Here we present Bertrand Comparet’s sermon, “Who Are The Gentiles?” in which he discusses the profound confusion that the non-biblical term “Gentile” has created among Christians. It is not an overstatement to assert that it is virtually impossible to truly understand the Bible correctly without understanding the true meaning of this controversial term.
We should point out that while Comparet asserts that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, there is no consensus among biblical scholars on this issue — and in reality, it may be a case that both languages were used by the original writers, depending on the audience for whom the text was originally intended — given the multi-lingual nature of Judea and the surrounding areas at that time. But Comparet’s point is well taken — the term “Gentile” does not exist in either the Aramaic or Greek manuscripts.
And while Comparet asserts that the original meaning of “Gentile” was “one who is not a Roman citizen,” we should add that the term “Gentile” was first coined by Jerome in his translation of the Latin Vulgate in the 4th Century, and at that time it was also understood to mean “the same clan or race.”
For more information on other crucial mis-translations in the Bible, we would suggest you watch this video.
You can listen to Comparet’s sermon here or following our transcription below.
Bertrand Comparet:
It is unfortunate that most people have so many mistaken ideas about their religion — due largely to the many mis-translations of words in the commonly used King James Version of the Bible. One of these mistaken ideas is that most of the people of the United States and Western Europe — in fact, nearly all the Christians in the world — are “Gentiles.” You hear many of them — even clergymen — who should know better say, “I’m just a Gentile saved by grace.”
I think it’s high time that we learned something about one of the most misused words — “Gentile”.
First, you might be surprised to know that there is no such word in the Bible — in its original languages. Oh yes, I know that you’re now riffling the pages of your King James Version, looking for some of the many places where you will find “Gentile” in the King James Version — but I said that there is no such word in the Bible in its original languages.
The word was put into it by translators who changed the wording of the Bible centuries after the last book in the Bible was written. If you are a good Christian, you will surely agree with me that what the prophets originally wrote in the books which make up our Bible was inspired by God. It was correct, as the prophets wrote it.
But not one of them wrote in English remember — because no such language as English existed until many centuries after the prophets lived. It was written in Hebrew — as to the Old Testament — and the New Testament was originally written in the language which Jesus Christ spoke — Aramaic — a Semitic dialect somewhat similar to — but not the same as — Hebrew.
But Aramaic was not generally understood outside of Western Asia — so when Christianity began to spread into southern and southeastern Europe, the New Testament had to be translated into a language which was widely used in Europe. Greek served this purpose nicely because it was understood by well-educated men over nearly all of Europe. Therefore, the New Testament was first translated into Greek. Protestant English language translations of the Bible today are nearly all translated from Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and [from] Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
So, let us start at the beginning with the Old Testament:
The word “Gentile” is not even once used in any Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament — for the good reason that there is no such word in Hebrew — nor any word which corresponds to it. Everywhere you find the word “Gentile” used in your King James Version of the Old Testament, it is a mis-translation of the Hebrew word “Goy” which means “Nation.” The plural form of it is “Goyim.”
Since it means “nation,” why didn’t they translate it correctly? Well, sometimes they did — but for the most part, they translated it to fit the official doctrines of the Church of their day — no matter what violence that did to the true meaning of the word.
The church hierarchy had long since determined what its doctrines should be — and if the Bible didn’t agree with them, so much the worse for the Bible. Men were still being burned at the stake for heresy in those days, you will remember — and “heresy” meant any religious idea which differed from the official doctrines proclaimed by the bishops. So the translators did the best the Church would allow them to do.
Now let’s take some examples:
In Genesis 12, verse 2, they translated correctly, “God said to Abram, ‘I will make of thee a great nation.’” Now. in Hebrew, God said, “I will make of thee a great Goy. ” It would have been too utterly silly to translate this, “I will make a [great] Gentile of you” — so to make any sense at all, they had to correctly translate it “nation.”
Again, take Genesis 25, verse 23 — Rebekah was then pregnant with the twins — Esau and Jacob — and while they were still in her womb, the unborn children were struggling against each other — so she wondered at this and asked of God what was the meaning of this? And God said to her in the Hebrew, “Two Goyim are in thy womb.” Now certainly God was not telling her, “You are an adulteress — pregnant with two Gentile children — when your husband is not a Gentile.” God said, “Two nations are in thy womb” — two Goyim are in thy womb — and that is the way it had to be translated. But it is that same word “Goyim” which elsewhere they generally translate as “Gentiles.”
