easier.
The fact that the catholic church used to forbid believers from reading the Bible says it all and what makes it extremely ironic is that they did it to avoid the circulation and promotion of heresies and false beliefs.
Charles Hull
The Roman Empire had its multi-racial aspects to it, and Roman writers commented on it. Same with ancient Egypt. They were all aware of racial differences. Arab traders were around Judea at the time of Christ, no doubt. So, yes, the early “church fathers” were aware of these issues, too. But would they have considered these non-whites candidates for conversion? Doubtful. Let them into your church, the next thing you know, they will be in your daughter’s bed.
West
Hey Charles……
Great comment. I’m curious about this part —- “….Arab traders were around Judea at the time of Christ, no doubt. ….”
I’m not suggesting you are wrong by no means, but I would enjoy reading some documentation here.
More so, because I’m trying to understand for myself personally how prominent were race-mixed people circa 1st Century. “Arab” means to have mixed. So an Arab was not an original peoples. More so, I’m just trying to understand the demographics of the Levant around the first century.
Question — what did an Arab from the first century look like compared to Arabs of today? As an example.
I figured the “Arab” first had to come to be by the mixing of yellow and black. And then many years later, White admixture got in there.
I’m basing my theory on more of the popular beliefs — Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant et., al., who theorized there were 4 Original People Groups—- White (Adamic), yellow, black, and red. Perhaps there were others …………… but this is what I am going with so far.
Yellow, black and red would have been Pre-Adamites.
So, I’m just curious what the demographic make-up, in and around the Levant, looked like Circa the First Century. I am no expert on Historical writers. I suspect someone who has studied Alexander the Great in great detail would be someone who would know.
An interesting detail that we all here understand but “Christendom” is totally clueless about is that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to “Hide”. Joseph and Mary being White, how could they hide amoungst alleged “brown” peoples of Egypt? Rhetorical.
So Christendom solves that dilemna by teaching Joseph and Mary were brown like the Egyptians. Those black hebrew israelites go so far as to claim Joseph and Mary were black!
Anything you could share would be great. Thanks.
Charles Hull
Here’s some history of the Arab (Nabataean) trade with Rome, which became very dependent on certain rare items from the Far East:
https://www.nabataea.net/explore/travel_and_trade/ancient-trade-items/
West
Thanks Charles!
West
Charles ……….
I gave it a cursory read yesterday. Right away I think there is a slight problem in that there doesn’t seem to be any description of who were the orginal “nabataens”.
It is just assumed. But interesting information. So, thanks again for getting me started. I really need to find those particular writers of that day who gave us physical descriptions of various people groups.
I suspect the orginal nabataens looked much different from the modern Arab. Or I should say “Arabs” at the turn of the 20th century. I watched “Lawrence of Arabia” a few months ago. Even noticing those “extras” who played Arabs look much different from today’s modern Arab and that was filmed in the 60’s.
Go look at black and white photos of some of the first pictures of the Red Indian and then compare them with today’s “Indian” in film/tv. Those early Indians were purely aboriginal (Reds). Today’s Indian has White admixture.
Just an example of the point I’m trying to make.
Someday it will all be revealed. Until then …………. interesting conversation. Cheers.
Miche
According to Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones, in his book “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”, the Catholic Church issued a papal bull in the 15th or 16th century declaring that race would not be considered in any conversions to the Church.
This decree was obviously done on behalf of the crypto-Jews first, but it was also at a time when Spain and Portugal were building their colonial empires in the Third World, and converting the natives was a way of increasing the power of the Church in all the conquered lands. Purely cynical, nothing to do with faith or the belief that these savages from the Third World could truly every be real Christians.
And nothing has changed, as the Catholic Church is one of the biggest supporters of Third World immigration into Europe and the USA. Like the Jews, they are a fifth column subverting and destroying white Christendom.
Max
Since you failed to publish my comment you have proven that you are not a Christian at all but have shown because of your racist hatred for all people who are not white that God has handed you over to a great deception and you are in danger of the just wrath of a holy God who commands you to repent of the false gospel you are peddling and proclaim the whole counsel of God lest the blood of men be upon you and you prove yourself to be a reprobate.
I sincerely pray that God humbles you soon and that it doesn’t take tragedy in your life to wake you up from the darkness you are currently in to the glorious truth found by grace alone in the Lord Jesus Christ.
CFT Team
Max, we didn’t publish your previous comment because it added nothing new to what you have previously stated. You ignore all evidence that disproves your position. This entire website, all 2000 articles challenges your position, but you simply ignore it all. And you ignore the fact that many readers here came out of dispensational Christianity that adhere to, so we all know your doctrine, quite often better than you do.
