In our article, “Edom In The Old And New Testaments,” we prove conclusively that Esau and his Edomite progeny were unmixed Adamic people; however, we would like to delve a little deeper into one of the crucial points we made concerning Hebrews 12:6 which says,
that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
Some Christian circles insist that the Hebrews writer is claiming here that Esau was godless and sexually immoral. They insist that the sexual immorality alluded to here must have been “race-mixing” specifically. As such, often we have enough to cover in our articles that we cannot load them with even more detail. We are always hopeful not to have to go into painful levels of detail, but sometimes we find it necessary — and this is one of those cases.
GRAMMATICAL AND LOGICAL CONTEXT
We will have to pay specific attention to the Greek grammar in this case. The passage in the Greek is rendered as follows:
Lest (μή — G3361 — Adverb) any (τις — G5100 — indefinite pronoun-nominative) fornicator (πόρνος — G4205 — noun-nominative) or (ἢ — G2228 — conjugation) profane person (βέβηλος — G952 — Adjective-nominative) as (ὡς — G5613 — adverb) Esau (Ἠσαῦ — G2269 — noun-nominative) who (ὃς — G3739 — relative pronoun-nominative) for (ἀντὶ — G473 — preposition) meal (βρώσεως — G1035 — noun-genitive) one (μιᾶς — G1520 — adjective-genitive) sold (ἀπέδετο — G591 — verb-accusative) the (τὰ — G3588 — article-accusative) birthright (πρωτοτόκια — G4415 — noun-accusative) of himself (ἑαυτοῦ — G1438 — reflex pronoun-genitive)
Note that the words “any” — “fornicator” — “profane person” — and “Esau” — are all written in the nominative case. In ancient Greek, words in nominative case often relate to the subject of the sentence. Therefore, “any fornicator or profane person as Esau” collectively are the subject — or subjects — of the sentence. In other words, although it says “fornicator or profane person as Esau,” each of these designations — “fornicator” and “profane person as Esau” are not distinct from one another in terms of the Greek case.
Furthermore, they are separated by the Greek conjunction “ἢ” — mostly rendered “or.” This conjunction is inherently disjunctive. “Disjunction” is a logical concept which can also easily be represented by the English word “or.” Let’s take a logical scenario to express this principle — if A is true, then the condition for X is met — also, if B is true, then the condition for X is met.
If A or B, then X. If A and B, then X. If not A and not B, then not X. If A and not B, then X. If not A and B, then X. However, just because A or B may satisfy X, there is no logical connection between A and B. If A is true, it never means B is true. If B is true, it never means A is true. All we can say for sure is that A and B may each satisfy X.
Any claim to a logical connection between A and B makes the scenario fundamentally not disjunctive. For example, “If I eat an apple or an orange, I will have eaten a fruit.” If I eat an apple, does it mean I’ve eaten an orange? Of course not — hence the “or” is disjunctive.
Returning to Hebrews 12:16 — to reiterate, “lest any fornicator or profane person as Esau” are all in the nominative case. These are the subjects of the sentence. In other words, nothing in the grammar suggests that “fornicator” and “profane person” are both being used to describe “Esau.” Yet the nouns in the subject — “fornicator” and “profane person as Esau” are connected disjunctively by the conjunction “or.” Consider Matthew 10:39,
The one who has found his life will lose it, and the one who has lost his life on My account will find it.
The two statements have been separated by the conjunction “καὶ” — rendered in the English, “and.” The Greek word for “and” in this case is truly conjunctive in the logical sense, meaning that both statements must be true simultaneously — Thayer’s Greek Lexicon calls it “copulative.”
Hopefully this highlights the difference between conjunction and disjunction — in the logical sense — between different conjunctions — in the grammatical sense.