Now let us take some examples from the New Testament:
Here, the word mis-translated “Gentile” is nearly always the Greek word “Ethnos” which means just exactly “Nation” — the same as the Hebrew word “Goy.”
The seventh chapter of Luke begins with the incident of a Roman Centurion who appealed to Jesus Christ to heal his servant who was sick unto death. The Elders of the Jews praised this centurion to Jesus, saying “He loveth our Ethnos, and hath built us a synagogue.” Now, those Jews would certainly never praise anybody for loving the Gentiles — and the Centurion would not have built a synagogue for “Gentiles.” So to avoid complete absurdity, the translators were forced to translate it correctly — that “Ethnos” meant “Nation.”
Again, take John 11, verse 50 — we find that the Jewish high priest — Caiaphas — was plotting with the chief priests and Pharisees to murder Jesus Christ — and Caiaphas told them, “It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole Ethnos perish not.” Now nothing could have pleased that evil Jewish high priest more than for all the Gentiles to perish — using the word “Gentile” as we do today. Therefore, the translators had to translate “Ethnos” correctly as “nation” — that the whole nation perish not.
Yet in many other places this is the very same word that they mis-translate “Gentile.”
The Greek word “Ethnos” means simply “nation” — nothing more or less. It has no pagan, or non-Israel, or even non-Greek connotation. The Greeks distinguished between Greeks and all non-Greek peoples — whom they called “barbarians.” All educated men of that day knew this, and the Apostle Paul was a very well-educated man who was quite familiar with the Greek language and its idioms. He recognized this distinction in Romans 1, verse 44, where he said, “I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians.” Paul never once wrote the word “Gentile” in any of his epistles.
What does this word “Gentile” mean — and from what is it derived? It is derived from the Latin word “Gentiles,” which means “one who is not a Roman citizen.” If you were to use this word correctly, you would have to say that Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples were all Gentiles — because not one of them was a Roman citizen. Only Paul could say that he was not a “Gentile” because in the twenty second chapter of Acts, Paul says that he was a Roman citizen by birth.
How then is it used at present when the speaker means to say that someone is non-Jewish? About the fourth century A.D., its use was loosely extended to cover more than its original meaning. Remember now — this was 300 years after the last book of the New Testament was written. It was applied especially to those who were heathen — pagans. It became a term for those who were neither Christian nor Jewish — for Christians and Jews were generally called just that — “Christian” or “Jew” — as the case might be. But this — remember now — was three hundred years after the last book in the New Testament had been written.
The word “Gentile” was never used by the writer of any book of the Old Testament because not one of them had ever heard it — as they had never come in contact with Rome. It was not used by the writer of any book of the New Testament because there is no such word in the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages.
They didn’t borrow the word from the Latin — because if you will look up every place it is used in your King James Version, you will see that it is never used in the correct sense — to say that someone is not a Roman citizen — and that is the only meaning it had — the only way anybody used it in those days.
It was put in by the translators three hundred years later in an effort to make the Bible say what the translators thought it ought to have said. Therefore it has no authority at all.
In short, wherever you see the word “Gentile” in the Bible, remember that the correct word is “nation” — occasionally broad enough to include race or people. Sometimes it is used when speaking of Israel nations or of the Israelite race, as we have seen in the examples I have given you.
In other instances, the context will show that it is being used of a nation which is non-Israelite. Only the context in which it is used will show you which meaning to give it. When it is being used of non-Israelite peoples, possibly “Gentile” is as good a word as any because we don’t seem to have any other in general use.
But never be deceived by reading the word “Gentile” in your Bible — because the only correct meaning is nation — nothing else — just nation.
—— Craig Weisman ——
You left a rather scathing Rebuke to CFT and it’s Commenters; but a Rebuke without Substance/Witness.
https://christiansfortruth.com/former-deputy-of-kiev-city-council-claims-satanic-jews-commit-ritual-blood-sacrifices-of-children-and-animals/#comment-257144
Your Rebuke was unclear as to the Specific Charge. Are you rebuking us for not believing in Predestination? Or is it related to the discussion of “WHO” is the Gentile?
I have a suspicion it is to the latter. Which is why I am reposting my comment here on this article — “Who are the Gentiles and who they are not.”
Remember — Rebuking or Judging someone without Evidence is Slander i.e., to bear false witness. You would be a hypocrite if you do not come back and face those you accuse. Would you not?
Craig Weisman …. is this your real name, or are you trying to slander another Weisman who has done good work for the Kingdom — Charles Weisman.