You talk about “racism” as if it is one of the greatest transgressions before God, yet can provide no verses from the Bible to support your position. If it is so “evil” where is the commandment against it?
Remember, God chose Israel. God chose Abraham, chose Issac, chose Jacob, and his enitre bloodline over all people on Earth, which is the very definition of your “racism”, yet you don’t have a problem with that. Christ repeats that same preference, yet you have no problem with that. Then you make up some false theology that Christ somehow changed his mind and brought everyone into the New Covenant in complete contradiction to Jeremiah 31:31.
Perhaps it’s you, not us who needs some humbling of spirit, because right now you seem to have no problem sitting in God’s Judgment Seat and condemning a whole lot of Christians as if you are in any position to do so. But like many who hold your unscriptural doctrine, in our experience, you can barely hide your hate everyone who dares challenge you, and have no problem casting them into condemnation for trying to be consistent with God’s actual words.
Max
CFT,
Thank you for having the courage to reply.
True Christians are called to test all things (1Thes 5:21) according to the Scriptures for that is the reason why they are given (2 Tim 3:16).
I have read many articles on this website and do agree with those that expose the lies associated with Judaism but feel it is my duty to lovingly warn you of the error of promoting hatred for others which is not biblical and contrary to the commands of God and the example of Christ who laid down His life for His enemies who deserved His holy hatred but by grace were given mercy and love.
I too came out of dispensationalism and understand the predominant eschatological views held by most of evangelicalism to be wrong which in turn has also influenced world affairs.
God is indeed a discriminating God who knows all things and has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills making one vessel for honor and another for dishonor (Rom 9:18,21) according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:5) but we do not know all things especially the hearts of others and are commanded not to condemn others lest we be condemned ourselves (Luk 6:37).
Racism is a term that was invented by evolutionists and then used by marxists to divide nations to be more easily controlled. There is only one race and that is the human race where everyone bleeds the same colour which is SIN because we are all equally cursed in our first parents no matter what nation, tribe, people or tongue we come from (Rev 5:9). God does not save by race but by grace!
Old Testament Israel was a picture and shadow of God’s chosen people in the New Testament fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed in whom all nations shall be blessed (Gen 22:18) and not just the one. They were prophesied to reject the Messiah and the Gospel was sent to them first even with parables before the Gentiles to make them more accountable unto a greater judgement (Mar 4:10-12, Isa 6:10).
The true Israel of God (Gal 6:16) is composed of those who have been circumcised of the heart and not just of the flesh (Rom 2:28-29) in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-33 as well as Ezekiel 36:26 which is a picture of regeneration and known as being born again into a new creature (2 Cor 5:17) by the Holy Spirit through the ministry of the Gospel which is commanded to be proclaimed to the whole world to be a testimony of the glory of all of the goodness of God in both His perfectly just and holy judgement against sin and His righteous grace in saving His chosen people from that sin in Christ Jesus which works as an aroma of life unto life to the Elect for their salvation and an aroma of death unto death to the reprobate (2 Cor 2:16) to make them more accountable unto their greater just condemnation and eternal judgement.
Those who are the Elect of God are the true chosen people of God and are granted a new heart and spirit to be able to obey God’s just command to repent and believe on Christ and those who die in their sin rejecting the truth of the forgiveness of sins in the Gospel of Jesus Christ will prove themselves to be reprobates eternally and justly hated by God regardless of the colour of their skin or their affiliation to any nation, tribe, people or tongue.
I only seek to be consistent with the Word of God in its complete context and do not hate those who challenge me and in fact welcome any correction according to Holy Scripture but not according to the traditions and biases of men. If you believe I am in error and call yourself a Christian then it is your duty to lovingly correct me, failure to do so will prove the love of God is not in you (1 Jn 3:17).
West
Max….. (CFT — please delete my first attempt)
Just wanted to point out a few errors you have made and continue to make and you never have a defense for any of the facts/information that has been presented here.
Your first mistake — which is borderline “Slander” —
“…..it is my duty to lovingly warn you of the error of promoting hatred for others ….”
Prove it. Where is this “hate” that you believe exists? I corrected someone the other day for calling the Chinese “chinks”. I didn’t consider that “hate” necessarily, I just thought it was bad form or bad taste.