The Hebrew writer is saying that if one is a fornicator — or if one is profane as Esau — then another condition is met. The writer is not saying that if one is a fornicator, then one is also profane as Esau. That would be like saying — according to the prior example — that if I ate an apple, then I must have eaten an orange as well. Yet what condition is the writer referring to? Hebrews 12:14-16 says,
14 Pursue peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
The writer states that we must “pursue peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Then immediately in verse 15 he says, “Observing (ἐπισκοποῦντες — G1983) lest (μή — G3361) any (τις — G5100)”. In the NASB translation above, this is translated, “See to it that no one…” “Observing” (G1983) means basically just that — a careful diligence. “Lest” (G3361) is used to disqualify or negate what follows. Therefore, the writer is encouraging the reader to carefully observe that something doesn’t happen.
Yet the writer gives a few statements all beginning with “μή” — “lest.” See Hebrews 12:15-16 again, but this time we will highlight the “μή”,
15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; 16 that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
In each case he precedes his statement with “μή” meaning, “Make sure it doesn’t happen.” Logically, this is called “joint denial” — the condition is met when none of the criteria are true. For example, if I do not eat an apple or an orange, then I have not eaten a fruit. If either were true, then I did eat a fruit — so both must be untrue simultaneously for the condition to be met.
The condition the writer is referring to is “Pursue peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” He is saying we should make sure the condition is true, lest any criteria be met that contradict the condition. In this condition, he has used the conjunction “καὶ” — which is logically conjunctive. He is saying that “peace with all people” and “holiness without which no one will see the Lord” are simultaneously true — they are inherently connected.
This makes sense, because equating peace with holiness is a recurring theme in the New Testament (1 Peter 3:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:16, Philippians 4:9, Galatians 5:22, Colossians 3:15, Romans 8:6, and Ephesians 6:15). Thus if any criteria are met, then we can say for sure the condition is not true.
Let us review the criteria:
- Coming short of the grace of God
- (a) Root of bitterness springing up causing trouble, AND (b) by it being defiled
- (a) Sexual immortality OR (b) godless like Esau
Let’s say that Hebrews 12:14 — the condition — is equal to A.
Logically, we could describe these relationships as follows: If 1 is untrue and if 2 is untrue and if 3 is untrue, then A is true. If we are not doing those things listed in 1 to 3, then we are pursuing peace with all people, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Furthermore, If 2a is true, then 2b is true — and 2 as a whole is true. If 2b is true, then 2a is true — and 2 as a whole is true. If 3a is true, then 3b is not necessarily true — but 3 as a whole is true. If 3b is true, then 3a is not necessarily true — but 3 as a whole is true.
If we do not come short of the grace of God, then A may be true. If we do not have a root of bitterness sprint up causing trouble, then A may be true. Simultaneously, we will also be defiled. If we are not sexually immoral, then A may be true. If we are not godless like Esau, then A may be true. If we are sexually immoral, we are not necessarily godless in the same way as Esau. If we are godless in the same way as Esau, we are not necessarily sexually immoral.
Let us now consider each of the criteria more in depth:
1. The Lord teaches us in Matthew 18:23-35 that if we do not have mercy on our brethren, we will not be extended mercy from God. Therefore, if we do not pursue love and peace with all people — having mercy on them — we will fall short of the grace of God. Why? Because we did not have mercy on others. Therefore, if we do not pursue peace with all people, we will fall short of the mercy of God.
2. Here the author has conjunctively connected two concepts “root of bitterness springing up” and “causing trouble” with “μή.” He says that the root of bitterness and causing trouble are true simultaneously. Causing trouble in this context could mean causing trouble for one’s brethren, which the author equates with a root of bitterness having sprung up. Again, causing trouble for one’s brethren is not peace or holiness.
Interestingly, by saying “root of bitterness” the author uses a term found in Deuteronomy 29:18-20,
18 so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood. 19 And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will consider himself fortunate in his heart, saying, ‘I will do well though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land along with the dry.’ 20 The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His wrath will burn against that person, and every curse that is written in this book will lie upon him, and the Lord will wipe out his name from under heaven.