Have you read his works? https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-phrase-all-men-has-been-misused-to-promote-false-universalism-in-the-bible/
I thought Jews called non-Jews Goy/Goyim as a slur that basically means “cattle?”
Is that just the modern day usage of the word Goy?
Has Goy/Goyim/Gentile all been obfuscated to confuse people or am I just not understanding the terminology.
There must be a glitch I am trying to get this important information across and have tried a few times.
There’s no glitch, Russ, you were banned from commenting, and now you’re back, trying to make the same points, and create the same divisions as before under a different name.
Great article.
However, how would one interpret the following verse in this new light?
“It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.”
-Romans 15:27
The context is the congregations in Macedonia and Achaia gave financial/material aid to the saints in Jerusalem who were poor. “Gentiles”, or “ethnos” as it stands in the Greek, is referring to nations who are not Israelites, because the term in its context is being used in distinction to Israelites. See one of my comments below, where this is specifically referring to Genesis 10 nations, as Macedonia and Achaia invariably came out of the Genesis 10 nations. Macedonia and Achaia are from the Genesis 10 nations, so it makes sense to call them nations in this context, especially to distinguish them from Israel.
Paul is saying that the nations have benefited from Israel’s spiritual promises, so it is only natural that the nations give to Israel that which is material in this life. This is also found in prophecy, so it makes even more sense that Paul would say it, as I think he may be intentionally foreshadowing the future. In the thousand year reign, and in eternity, the nations place will be to serve Israel, though Israel will love them. This is especially in Isaiah:
Isaiah 49:22-23, “Behold, I will lift up My hand to the nations And set up My flag to the peoples; And they will bring your sons in their arms, And your daughters will be carried on their shoulders. Kings will be your guardians, And their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the ground And lick the dust from your feet; And you will know that I am the Lord; Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.”
Isaiah 60:11-12, “Your gates will be open continually; They will not be closed day or night, So that people may bring you the wealth of the nations, With their kings led in procession. For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish, And the nations will be utterly ruined.”
Isaiah 61:5-6, “Strangers will stand and pasture your flocks, And foreigners will be your farmers and your vinedressers. But you will be called the priests of the Lord; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And you will boast in their riches.”
Daniel 7:27, “Then the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the empires will serve and obey Him.”
Isaiah 49:18, ““Raise your eyes and look around; All of them gather together, they come to you. As I live,” declares the Lord, “You will certainly put them all on as jewelry and bind them on as a bride.””
Revelation 21:10-12 & Revelation 21:22-26, “And he… showed me the holy city, Jerusalem… and names were written on the gates, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel… I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed;and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;”
Prophetically speaking, this won’t happen before the Lord’s return, so no use trying to force it. Although it is expedient for the nations to “not be arrogant toward the branches” (Romans 11:18).
On Romans 11:18, the NIV translation might, to my astonishment, more accurately get the point across vs the KJV as it reminds us to not be arrogant towards the _other_ branches.
This helps support the correct interpretation that all Isrealites are branches and Christ alone is the root, instead of the incorrect mainstream one that many of us were taught, that Jews are the extension of the root onto which we Whites were grafted, out of the “infinite mercy” of the Jews.
Jesus said at Matthew 15:24 “…I am not sent but to the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL”. As Jesus sends the twelve preaching in Israel, He gave them this command at Matthew 10:6 “…Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles (Ethnos, nations, people other than Jews) and into the city of Samaritans enter ye not, but go rather to the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL”.
Hebrews 8:8 makes clear that the New Covenant was made with the “House of Israel”, not any other national “house”. Now, who was this “House of Israel” Jesus mentioned and why are they lost? Were people of the nations, other than Jews, of the “house of Israel”? Could they be? No, they couldn’t/weren’t.
The word “house” as used by Jesus and others in this context is not a nation but a family, that of Israel, former Jacob, grandson of Abraham. Family is used here in the sense of family name, genealogy, descendance, blood, not nationality, citizenship. The House of Israel was a term to describe all those descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel with whom God made a covenant with later on, those that came out of Egypt. Jesus was searching for those true, lost Jews.
That you were an Israelite citizen in the days of Jesus meant nothing, an Israelite citizen could be of Idumean, Egyptian or of Sumerian descend, not necessarily a Jew, not all of those peoples were of the “HOUSE of Israel”.
By the same token, there were true Jews of Greek, Roman and other nationalities, yet they were Jews of the “House of Israel” their nationality meant nothing their covenant relationship did. Centuries earlier Assyria invaded Israel and took many Jews captive, others were killed and yet many others were scattered throughout the then known world (mostly Europe). The Kingdom of Israel was done.