CFT does not “hate” anyone. We do not promote “hate” of other peoples. Where do you get this idea? We hate Evil and those who do evil. But we don’t hate other races. Show us the proof of this hate? And while you are at it, why don’t you give us your definition of “hate” as it seems to change from year to year. “Preference” is not hate …. let me remind you.
Second you wrote — “…There is only one race and that is the human race where everyone bleeds the same colour which is SIN…”
Forget the ‘sin’ part for the moment. You still have not yet proven that there is ONE human race — we will assume you mean that every person living today is a descendant of Adam and Eve. Prove it Scripurally and prove it scientificaly and with human experience — anecdotatly. But just remember, this topic is not something new on this website. You will have to answer those comments and articles that might have a different interpretation/understanding.
Take my question to you as an example ………………… you competely ignored it. This does not bode well for your credibility. You keep rebuking me but yet won’t answer my question/challenge. Because I once believed as you and I didn’t have an answer for my own question so I had to conclude that it is IMPOSSIBLE. It will never happen ….. not in a million years. So, how do you respond to that?
“…..I only seek to be consistent with the Word of God in its complete context and do not hate those who challenge me and in fact welcome any correction according to Holy Scripture….”
I want to believe this to be true about you. But you are “silent” when it comes to ‘correction’. So, I’m having a hard time believing you are sincere. In order to defend your position, you also have to understand the position you are challenging. You have yet to prove that you even have an inclination to want to know what we believe and why. You simply climb up on your soapbox and preach without ever “listening”.
You can’t just keep preaching your party line without first responding to the MANY challenges that have been given to you not just from me but from others as well as the many articles that support our position(s).
You keep coming back here which I find encouraging. The Holy Spirit must be working within your soul otherwise you would have been long gone by now.
Sincerely, West
Ps…..another book you need to read before making another comment — https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Origin-Of-Race-And-Civilizaiton.pdf
West
Max…..
Just wanted to point out a few errors you have made and continue to make and you never have a defense for any of the facts/information that has been presented here.
Your first mistake — which is borderline “Slander” —
“…..it is my duty to lovingly warn you of the error of promoting hatred for others ….”
Prove it. Where is this “hate” that you believe exists? I corrected someone the other day for calling the Chinese “chinks”. I didn’t consider that “hate” necessarily, I just thought it was bad form or bad taste.
CFT does not “hate” anyone. We do not promote “hate” of other peoples. Where do you get this idea? We hate Evil and those who do evil. But we don’t hate other races. Show us the proof of this hate? And while you are at it, why don’t you give us your definition of “hate” as it seems to change from year to year. “Preference” is not hate …. let me remind you.
Second you wrote — “…There is only one race and that is the human race where everyone bleeds the same colour which is SIN…”
Forget the ‘sin’ part for the moment. You still have not yet proven that there is ONE human race — we will assume you mean that every person living today is a descendant of Adam and Eve. Prove it Scripurally and prove it scientificaly and with human experience — anecdotatly. But just remember, this topic is not something new on this website. You will have to answer those comments and articles that might have a different interpretation/understanding.
Take my question to you as an example ………………… you competely ignored it. This does not bode well for your credibility. You keep rebuking me but yet won’t answer my question/challenge. Because I once believed as you and I didn’t have an answer for my own question so I had to conclude that it is IMPOSSIBLE. It will never happen ….. not in a million years. So, how do you respond to that?
“…..I only seek to be consistent with the Word of God in its complete context and do not hate those who challenge me and in fact welcome any correction according to Holy Scripture….”
I want to believe this to be true about you. But you are “silent” when it comes to ‘correction’. So, I’m having a hard time believing you are sincere. In order to defend your position, you also have to understand the position you are challenging. You have yet to prove that you even have an inclination to want to know what we believe and why. You simply climb up on your soapbox and preach without ever “listening”.
You can’t just keep preaching your party line without first responding to the MANY challenges that have been given to you not just from me but from others as well as the many articles that support our position(s).
You keep coming back here which I find encouraging. The Holy Spirit must be working within your soul otherwise you would have been long gone by now.
Sincerely, West
Ps…..another book you need to read before making another comment — https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Origin-Of-Race-And-Civilizaiton.pdf
Max
West,
Hate is the opposite of love and when articles are written here proclaiming that there is no need to love everyone such as that one recently where we first exchanged comments and that the greatest news this world has and will ever hear in the Gospel is not to be proclaimed to all people with love and that people who are of different colour are somehow inferior in intelligence and morality and not worthy to hear the Gospel are all proof that there is not love for others but what remains, unjustified hatred not for what a person has done but for the person them-self because of the way they are born.