In the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word used in place of “wormwood” is “pikria” (Strong’s G4088) — the very same word used for “bitterness” in Hebrews 12:15. The author has equated causing trouble with this concept in Deuteronomy 29:18, of which it says in verse 20, “the Lord will wipe out his name from under heaven.”
This is another possible interpretation of the criteria the author has given. In Deuteronomy 29:18-20 the context is idolatry, which always leads to sin as it says in Deuteronomy 12:30-31,
30 be careful that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from your presence, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’ 31 You shall not behave this way toward the Lord your God, because every abominable act which the Lord hates, they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire for their gods.
If one sins — walking in the stubbornness of one’s heart, this would cause trouble for the one in whom the root of bitterness has sprung up, because their name will be wiped out from under heaven. Therefore, if the root of bitterness has sprung up in someone, it will cause trouble for them and they will fail to pursue the holiness without which one will not see the Lord. Of course “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) — and the Law hangs on love (Matthew 22:40), so sin would also cause someone not to pursue peace with all people — being unloving toward them.
Moreover, the author equates this condition with being defiled. The Greek word is “miainó” (Strong’s G3392) — which literally means to dye. Figuratively, it means to pollute or to stain in the broadest sense. In John 18:28 the group who led the Lord Jesus to the Praetorium refused to enter the Praetorium “that they would not be defiled (G3392)”. This makes sense, given that the root of bitterness in the context of Deuteronomy 29:28 refers to sin generally as a result of idolatry.
3. Note how suddenly the author uses the disjunctive “ἢ” — as opposed to the conjunctive “μή.” He is saying that the third criteria would not be met if the reader was either sexually immoral, or godless like Esau. Yet if one is sexually immoral, it does not mean that one is godless like Esau — and vice versa. If the author had meant that Esau was sexually immoral and godless, he would have used the conjunctive “μή” like in the prior criteria.
It makes sense the author would choose out sexually immorality specifically as it relates to holiness, as Paul says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived… the sexually immoral will [not] inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) In fact, the theme of this whole section seems to be being disbarred from the Kingdom of God — as we will see. As for the second part, let us read Hebrews 12:16-17,
16 that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that even afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
Paul says that the “law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners” (1 Timothy 1:9). Where Paul said “ungodly,” he is using the same word as “godless” in Hebrews 12:16 (Strong’s G952). Thus the author is calling Esau generally sinful — it is not a specific designation. He qualifies the statement by specifying what brought about that godlessness — Esau sold his birthright — and later found no recourse to get it back.
We know this very specific event which led to Esau losing his own birthright. Verily, the Scripture does not say sexual immorality led to losing his birthright. Rather, Esau disregarded his own birthright over something as minor as hunger — despite exaggerating his condition to console himself of his impetuousness (Genesis 25:31). This event even happened before the account of Esau’s marriage in Genesis 26:34 — so we conclude that before Esau was married, he had already given up his birthright.
Therefore, if the disjunctive word between “sexual immorality” and “godless person like Esau” were not enough, the context itself shows the disjunction between the two statements. Furthermore, sexual immorality makes us fail to “pursue… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14) — because sexual immorality is sin.
Likewise, being godless is also sin, because it leads us to contradict the law (1 Timothy 1:9). Being godless like Esau is tantamount to the impetuousness of Esau. Speaking within the same allegory, if we are godless, then we are wasting our birthright — impetuously wasting it on sin. Later on, we will find no recourse to get it back.
One might argue that sexual immorality may cause godlessness — and we are happy for that to be true, but it doesn’t help to prove that the Hebrews author is calling Esau sexually immoral. As we said, if he were calling Esau sexually immoral and godless, he would have connected them conjunctively — as he did in prior criteria — instead of disjunctively. The disjunctive connection shows that sexual immorality and being “godless like Esau” are different examples of the same thing — a state in which we fail to pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Furthermore, the author qualified — and specified — Esau’s godlessness by giving a concrete example.