A little bit later Babylon invaded the Kingdom of Judah taking almost the whole kingdom captive for a full 70 years, a generation’s time. What later came out of Babylon to resettle the promised land was anything but true Jews and these formed the Israel of Jesus day.
The House of Israel had been scattered through the four winds of the earth centuries earlier. THESE are the LOST sheep of Israel, these and only these are those Jesus and His “sent ones”, Apostles. were looking for. Paul was never sent to preach to people other than Jews, Paul was looking for Jews of foreign nationalities, those who had been born abroad since centuries earlier or else I wonder why Paul would almost exclusively preached at Synagogues in every city he went and why all his companions were foreign Jews Like Aquila and Prisila who were both Roman Jews (Acts 13:13,14, 17:1, 18:4, 19:8).
The Jews “of the heart” that Paul mentions who are not of the “common stuck” of Israel are Jews born abroad these can be grafted BACK onto the olive tree, notice Paul mentions the wild olives (those Jews born abroad) and the cultivated olives (born in Jerusalem who worshiped at the temple) but they are ALL OLIVES, you cannot graft oranges (foreigners) into an olive tree but only olives of the same kind, who cares where that tree was planted (Romans 11:17-24, James 3:12 Revelation 11:4 two trees). Hebrews 8:8 (a book to Jews, not foreigners of other nations) is fullfilment of Jeremiah 31:31 saying, “Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of ISRAEL and with the house of JUDAH”, the nations are not mentioned here but very specifically Israel and Judah, that was the Jews, no one else. Every time a Bible writer mentions the “House of Israel” it means Jews and only Jews of any nationality.
At Acts chapter 2 Peter is addressing a Crowd of Jews come to the temple from many nations abroad for the festival at hand. Many of these were Jews come from abroad, no not proselyte converts but Jews of other nationalities (Acts 2:5). Notice that Peter refers to these Jews, not any other nationals, in Acts 2:36 as “House of Israel”.
At Acts 7:42 the “House of Israel” is the term used to describe the Jews under covenant relationship of the old days who sacrificed at the temple for the God of Israel. Both Covenants God instituted were made with the “House of Israel” not any other house or nation.
ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD would benefit from this arrangement, but the Covenants are made with the Jews, and no wonder this is the God of Abraha, Isaac and Jacob, not of the world!!
Marcelo, you are equating “Jews” with Israelites, and they are not the same thing.
Only a small fraction of Israelites were “Jews”, i.e., Israelites from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi who lived in Judea.
The House Of Israel included all Israelites, not just “Jews” in Judea and Jews abroad outside Judea. Most Israelites were never called “Jews”, nor should they be.
And today’s “Jews” are not real Judahites or Judeans referred to in the Gospels.
Marcelo Gaye …….
Please read Mark’s comment. We really need to STOP using the word “Jew”. It just makes everything confusing for the UNlearned. We must speak clearly and in unison so our younger brothers and sisters will hear.
That being said ………………. you said something interesting that would be great if you could elaborate/unpack.
You wrote — “…Both Covenants God instituted were made with the “House of Israel” not any other house or nation. ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD would benefit from this arrangement ……”
I agree with the first sentence. However, the second needs some unpacking. First — WHO is “all the nations of the world” in your understanding?
And Second — how would they benefit?
For me personally ………….. the less interaction Whites have with the rest of the non-white world would be so much better for us. But I get the impression from what you wrote — you have a different opinion.
Do you believe White peoples (Israelites/Adamites) have some obligation to the non-white peoples of the world???
What Scriptural argument would you make for such an assertion?
Thank you.
Marcelo writes “That you were an Israelite citizen in the days of Jesus meant nothing, an Israelite citizen could be of Idumean, Egyptian or of Sumerian descend, not necessarily a Jew, not all of those peoples were of the “HOUSE of Israel”.
This is patently false. There was no such thing as an “Israelite citizen”. Judean citizen, yes, but not “Israelite citizen”. Citizens of Judea did not need to be Israelites, as shown by the nationalization of the Idumeans in 150 BC by John Hyrcanus.
The House of Israel, which included all 12 tribes, did not grant “citizenship” to that tribe to any non-Israelites, except through legitimate marriages with an Israelite father and pure Adamic mother.
Jas ………..
Great point! I didn’t catch that one the first time around. Thank you.
Let’s see if Marcelo comes back.