To not hate evil is in itself evil but how do you determine who is evil when God Himself pronounces everyone as being only evil continually (Gen 6:5)? Are we then to hate absolutely everyone? The New Testament describes hatred as being murder as it does lust as being adultery. God’s standards are perfection of thought, word, deed and motive and who can stand perfect before Him? Therefore, the greatest commandments given to man are based in love to God and man, including those who are you enemies.
The Scriptures declare that God made one Adam and not many and the proof of there being one race is that all of his descendants are cursed as he was, slaves to sin and addicted to evil, guaranteed to die because of it. If you do not believe that, then just try to stop sinning and go for a walk to your local cemetery.
As the Scriptures prove, after Babel, man was dispersed throughout the earth and his language confused which is why Revelation 7:9 states that in heaven will be people from all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues with no mention of races because there is only one.
West
Max,
“….. after Babel, man was dispersed throughout the earth and his language confused….”
The only thing this verse proves is that God confused man’s “language”.
West
Max,
I am going to include “Gary B’s” comment to you from that other article in which you had no response for —–
“…..Fallacy Two: that the dispersion from Babylon genetically isolated people into looking different via language. Look at Europe. The same people separated by language for two thousand years. Why didn’t they all look different, with different skin color etc? Can you really tell one European from another, aside from those countries that suffered from mixing from non-white invasions, like Spain, Italy and Portugal? Good luck. What a joke, sorry.
Racial differences are profound, and affect not only external appearance, but biology, immune response, skeletal form, brain formation and size, etc. From a genetic point of view, racial differences amount to over 8 million different genes! The glib video says the only “racial” different” is skin color relies on people’s ignorance, but for biblical universalists and egalitarians, this is “science”…….”
Now, take what Gary B just said and think about my question I asked you —
……In how many years would Iceland turn White again, if we were to replace every Icelander with 500,000 blacks from the Congo and restricted immigration — meaning no one else would be allowed on the island of Iceland.
In how many years Max? Just take an educated guess for me please.
Miche
Max wrote, “The Scriptures declare that God made one Adam and not many and the proof of there being one race is that all of his descendants are cursed as he was…”
Max you are using very convoluted logic here. You are claiming everyone on Earth MUST be descendant from Adam because everyone is “cursed” as Adam was without bothering to first prove that every person comes from Adam. Merely saying everyone is cursed from your perspective is not proof.
We know God created only the Genesis 10 nations from Adam. Those people not from those original nations are not part of the Adamic creation or bloodline.
We know that African and Chinese peoples are much older than the dating of Adam and Noah. The Flood, for example, was around 2300 BC, but archeological discoveries prove that Chinese Jiahu (c. 7,000 BCE – 5,700 BCE) “culture” appeared much early than this. The Aboriginies have been in Australia for over 50,000 years! Therefore, they cannot be descendants of Noah or Adam.
What the Bible tells us is clear, “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Gen. 5:1). In other words, this Book, the Bible is not about any other people but those who descended from Adam, and so it implicitly acknowledges there are people not of the “generations of Adam”. If the Bible were about “everyone”, this verse would read, “This book is about everyone because everyone is from Adam” but it doesn’t say that, but you merely ASSUME that’s what it means.
Also, you’ve offered no proof or even common sense explanation as to how every person, every race and ethnicity on Earth today could possibly be descendants from Shem, Han, and Japheth, all of the same bloodline and genetics. Separating the Genesis 10 nations by language, as you’ve falsely claimed, does not and did not and cannot change their genetic makeup.
Max
Miche, West,
You obviously do not understand genetics and the variations that are available when the gene pool is exponentially increased through the combination of different genes in procreation within a kind. The Chihuahua and the Great Dane are both of the same kind of animal but greatly differ. The sons of Noah carried within themselves the potential for the variations seen today among all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues who God dispersed across the earth where so-called “racial” characteristics that people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) “account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation.
https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/
The Scriptures plainly declare that death came into the world because of the sin of Adam therefore if there were any made other than Adam they would never die. Other than Enoch and Elijah who came from Adam being part of the many generations that make up his genealogy, do you know of any others who have escaped the curse of death?
You can choose to trust secular dating if you wish but I find no evidence for the reliability of their methods and see them as inventions to try to justify their godless presuppositions.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Miche
Max, you are engaging in a logical fallacy called “begging the question”. Read about it here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/begging-the-question-and-distorting-scripture-in-biblical-exegesis/
Basically, you argue that Noah’s genetics were a like a dog’s — that he must have contained all possible genetic variations we see in people today — because all people came from Noah. Do you not the the circular reasoning here?