In conclusion, the grammar of Hebrews 12:16 does not suggest that the author intends for the reader to understand Esau to be sexually immoral. On the contrary, the grammar is rather ambiguous. Moreover, the logical context indicates otherwise — that the author was not connecting sexual immorality with Esau, but rather with the initial condition provided in Hebrews 12:14.
A CASE FOR A CONCESSION
Let us assume — against the grammatical and logical context — as we have painfully shown — that the writer intended to say, “sexually immoral as Esau, or godless as Esau” — thus implying that we should not be sexually immoral like Esau, or we should not be godless like Esau. Take special note how awkward this sounds — as if we have a choice of which of Esau’s behavior’s not to emulate? In other words, we can be godless like Esau, so long as we are not sexually immoral — or vice versa.
Also take special note how we could not say that the writer could ever have implied, “sexually immoral as Esau, and godless as Esau.” The author would have had to connect them conjunctively — not disjunctively — in order for us to make that claim. But let us continue on against reason and see where this path leads us.
Thus for the saying, “that there be no sexually immoral or godless person like Esau,” we assume ambiguity. Two interpretations stand before us:
- That there be none like Esau, who was sexually immoral and a godless person. We have assigned sexually immorality and godlessness to Esau.
- That there be no sexually immoral person, neither any like Esau who was godless. We have assigned godlessness to Esau, and we have separated the designation of sexual immorality.
Let’s look at the grammatical cases of the words afterwards in Hebrews 12:16 — “…who sold his own birthright for a single meal.” Or as we rendered above in line with the Greek, “who for meal one sold the birthright of himself.” “The birthright of himself” are all in accusative case — because they are the object of the verb, “sold.” “Meal one” are in genitive case, because they are the object of the preposition, “for” — as in “who for meal one.”
We can deduce according to the grammar that clearly this section of the text was meant only to clarify or contextualize Esau’s godlessness. In other words, he was godless because he sold his birthright for a single meal. Another possibility — given that “sexually immoral or godless as Esau” are both in nominative case — thus disjunctively forming the subject — is that this section was meant to clarify or contextualize both “sexually immoral” and “godless as Esau.” Thus Esau would be described as either sexually immoral or godless because he sold his birthright for a single meal.
It just doesn’t work — because how can one be sexually immoral for selling one’s birthright for a single meal? Unless the meaning were metaphorical, in which case it just might make sense. However, this is not our view and neither is it the view of those who believe that Esau was a “race-mixer” — so we will leave it out. Although it does highlight the awkwardness of the path we are walking.
We are still left with options 1 and 2 above, and we would presume that those who believe Esau to be a “race-mixer” would hold to the second. We are by concession not denying that — grammatically and logically — this is a possibility.
In the first scenario, we do not need to make any extra assumptions. We could conclude that the writer of Hebrews is warning his audience away from sexual immorality. He is also warning his audience away from being godless like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. In this case, we do not need to make any extra assumptions in order to hold this valid interpretation.
In the second scenario, we could conclude that the writer of Hebrews is calling Esau sexually immoral in a way that is unrelated to the selling of his birthright. In other words, he is literally sexually immoral. In this case, we need to make an extra assumption: Esau was literally sexually immoral.
There are two competing scenarios, only one of which requires an extra assumption — the second. Therefore, in order for the second scenario to even compete for validity, we must prove that Esau was literally sexually immoral. Put another way, in isolation this verse cannot prove that Esau was sexually immoral — specifically because there are two possibilities — the first of which is true in isolation. Esau’s sexual immorality must first be proven before we can accept that the Hebrews writer is calling Esau literally sexually immoral. If we cannot first prove it, then we are begging the question — we are assuming the truth of our argument instead of proving the truth of our argument.