In the same way that Romans 15:8 is explained?
I understand that the implication of Romans 15:27 in translation is that Paul is selling salvation, that we Israelites have to pay a perpetual “unsin tax” to the Judeans because Christ was one of them, but that simply cannot be the case.
Isn’t Romans 15:27 just Paul poetically asking for alms so that when he goes to Jerusalem he can give them to the poor there?
…it really is insidious the way that Paul’s writings have been translated over the centuries to make it appear as though he is always commanding all Christians to pledge fealty, and pay tribute, to the Jews. Romans 15:31, for example, is translated in such a way as to promote the risible notion that the Jews are the “chosen people”. I (((wonder))) how that could have happened.
“Gentile” men or “Gentlemen” as called by the jews and their dictionaries and MSM and NEA are only here to serve their jewish masters according to jewish beliefs. A gentleman (gentile man) is a well trained good goyim with good manners and hard worker for them.
@Chesterton: “That Noah was ‘pure in his generation’ does not necessarily have a racial connotation–regardless of how certain people want it to mean that.”
Compleyely ignorant. The word you give as “pure” refers to being whole & sound — unblemished, the way an animal acceptable for sacrifice had to be — not lame, blind, or otherwide impaired. “Generations” is toldoth, meaning both “generations” and “history” (organized on a ancesteral basis). “These are the generations of . . .” = “This is the history of . . .”
@Capt.Bob: “God divorced Israel, not Judah” — mistranslated, giving rise to errors. NOT “divorce” (permanent and irrevocable) but Judicial Separation (with support but no contact). “I hate divorce.” Hosea lays it out.
You are incorrect BW. The word in question is from Genesis 6:9, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. ”
In this verse, “generations” is used twice, but the Hebrew words from which they are translated are not the same! The first “generations of Noah” comes from “thuldth” which means genealogical records–but in no sense does it mean that they are “perfect”.
The second “perfect in his generations” comes from “uiuld” which means “in his generations”, (“the time in which he lived”) which does NOT mean his genealogy as the first one does, as you are contending.
https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen6.pdf
Next, the English translation states that “Noah was perfect in his generations” but that’s misleading. The Hebrew says Noah “became” (Hebrew “eie”) righteous and flawless (Hebrew “thmim”), suggesting that he wasn’t necessarily first that way but rather BECAME that way because he walked with God (Hebrew “ethelk”), a meaning which is omitted from the English translation.
So you see, you’ve created a racial doctrine out of Genesis 6:9 that is not there–but on top of that, it’s not necessary. All Adamic people and their Israelite descendants reading the Bible would know that the Bible is only about them, no one else. There’s no reason to make each and every line of the Bible about race or have a racial sub-text. It was simply understood or implicit.
Why do you say divorce is “permanent and irrevocable”? In that context, what do you mean by “divorce”? A letter of divorce, or something else?
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that a man and wife may only not be reconciled if after sending his wife away, she takes another husband. There is no law against reconciliation between husband and wife if the wife hasn’t taken another husband.
Paul even encourages husband and wife to be reconciled if one has left (1 Cor 7:11).
Praise God! This is a good article! All Christians should be required to understand what Gentile means! Thanks CFT!
While this exegesis is partially true, that word Goy has another meaning also, and it does depend on context, where it is used:
Goy also means “Proud”. The Supremacists, who think all others are sub-humans…
Therefore and today, it’s foremost the Jews, adherents of Judaism, who are Goyim now…
https://8kun.top/christian/res/851369.html#851405 – explaining this, and also, why State of “Israel” and the “Zion” Beast are true Anti-Semites and what that term actually means…
http://pialpha.cz/Gab#39293637
http://pialpha.cz/WPoHC.pdf page 18
πα½
I agree mostly with the article and Comparet lays it out nicely.
While “nation” in Scripture is indeed a generic, or general term, there is still an ever-present context in which it is said each time. Genesis 10:32 says, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their descendants, by their nations; AND OUT OF THESE THE NATIONS WERE SEPARATED ON THE EARTH AFTER THE FLOOD.”
Whenever a specific nation is referred to in Scripture, it is referred to in the context of these Genesis 10 nations. In fact, by far the majority of the time, nations are referred to specifically by their Genesis 10 names.