Tell us where in the Bible it says that Noah was multi-racial? Or his sons or wife? Don’t waste your time. It doesn’t.
We do know that the Bible says Noah was just/righteous, meaning without sin. We also know that he was “perfect in his generations.” What were his generations? His genealogical record. He was unblemished, uncorrupted. Pure Adamic. The Hebrew confirms this:
https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf
In order to have multi-racial children, you must be impure genetically. Your ancestors must have race mixed. Common sense. That’s what you are alleging for Noah and/or his wife. That they are the offspring of race mixers.
Nowhere does the Bible say Noah held the potential genetics off all people everywhere — universalists made that up to prove their doctrinal error.
But the Bible does make a point of saying the exact opposite of Noah. God preserved Noah and his wife because they had remained pure in a corrupt world.
Which makes sense. If you are going to start humanity (Adamkind) all over again after the Flood, you would start with the purist example of your creation. A couple like Adam and Eve. Pure.
Not only does your multi-racial theory contradict the Bible, it slanders God, claiming He is a liar, by claiming that Noah was not saved because he remained pure.
Physical corruption is a reflection of moral corruption. In order for your theory to be true, Noah could not have been “perfect in his generations.” And if Noah was “perfect in his generations” then he could not have been genetically anything like a dog, and he could not have produced all the races we see today.
West
Guy …….
You would fall into the category here of “Christian Universalism”.
I used to hold to that theory. I just don’t anymore because I haven’t heard a good argument for it yet.
Of course, I would never in a million years tell a non-white person they have no business believing in Jesus Christ and reading the Scriptures. I will leave the Eternal Judgement to God.
My problem with Universalism “Historically” is that in hindsight, I can see how Evangelism of the non-white races has only hurt the White Israelite Race. Not helped.
You said NOTHING about the very article you commented on. Out of respect to this site, please read the article and the comments and defend your position by REFUTING the points made in the article and in the comments.
Hope to hear from you.
Sincerely.
man
First of all, we know the fruit of Great Commission, in most nations there are believers in Christ Jesus ,His Church. They are everywhere , and in some cases a lot of them , take house churches in China.
This article is confusing those who don’t know the heart of God.
Why Jesus wept over Jerusalem ?, because Jews rejected Him, so Gospel was carried to Gentile nations.
We know from the New Testament that some Jewish believers did not like the idea of Gentile Christians not following The Law ( Judaism) ,so much that Apostle Paul had to confront them personally , please read Letter to Galatians ch.2. They like to be The chosen nation, so much that we get articles like this one.
Gospel of John 3v16 gives one condition to all people, to believe.
CFT Team
Man, So all you’ve done here is repeat the dispensational party line. No need to really, everyone here knows it very well, even perhaps better than you do, as many of us came out of it.
Did you know that the Galatians were originally Israelites? Bet not. Does that change the meaning of the epistle? Why did James address his epistle to the “12 tribes of Israel abroad”? Where were these 12 tribes who were not called “Jews”? There is obviously much you’ve ignored to promote your universalist dispensation.
If you truly want to be able to understand this issue more deeply, we’d highly recommend the following 3-part series: “The Error Of Christian Dispensationalists: Did Israel Reject Jesus?”
https://christiansfortruth.com/the-error-of-christian-dispensationalists-did-israel-reject-jesus/
man
Your answer is a manipulation. You have ignored an obvious sign that preaching The Gospel to all nations is valid and stand the test of bringing the fruit of many people of all nations coming to know Christ and His Gospel. If you deny this, there is no credibility in you.
CFT Team
Man, no “manipulation”. Just facts. Unlike you, we read the Bible in context, which destroys your dispensationalist take on it.
We’ve written extensively on who the “nations” are, and who they are not. The “nations” have a specific meaning in Scripture, and it doesn’t mean every “country” in the world today, which you seem to believe. Read our essay on the subject and learn something new. Consider the idea that you’ve been misled by your ministers.
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
Amber Rose
Thank goodness I am not the only one who believes this!
West
Amber Rose …………….
Do you mean “here” on this forum; or out in the world?
Å Bøy
What do we make of the Chinese [forbidden by the State] underground churches, who seem to hold to a better Christian philosophy than most Western churches?
To clarify: the chinks themselves have started massive missionary campaigns to reach the unchristian peoples to their west with the Gospel. Their hymns are filled with ideas of suffering and dying for the Gospel. Much better than the secular love songs sung in so many Protestant churches today (where the songs say “you” but rarely “you my god”).