The question then is: Can we prove that Esau was sexually immoral outside of this verse? Verily, in the entirety of the Scripture, Esau cannot be proven to be sexually immoral. There is not one passage in the whole Scripture which says that he is sexually immoral — unless one begged the question to assume the truth of their own argument in Hebrews 12:16. Yet they might argue that in Genesis 27:46, Esau’s mother laments over the wives he has taken,
And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth like these from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?”
Some Christian circles accept this passage as prime facie “proof” that Esau took non-white wives — simply because Rebekah would lament over his marriage to them — as if that’s the only conceivable reason she would lament over them. This argument does not prove that Esau took non-white wives — it only assumes that Esau took non-white wives — because nowhere in the passage does it say that Esau took non-white wives.
One would first have to prove that the “daughters of Heth” — Canaanites — were non-whites, but as we have previously covered in depth, this is also not possible. In fact, we can assume only that Canaanite “daughters of Heth” were, in fact, pure Adamic people. Therefore, we cannot prove that Esau was a “race-mixer” simply for marrying the “daughters of Heth” — because we cannot prove that the “daughters of Heth” were non-Adamic. Again, at no point in the Scripture can it be proven that Esau was a “race-mixer.”
Let us — for the sake of argument — make another concession — now down a list of concessions — and say that Esau was indeed sexually immoral. In doing so, we will likewise liberally partake in the logical fallacy of begging the question — just like the Christian circles which hold this view. Who’s to say that Esau’s wives didn’t lead him into pagan sex-cults? Much in the same way that Israel were led into pagan sex with the Moabites — who were also white — in Numbers 25:1,
While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to commit infidelity with the daughters of Moab.
At least in this case we have a specific Scriptural example of what we are speculating about — pagan women seducing men into sexual sin — despite knowingly begging the question.
Furthermore, we have made the case in “Edom In The Old And New Testaments” that Abraham’s own family — where Jacob was sent to get his own wives — were indeed more righteous than the daughters of Heth. In “Ruth Was A Moabite — But Does It Even Matter?” we showed conclusively that the unrighteousness of the surrounding Adamic nations was a legitimate threat to the Israelites, despite them all being white people. Paul even warns us against “unbelievers” and “lawlesslessness” — even if they are Adamic — in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15,
14 Do not be mismatched with unbelievers; for what do righteousness and lawlessness share together, or what does light have in common with darkness? 15 Or what harmony does Christ have with Belial, or what does a believer share with an unbeliever?
We can easily conclude that this at the very least includes white Adamic people — because they, too, can be unbelievers and lawless. Moreover, he compares this condition to Christ and idolatry — something white people have engaged in for millennia. Paul even goes as far as to equate greed with idolatry (Colossians 3:5).
We also know that Abraham was married to a member of his own family — Sarah, the daughter of his father and another woman (Genesis 20:12). When Abraham chose a wife for his son Isaac, he commanded his servant in Genesis 24:3-4,
3 … you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live; 4 but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac.
Both Abraham and Isaac had taken wives from their own families. If Isaac merely wanted a white wife for his son, he could have gone to Gerar in the land of the Philistines, with whom Abraham already had a relationship — and even lived with in Genesis 20. Yet Abraham considered the Philistines to have “no fear of God” (Genesis 20:11) — so we can safely assume that the Philistines were not good spiritual candidates for a wife, despite them being Adamic people.
They could also have gone to Mizraim/Egypt for a wife, with whom Abraham had lived in Genesis 12 — and even had the Egyptian concubine, Hagar. Yet in like manner, Abraham did not esteem the Egyptian morality, as he feared they might murder him over his wife (Genesis 12:12).
Indeed, there were many options for Adamic wives in the vicinity of the land of Canaan. The Nile delta -and especially the land of the Philistines were closer to the land of Canaan than the land of Nahor where Abraham’s family lived. Moreover, even in ancient times there were highways — especially between Canaan and the Nile delta — to expedite travel. However, contrary to convenience, they specifically chose wives for themselves from Abraham’s family — who as we have already shown — were more righteousness than the candidate Adamic peoples who lived near them.