For example, “Egypt” is not referred to as “Egypt” in the Scripture. Wherever you see the word “Egypt”, it is actually saying “Mizraim”, who was a son of Ham. The word “Egypt” doesn’t appear in the original writings ever, and all 614 times you read “Egypt” in Scripture, in the original it is saying “Mizraim”. Genesis 10:6 says, “The sons of Ham were Cush, MIZRAIM, Put, and Canaan.” To call it “Egypt” creates a false association with the modern geopolitical entity along with all that lives there currently. In fact, the people who lived there were the sons of Ham.
If we understand the context of the word “nations” in the Scripture, only referring to the descendants of Noah, then we understand that modern geopolitical entities today we call “nations” are not the same nations in Scripture. If the Bible says “all nations”, it isn’t referring to these modern nations of today, but rather it is referring to those peoples who are the sons of Noah. Modern “nations” as we see them today are a complete and utter red herring.
In the Scripture, nations are those specific peoples who are the descendants of Noah. All of the nations are Adamites by Noah, their father. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the nations are not Adamites. There is also no reason to believe that modern nations are Noah’s children.
For example, the country of “Zambia”, which is inhabited almost entirely by negroids, which are animals, is not a nation. It is simply a United Nations sanctioned territory, with a proxy/custodian government of animals looking after it.
When reading the Scripture, there’s no reason to assume when it says “nations”, that it is referring to United Nations sanctioned territories along with the animals that reside within them. We have every reason to assume it is referring only to the children of Noah.
In Josephus’s Antiquities, book 1, chapter 6, he goes into some detail taking as best account as he can of all of the Genesis 10 nations. He doesn’t mention aborigines in Australia, mongoloids in East Asia, or negroids in central Africa. He mentions only the nations which we know historically were white, Adamic nations.
I feel this is an important distinction, because many in their theology go through some effort to prove that “peoples” and “nations” in the Scripture are not all Adamic, white people. It’s unnecessary, because by definition, a “nation” in Scripture is always Adamic and white. Unfortunately they do some damage to the theology and lessons of the Scripture in order to prove their incorrect assumption.
That is interesting, Johan; I didn’t know that about Mizraim/Egypt: I realized that the Egyptians were from Ham, but I just tend to go by English translations as foreign languages are, foreign, to me. 🙂 So, that is good to know, thanks.
But, whilst I know what you mean about the NATIONS coming from Noah and kids, I am at a loss trying to understand how eight Adamites made all of Adamkind… the eight of them must surely have bred with some other Adamites? I know that the Noah and his kids were the only pure ones left etc, hence the flood, but the law also states that incest is bad, as we then see with Ham and his bannishment… so where do all the other people come from? Coz eight people that aren’t allowed by law to interbreed doesn’t make the vast millions of Adamites.
Anyone got any thoughts? Thanks 🙂
Christ Is King, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Noah and his family were the last pure Adamites left on Earth. Nowhere. There are certain Identity Christian “scholars” who claim that, but there is no scriptural proof to support such a contention.
That Noah was “pure in his generation” does not necessarily have a racial connotation–regardless of how certain people want it to mean that. Either way, even he was pure racially, nowhere does it say that he was the only racially pure Adamite left–or that was the reason God chose to preserve him. They were destroyed for their sin, just as we, Israelites today, are being destroyed for our sins.
Cool, Thanks Chesterton, I am on the same page. In my opinion I reckon that there MUST have been other Adamites that Noah’s grandkids bred with, coz otherwise it just doesn’t make sense logically, and would be against the law.
I think that incest laws are something which have progressed over time, and they weren’t always so strict. Adam and Eve’s children would have had to take one another as husbands and wives. Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister. Rebecca was Isaac’s second cousin. The law came later, in the time of Moses, banning marriage with nuclear family members. Abraham’s own marriage would have been banned by the law. Now I wonder if there is providence behind the stigma of marrying cousins.
I believe the children of Shem, Ham and Japheth must simply have taken one another as sons and daughters, which is further evidenced by the fact that they were all together until the time of Peleg, son of Eber, when they were dispersed at the tower of Babel.
Interesting points, Johan.
Yah, I know that the Law came after Noah, but I always thought that Moses must have recieved the Law that was recognized and “in play”, so to speak, without being written down yet. This may just be me putting my own “nice theory” on to it, coz incest is pretty grotty really, aside from being just plain wrong under the Law of Moses.
But, you are correct regarding Abraham and Sarah etc.
Still, Ham was banished for “uncovering his fathers nakedness” which means he had a root with his old mum… so there must have been some sort of moral law around incest already being followed, don’t ya think? And if so… then the grandkids mustn’t have been incestuous… so did they breed with Adamites that escaped the flood? Which leads me to square one again: who did the breed with if all of Adamkind were drowned?