Are the chinks not Christian? I mean, I know they’re descendants of Ham (hence the “Han” race), which is pretty alarming, but how does the author here reconcile his message with James’s message of “I will show you my faith by my works”, especially considering the fairly orthodox-sounding works of the underground church in China? The chinks may be weird and off-putting, but they’re not unintelligent savages.
I hope everybody sees this as a sincere question. I’m not intending to stir the pot or rock the boat, I just would like some apologetics.
robert anselm
It’s a little ironic you chose James to quote. Did you not read the very first verse of his epistle:
“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”
He’s addressing Israelites, and Israelites only. Are Chinese now Israelites? Everything has a context in Bible, and universalists can make their case only when ignoring context, like James 1:1.
Thomas H Mitchell
Romans 9:8 “That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but, the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
West
A Boy…..
“…..I know they’re descendants of Ham (hence the “Han” race)…….”
And how do you know that?
Please include any documentation you might have.
On a personal note, I find it strange that on one hand you admire the Chinese; but then with the other hand, you use derogatory language to describe them i.e., “chinks”.
I would recommend that you simply call them “Chinese”.
I also would encourage you to read the articles here on “Pre-Adamites”. Seems to me the most logical theory.
https://christiansfortruth.com/pre-adamics-in-genesis-adam-was-not-the-first-man/
Å Bøy
I don’t admire the Chinese one bit, I don’t want any of them living in my country, and I wish I didn’t have to buy their products. No hate, just separate, is my judgment on the matter.
The Ham link is super easy to find if you do your own research. One of Ham’s lineage had a name only about one letter off from “Sinam” which is the Chinese word for “China”. Ever heard of Sino-Russian relations? Sino is the adjective form.
I’ll read the article you linked, and I would like it if you spent less time talking about me and more responding to my question. You’ve not stated a conclusion, let alone your reasoning.
West
A Boy …
“….The Ham link is super easy to find if you do your own research. ….”
I have done the research thank you.
Henry Clayton has responded to your question so I’ll let Henry’s comment speak for myself.
I’m sorry you perceived my comment to you as some kind of rebuke. It wasn’t. Perhaps it was an admonition to speak as if Christ were speaking. I doubt He would have called them “Chinks”. We have to be a witness to our Brethren — our Peoples who come here as children — weaker in the faith. We must speak as mature adults. Set an example to others. Our Critics come here also. Remember that. They are always looking for the smallest things to discredit us.
Ok? No big deal. Please respond to Clayton. Peace to you.
Å Bøy
Good call, sir. And same to you.
ynot
A boy, here’s the problem with your “Ham” connections to China. You’re basing the connection based on the English translation, not the original Hebrew which Genesis was written in.
In Hebrew, Noah’s second son mentioned in Genesis 9:18 is named חָ ם
And remember, Hebrew used no vowels. How does that connect to China?
Henry Clayton
A boy, please show where in the Bible it says that the Chinese descended from Noah’s son Ham. Was Ham Chinese? Was Noah? Noah was clearly a white Adamic man, and his wife was Adamic, too, so how exactly would you get Chinese people out of a white couple? Chinese people come from Chinese people, no? The “curse” of Ham doesn’t mention anything about how the “curse” changed Ham’s ethnic/racial identity, no?
RB
Are the underground churches in China legitimate? I wonder if they are just some sort of (((CIA))) operation.
Not too long ago, the Methodists held a conference to go gay. The representatives from Korea and Africa blocked the measure then to go gay. Africans and Koreans are not Israelites or Adamics, but they were used to help Adamics preserve some shred of Christianity.
Similarly, the Chinese might adhere to the tenets of the faith as best they can but no, they are not Christians.
Forrester
I agree, it reminds me of the Dalai Lama, who was part of the Tibet resistance against the communist Chinese, and the Dalai Lama was, in fact, on the payroll of the American C.I.A.
https://geopolitics.co/2016/12/19/mainstream-media-confirm-dalai-lama-is-a-cia-asset/
https://fortune.com/longform/dalai-lama-biography-an-extraordinary-life/
https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/02/the-dalai-lama-and-the-cia/
Barry Lydon
Here’s an interesting video on the underground churches in China. They “worship” the way blacks in the American south do, very emotional. But the video makes clear that these Chinese are converting to “Christianity” as a reaction against communism, which they “want nothing to do with.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCHInA6UMg
So this is a form of reactionary Christianity. They aren’t embracing Christianity for what it truly is and what it offers them. Rather, it is political, as they associate it with “free” America and the “anti-communist” stance that most Christians take. Monkey see, monkey do?