Furthermore, Esau broke the trend of his forefathers — who took wives from among their own families — by doing the very thing Abraham willed Isaac not to do — he took a wife “from the daughters of the Canaanites.” Surely Esau would have known the opinions his grandfather held of all the surrounding peoples? Therefore, when considering the neighboring peoples, it doesn’t make sense to assume that Canaanites were non-white merely because Jacob wasn’t allowed to take a wife from them. The situation simply attests to Esau’s callousness towards the traditions of his elders.
REBEKAH’S GRIEF OVER ESAU
We also observe a very common phenomenon among conservative Christian mothers — who at the prospect of their sons or daughters marrying worldly non-Christian spouses — would say, “What good will my life be to me?” just as Rebekah did (Genesis 27:46). Devout parents know the consequences for their children to become yoked to unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14) — it imperils the eternal souls of their children — and all their posterity. It would be disingenuous and self-serving to deny this obvious and common truth — so much so that even some conservative Jewish mothers — who are not even Israelites or Adamic — would feel that way if their sons married non-Jewish women.
Even if we were to concede that Esau were sexually immoral, we would have a far stronger case for sexual immorality which excludes “race-mixing” — given the Scripture we cited above. Having said that, there’s no need to make such a case because the Scripture never says that Esau was sexually immoral — which is at best a circumstantial presumption that conforms to a prior bias — begging the question.
As a final thought, we’d like to reflect on this presumption many make off the back of Genesis 27:46 — “I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth” — that Rebekah was a “racist” first and foremost who didn’t want her sons marrying “non-whites.” Many implicitly insist that the only issue Rebekah concerned herself with was the preservation of her progeny’s Adamic integrity. We assume Rebekah would have indeed been concerned over that integrity — however, we would argue that it was not first and foremost in her mind.
Some Christians’ concern for the Adamic integrity of their progeny comes from a fundamentally “racist” worldview which arises from an understandable indignation and anger over the debased and defeated state modern white people find themselves in — suffered at the hands of non-whites. The preservation for Adamic integrity comes from a desire to restore the white world to some imagined “former glory.”
Unfortunately, these motivations are a poor defense for our integrity as white people — as the failure of “White Nationalism” and “Aryan paganism” can attest. We have all seen cases where even Christians whose primary focus is racial preservation fall into lust over non-whites because their fleshly, sexual desires for some non-whites override their fleshly desire for Adamic integrity. Despite readily acknowledging the need to guard against miscegenation, some continue in miscegenation because they simply cannot control themselves.
Warnings against miscegenation from their fellow racists fall on deaf ears as lust over non-Adamic flesh hardens their heart — rationalizing that they know better. Others may even acknowledge the object of their desire as non-white, but rationalize that it would be better to pour out their lusts on a non-white than on a white woman — as if doing so is some sort of moral act or sacrifice for their own race.
Many of us have probably also seen cases where men became fatigued by their misbegotten hatred for non-whites — eventually unwittingly seeing their own hatred as an inconvenience to their desire for friendship with the world (James 4:4) — thereby having “pierced themselves” (1 Timothy 6:10). The weight of the world bears down on that hatred — and so they relinquish it — whereupon they immediately begin to accept non-whites in ways that unlawfully validate them to Adamic status — even “playing church” with them — revealing that their desire was never to do the will of God — but rather to merely serve their own fleshly prejudices.
Many Christians are a hair’s breadth away from such error — because their behavior depends on which of their fleshly desires holds the greatest sway in their minds — hatred for non-whites, lust for non-whites or lust for the world. In this regard, Peter makes a poignant point, “by what anyone is overcome, by this he is enslaved” (2 Peter 2:19). Is our “racist” desire merely something which has overcome us — preoccupied us — and thus enslaved us? The flesh is a callous master — if indeed it has become our master.