It doesn’t say that the law was in the world until Moses, but rather, “until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law” (Rom 5:13). Also the “Law came in so that the offense would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).
There’s a lot of assumption around it all as well. We need not assume that Abraham was perfect and didn’t sin, for example.
We need not assume that the genetic problems with incest applied in those days. We need not assume that family ties and familiarity were such in those days that the familiarity we see between brothers and sisters today was corrupted and made abominable by a marital relationship.
Neither Ham nor Canaan were banished for Ham’s crime. It’s a common view, but I don’t see it anywhere in Scripture. By all we can see, they stayed with everyone until the dispersion at Babel. In any case, if Ham did indeed sleep with his mother, at the very least it was adultery. They knew what marriage was, because the world was punished for its sanctity being defiled (Matt 24:38), and the law was given to Adam and Eve already (Gen 2:24).
Ah beg your pardon, Johan, yes, Canaan was cursed: Ham was not banished. My mistake.
I can see your reasoning for your points, Johan, and I have to say, whilst new to me, they are very interesting. I wouldn’t normally consider such a thing as incest being possibly normal in the aincient times… I must agree that it could be possible. I note also that the scriptures never say how many girls were born from Noah and co. However, it still seems a bit improbable, without God’s genetic intervention or somesuch thing, that there wouldn’t be two headed, six footed mutants roaming round by the time it got to tower of Babel times, coz there would need to be a lot of people to engage in such a build.
I agree with John here, that if the Tree of knowledge is the Law, it makes it all seem a bit iffy… even with Romans 5:14 as you mention… I reckon it might have to remain a mystery til the Second Coming…but, I am open to any ideas, coz this is real learning going on here on my part. Thanks.
(I hope I replyied to the correct part)
This makes sense. Moses himself was from an unlawful union (his father married his aunt).
Doesn’t knowledge of ancient adamite incest throw a wrench into the idea that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being the law?
It says they didn’t sin in the likeness of Adam (Rom 5:14), so it doesn’t necessarily do damage to the interpretation you mention, because they had different sins and different degrees of knowledge i.e. A distinction is made between Adam’s sins and others’ sins.
That also makes sense. Thank you
On a related note, would y’all elucidate Mark 16:15 for me?
As commonly translated, it states “Go into all the the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Is this another case where a generic term, creature, is used instead of Israelite? Or are we supposed to be preaching to the black/brown/red/yellow? Every time I think I’ve gotten this issue squared away, something pops back out of place.
Also, Matthew 10:23 sticks out to me as it states that Christians will not have spread the Gospel to all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man (or, as the better translation goes, the Son of Adam) comes. The Churchianity view of that verse seems to be to pretend that it does not exist, but even from a CI perspective it seems strange to me as hasn’t the Gospel made it to every city on the globe by this point?
First, in the Greek it doesn’t say “go out into the world” but rather “go into the kosmos” which means society not the whole world or planet as we know it. The “kosmos” to Hellenized people would have meant the society in which they dwell.
And the word “creature” is just a plain bad translation in this verse. The original Greek is “ktisei” which is “creation” not “creature”. And we know “creation” can refer only to the Adamic creation, so a “creature” must refer to any Adamic Man — and would exclude non-Adamics.
Mark 16:15 is why I prefer literal translations. No translation is perfect, but some are better than others. The Mark 16:15 in the NASB says, “…preach the gospel to all creation.” The words are literally saying “to all the creation” (πάσῃ [G3956] τῇ [G3588] κτίσει [G2937] – All in dative feminine singular). They were obviously not supposed to preach to rocks, which were created, so it must be referring to all of the Adamites/white people within creation.
As for Matthew 10:23, Churchianity would have to explain why in Matthew 24:14 the Lord says, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.”
Matthew 10:23 is referring specifically to the mission given to the apostles in the Lord’s time on earth. The Lord commands them to the flee a city when they are persecuted, because they won’t finish going through the cities of Israel in any case. It says of the same mission in Luke 9:5, “And as for all who do not receive you, when you leave that city, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” We can logically conclude that they skipped cities because they were persecuted therein, fulfilling what the Lord said, “…you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” As for the “comes”, I suppose people assume too much in what that means in the context. This could well have been referring to the Lord’s triumphant arrival and confirmation as King in Jerusalem in Matthew 21, and in my opinion this interpretation seems likely.