Å Bøy
Could be so. I’ve heard that elsewhere.
West
Luke ……
I think you missed my point/question entirely.
Would you agree that when Paul uses the Greek word — ioudaios —
Paul is referring to Judahites, correct?
We here at CFT do not equate modern jewry with the Israelites of the first century.
You would agree right?
On a side note — my question was over 6 months ago — July 2022.
Where have you been???
Karl Gharst
Good study! Creature implies “from the Creator.”
“…All these things My Father hath not planted will be uprooted…”
He didn’t plant mongrels.
Lerch
I’ve previously read a work written by Arnold Kennedy.”The Exclusiveness of Israel”. Showing through scripture starting from the OT through the NT, that God has dealt with only one race/group: Israel. I enjoyed the read and thought he put to rest the fallacy of universalism. Also putting to rest the fallacy of God no longer dealing with Israel, but all the promises, covenants having now belong to the church.
Flanders
“RACE IS THE ISSUE”
https://www.truthfromgod.com/now_articles/race_is_the_issue.html
——>>
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In this verse the word mistranslated “God” is the Hebrew word ELOHEEM. This is the “family name”, or sir name, of YAHWAH according to the ancient text of Genesis 2:7, “And YAHWAH ELOHEEM formed ET YADAM”. There is a multitude of ELOHEEM spoken of in Genesis 1:26. “And ELOHEEM said, Let us make adamites in our image, after our likeness”. Psalms 82 is all about the ELOHEEM. Everywhere the King James Version uses the word “god”, the ancient text uses the word ELOHEEM. Jesus YAHWASUA quotes Psalms 82:6 in John 10:34 “Ye are gods” ELOHEEM.
YAHWAH has a family of which he is the father. He took them out of himself in heaven “before the foundation of the world.” Those having a desire to continue in this message are ELOHEEM. You have a hunger that your father YAHWAH placed within you. It is time to understand “Who you are” according to the Bible. You may not yet realize how special you really are, but as a child of YAHWAH you are more important to him than all of his creation, and as his child you are ETERNAL. You are the bleeding offspring of YAHWAH ELOHEEM in the earth.”
—-
“As the child of YAHWAH, you preexisted this world, and this is all “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” (Ephesians 1:4).”
—-
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30)”
“Before The World Was”
https://www.truthfromgod.com/now_articles/before_the_world_was.html
Arnold Lee
Sharing the Bible with non-Whites in the hope of turning them into better individuals has completely backfired.
That too, I think, is another proof of this article.
West
Arnold …………..
I often wonder if “spreading the gospel” was a cover for profit, greed and laziness. Sure, there were a few sincere people who thought they were doing ‘good works’. The bulk of this “Great Commission” was accomplished by the Catholics, funded by the ruling class looking to line their pockets.
But it happened, and like you say, we are suffering the consequences.
Interesting conversation none the less.
Crush Limbaw
The instructions given by Jesus was to ‘make disciples’ – preaching is NOT making disciples. I often kid some of my Evangelical friends that a two week mission trip to South America in winter is not making disciples.
A perfect example of making disciples is outlined in Deuteronomy 6 with raising children.
West
Great point Crush!
david james
At the end of Mark’s Gospel, everything from verse 9 to the end has been added by a later scribe.
This is fraud…15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Greg Orion
Yes, I always thought the verse about preaching the gospel “to every creature” was strange and did not match the writing of the rest of Mark, and the other gospels.
It’s a jarring phrase, and nonsensical, too.
Why did they choose it instead of “every man”?
What were they trying to say?
Really makes no sense at all.
Beware of Judas Priests
The creatures are the Goyim(Gentiles). The Jews have long held the belief that the Goyim does not have a divine soul, nor the intellect to be regarded as human. Jesus and the apostles share this belief.
West
??? Are you on the right Webpage?
I’m very confused by your comment.
barscz
You are using a modern day definition of “creature” to make your point, and that’s an anachronism. “Creature” in the NT clearly does not have the same meaning or connotations as it does for us today. No, Jesus and the apostles were not Talmudic Jews, as you seem to be suggesting. Nor are today’s Jews related to the Jews of the time of Christ.
Percy
Wiseman clearly believes that Romans 11:17-20 must refer to the “lost” ten northern tribes of Israel, rather than the people descendant from the original Genesis 10 nations:
“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree….The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.”