In one fickle moment it will give us up and sell us out — handing us over in enslavement to another. It is nothing for one slave-master to hand their slave over to another — but a free man cannot be mastered, because his master is the Lord Jesus — from Whom none may be snatched (John 10:28).
Furthermore, if all of our focus is merely preserving our Adamic integrity, have we truly preserved what the Lord expects of us? The very first of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3 states, “You shall have no other gods before Me” — whereas the seventh commandment “You shall not commit adultery” — which would include miscegenation — is far down the list. What really holds our attention in everyday life? Is it our God before all else — or our “racism”? If we preserve our Adamic integrity, we will have merely done well to ensure there might be more Adamic children in the world — but nothing to ensure that they will have the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:13) that will allow them to finish the race and attain righteousness (1 Corinthians 9:24).
Have we truly endeavored to preserve those Adamic children eternally just by teaching them to be racists? While some have tried to argue that all who are born of pure Adamic parents will be preserved eternally regardless of their sinful behavior, we have shown in “Will All Israel Be Saved Or Just A Remnant?” that this dangerous conceit is simply refuted by multiple Scriptural witnesses. After all, if you teach your children that they will be unconditionally saved just because they appear to be white, what’s to truly stop them from race mixing?
Shouldn’t it go without saying that if we teach our children to afford God the eminent place in their minds that He commands (Exodus 20:3), they are much more likely to do all of which He commands them — including staying away from miscegenation — not to mention lying, adultery, greed, idolatry, and murder? The psalmist even goes as far as to say he will not “sit in the seat of scoffers” (Psalm 1:1) — or those who mock and deride. Genesis 18:19 says,
For I have chosen him [Abraham], so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.
We think it reasonable that Rebekah would have been well aware of the Lord’s purposes for her own family — after all Jacob was to become the patriarch of the Israelites — the spiritual branch of the generations of Adam out of which would come our Messiah — Jesus Christ. Moreover, we think it reasonable to assume that in Rebekah’s mind, “doing righteousness and justice” included — but was certainly not limited to — preserving the Adamic integrity of her children.
When Esau had taken pagan, godless wives — and had sold his birthright for a single meal — we do not blame Rebekah for despairing for her life at what had become of her firstborn son — and what could befall Jacob as well. As we’ve said, many Christian mothers today can completely identify with her grief — as children raised in Christian homes today are taking pagan, non-Christian spouses in rapidly increasing numbers — often with dire consequences.
There is so much more to this equation — and so many reasons Rebekah could have despaired — other than simply over miscegenation. She likely wanted a family which would do “righteousness and justice” — of which guarding against miscegenation is but a fraction. Having a pure, Adamic child is the bare minimum we would wish for our children — but that certainly doesn’t guarantee they will do “righteousness and justice” — rather it ensures only that they are a candidate for doing “righteousness and justice.”
Some even consider that the primary reason God preserved Noah was over his unmixed Adamic bloodline. Genesis 6:9 says,
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
They would contend that “blameless in his generation” necessarily means racially unmixed. “Blameless” comes from the Hebrew word, “tamim” (Strong’s H8549) — meaning without defect or having integrity — such as when David says in 2 Samuel 22:24, “I was also blameless [H8549] toward Him, And I have kept myself from my wrongdoing.”
“Generation” comes from the Hebrew word “dor” (Strong’s H1755) — an obvious reference to a generation in the way we would use it in English as well, such as in Deuteronomy 7:22, “who keeps His covenant and His faithfulness to a thousand generations (H1755)“. Yes, “Noah was a righteous man” — so he was blameless during his own time.
Up until Noah’s time we see that the law of marriage had been given (Genesis 2:24) — to which Noah adhered by having one wife — thus confirming his own adherence to that law.
The Lord held violence against Cain and punished him (Genesis 4:10-11) — creating another “legal precedent” by which the Lord held violence against the earth when He said to Noah in Genesis 6:13,
The end of humanity has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of people; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
Moreover, faith was valued by God as early as Abel’s time (Hebrews 11:4) — by which Noah “prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” (Hebrews 11:7)
The Scripture says nothing of “race-mixing” in Genesis 1-6, yet if — hypothetically speaking — there were such a thing in Genesis 6 — which some have tried to argue — Noah most certainly would have been blameless in that regard as well — in addition to the requirements of the Lord we have detailed above — marriage, non-violence and faith. Noah was preserved because he “was a righteous man, blameless in his generation” — not merely because he was of pure Adamic descent. If someone is righteous — or even a man — then their Adamic identity is stipulated — tacitly understood. 2 Peter 2:5 says,
and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly
To assume Noah was a “preacher of righteousness” merely because of his pure Adamic descent waters down the concept of righteousness to none effect (Mark 7:13). If we call non-whites “ungodly,” then we make the term utterly redundant. “Ungodly” is a binary term — one is either “ungodly” or “Godly.” What is the point of calling a mamzer mixed-blood “ungodly” if they can never be righteous in the first place?
Is our standard of righteousness so low and debased that we compare ourselves — supposedly righteous because of our pure ancestry — with mamzers in order to feel righteous? Are we so indolent towards our God that we have to compare ourselves with mamzers in order to satisfy the designation of “Godliness” in ourselves?
What about the rest of God’s ways? How could Abraham have been “heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Hebrews 11:7) — perfecting his faith in works (James 2:22) — “being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household” (Hebrews 11:7) — if we have made righteousness a mere matter of one’s Adamic ancestry?
In so doing, we have put the proverbial cart before the horse. The horse — righteousness — must pull the cart — an Adamic man — forward. The cart cannot pull the horse forward. Nevertheless, if an Adamic man is racially pure but has no righteousness, he is like a cart stranded with nowhere to go (Ephesians 4:14). If one is a non-Adamic, then there is not even a cart which may have been drawn in the first place — they do not fit on the binary scale of Godliness at all.
In so doing, we have attempted to rob Rebekah and Noah of the righteousness which God Himself attributed to them — the righteousness that is in accordance with faith (Romans 1:17). After describing the acts of faith accomplished by our patriarchs, the writer of Hebrews says,
32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mocking and flogging, and further, chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented 38 (people of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts, on mountains, and sheltering in caves and holes in the ground.(Hebrews 11:32-38)
The author mentions sixteen names — and alludes to many more — throughout Hebrews 11, yet not once in the entire chapter does he mention anyone’s Adamic integrity — even Noah! Why? Because their “racial” integrity was implicit to their righteousness. They all did something which set them apart from their Adamic peers — they aren’t being compared to non-Adamic mamzers which would be pointless. They attained to righteousness and Godliness — setting themselves apart from the rest of Adamkind — in a way which relegated the rest to ungodliness. These heroes are testament that Godliness and ungodliness rests in Adamkind alone. Moreover, they did so — and acted — by a personal faith in the promises of God.
Ultimately, if we do not have God first and foremost in our hearts — as the First Commandment should make abundantly clear — we are much more likely to eventually succumb to all kinds of sexual sin including miscegenation — because at some point, our flesh could simply find some rationalization to do so. Our heart will eventually become filled with all manner of behavior which the Lord finds abominable — and these abominations wear down our will and our resolve to do what’s right — including keeping our Adamic integrity. Many of us — if we are honest with ourselves — know exactly how weighed down “racially conscious” Christians can be by sin other than miscegenation — though ironically and hypocritically — even by miscegenation itself — their greatest “taboo.”
However, if we hold God as first and foremost in our hearts — being overcome by nothing except Him — we will keep ourselves from all sin — including miscegenation. We will strive to do “righteousness and justice” — just like Rebekah did.