Only Israelites were “broken off because of unbelief” — this clearly cannot apply generally to the Genesis 10 nations, aka “the nations”, aka “the gentiles”.
John Mellon
Not all Greeks were Israelites, but there certainly were Israelites among the Greeks (at the time of Christ). I guess the same could be said for the Romans, that there were Israelites among the Romans who considered themselves Romans but who had no idea they were Israelites.
And I think that’s true today with most Europeans. 99% of most Europeans have no idea that they may have Israelite ancestry.
They need to be told.
Which is not to say that 99% of Europeans are Israelites. I seriously doubt that. But certainly within the people of white European ancestry, most of today’s Israelites can be found — and I’m obviously not talking about Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israelite groups.
West
Hey Percy ….
I have Wiseman’s pamphlet. I’ll have to dig it out of boxes somewhere. I have many of his books/pamphlets, but I’m no expert on Wiseman’s theology.
Question — do you believe Wiseman taught that the “Nations” were simply lost Israelites as most CI people believe?
Not a huge error in my opinion. I understand ‘why’ they make this error. But, in my opinion, it does make us look ‘hard-headed’ I suppose when challenged by Jesus’ words — Matthew 21:43; and then of course Romans 11, for which Paul gets a bad rap as witnessed by David James here on this thread. Paul was not a Universalist and Paul was not an anti-nomian. But that is a different discussion entirely.
I know Wiseman did lectures and such but I just don’t know one way or the other what he taught on this particular subject — who are the Nations.
Just curious what you might know about the late Charles Wiseman on this particular topic. Thanks.
Percy
West, I agree. I think the Adamic Genesis 10 nations will be included in the Resurrection, not just Israel….will Adam be resurrected? Noah? Abraham? Issac? These aren’t Israelites, nor are they the only “righteousness” men before Israel was established.
But if you look at Matthew 21:43, you’ll see that it says not that the “covenant” will be taken from Israel, but rather the “kingdom of God”, and also that it will be given to another “nation”, not “nations”. So who is that nation? Which nation will the kingdom be given to? Or does it mean “any nation bearing forth the fruits” of the kingdom?
“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Percy
And as far as Romans 11 goes, is seems that the “nations” must be part of the same genealogical tree as the Israelites:
“For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.”
But the “natural branches” are different from “gentiles” or “nations” it seems,
“For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”
So are the “nations” not natural branches? Is the “root” in Romans 11 Jacob-Israel or Adam? If it’s Jacob-Israel, then then Paul’s metaphor of the tree and branches poses a problem, no? If Jacob is the root, then the branches can only be Israel. If Adam is the “root”, then the Genesis 10 nations can be the branches. Unless the “wild” branches refers to non-Adamic peoples, which I find inconceivable….
Percy
It seems that some branches of the “olive tree” are not “natural”. Sorry to go on about this, but I find it confusing, and I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way about Romans 11:
“For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” (Romans 11:24)
This is a very convoluted metaphor/simile here by Paul. There are two types of olive tree? A “wild” olive tree and a “good” olive tree? Is the “wild” olive tree the Genesis 10 nations with Adam as its “root”, while the “good” olive tree is Israel with Jacob as its root? Ironically, Jacob-Israel is actually a branch, then, of the wild olive tree with Adam as its root. Either way, the only grafting that would be “contrary to nature” would be to try grafting a non-Adamic into either of these trees.
That said, I do get a sense that Paul created some unintended confusion with this metaphor/simile.
West
If we stop to think about it …………. Abraham was not the only White person living at that time when God singled out Abraham. There must have been hundreds of thousands of Adamites living at the time of Abraham, scattered throughout the world and quite possibly even in far remote places like Australia and New Zealand. Just watched that fascinating documentary —- “Skeletons in the Cupboard – New Zealand”.
Seems the older CI group teaches that these people were either race-mixed out of existence or somehow married into Israelite tribes. I just don’t buy that theory. I don’t see why it’s so dangerous to suggest Adamites living during the time of Christ and beyond also have access to the Tree of Life. That would make sense to me.
Again …………. fascinating conversation. Certainly not something to divide over. I understand why some CI people are adamant only Israelites have access to the Tree of Life. They are trying so hard to disprove Universalism that any “hint” that some other nation of peoples have access to God, is an afront to them so they fight so hard to “ram” those difficult passages to mean Israelites only. To me there is Harmony when we understand that those passages are speaking of Adamic men and women. Easy … no problem for me.