— “but even from a CI perspective it seems strange to me as hasn’t the Gospel made it to every city on the globe by this point?” —
It has indeed, and we are blessed to understand this, because all white/Adamic peoples know the gospel. Therefore, we can conclude that the end began a long time ago. The Lord says in Matthew 24:21, “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again.” We make the mistake of looking forward from our point in history, but we actually need to see it from the point at which the Lord said this. From His perspective, looking forward in time, there have been many events in the history of Adamic people that easily top the tribulations of the peoples before the Lord’s time.
Consider the Hun invasions, the Muslim invasions, the Mongol invasions, the Catholic inquisitions, the world wars, the genocide in Soviet Russia, the constant bloodbath of wars which have been European nations and colonies, the black death plague, and many more. Millions upon millions, possible reaching to the billions have died to these events, and the survival of the Adamic people has hung on the precipice multiple times. Many more modern wars make ancient wars look like child’s play. Warfare itself became more and more horrifying over the centuries, where men’s minds break over their experiences. This didn’t happen in ancient times, because a battle between two phalanxes wasn’t as deadly or terrifying as being shelled in muddy, mustard gas filled trenches.
From there, we get to the modern era where animals are shipped into Adamic countries, where they murder, rape and feed on us, dismantling and destroying society bit by bit. To one who lived in ancient times, this is total insanity! It is completely unprecedented and impossible even to imagine for them.
All of this is to fulfill the punishment of Israel, the great tribulation, to purify our people and make us pay for the evil we have committed before the Lord. It is the first four seals of Revelation 6, which culminates in verse 8, “Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, and famine, and plague, and by the wild animals of the earth.” This is quoting Deuteronomy 32:24-25, and Ezekiel 14:21. Even the Lord didn’t know the times, as prophetically speaking, not much still needed to happen. However, it is fitting it would take so long, that the great tribulation may be called even greater, purely by its length of duration alone.
An eerie silence has fallen on the Adamic nations of the world since the end of WW2, and now they scramble in fear, while the remnant of Israel prepares itself to see its deliverance, and the wrath of Christ the King on the nations and beasts…
1: Ancient Greeks never sailed beyond the pillars of Hercules(Gibraltar) because beyond them was the end of the world.
2: History of the Kings of Britain Chapter 2. Cassibellaunus’s letter to Julius Caesar.“Cassibellaun, king of the Britons, to Caius Julius Caesar. We cannotbut wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since theirinsatiable thirst for money cannot let us alone, though the dangers of theocean have placed us in a manner out of the world; but they must havethe presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoyedin quiet. Neither is this indeed sufficient: we must also choose subjectionand slavery to them, before the enjoyment of our native liberty. Yourdemand, therefore, Caesar, is scandalous, since the same vein of nobilityflows from Aeneas in both Britons and Romans, and one and the samechain of consanguinity unites us:
3: Luke 2:1-2 KJV “And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed”.
Also puts to bed the stupid notionsof John 3:16 the God loves the monkeys and bastards.
Samaria was the capital of Northern Israel during the split of Judah and Israel after Solomon died.
John Chapter 4 5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with [his] journey, sat thus on the well: [and] it was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? (the woman said Jacob [Israel] was her Father and Jesus never corrected her)
Art thou greater than OUR FATHER JACOB (who was Israel)
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
She was indeed an Israelite who was of divorced Israel
Jeremiah 3:8
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”
God divorced Israel, not Judah.
Jeremiah 31:31
“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:”
Israel AND Judah both
Matthew 15:24 But he (Jesus) answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
You know who Israel is not (zionism) so maybe now you have a better idea of who Israel is….
It would seem that God also divorced Judah, not just the ten norther tribes. Read:
“Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.”
Malachi 2:11-12
Cut off is another way of saying divorce–just as Israel was cut off, put away, or divorced….
It was in the death of Christ that they were release from the marriage. Romans 7:2. If the husband died they are released from the law. God stayed faithful till the death of the Son.
Although here the marriage was to the law, which was the old covenant. Paul says, “the Law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives” (Rom 7:1). The context Paul establishes is Israel’s relationship with the law, not Israel’s relationship with the Father or the Son.
It wasn’t that the Lord’s death released us from the law (old covenant), but rather it was our deaths through Him which released us; “you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ” (Rom 7:4). The law of marriage was given to demonstrate this, that through our death we are released from the law, so that we may belong to Christ and be subject to the law of Christ (also 1 Cor 9:21). This was done “so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom 7:6).
I know of theology saying that the husband/Father had to die so that He could marry us again, but there’s just no basis for it.
I believe that our death is so that we can create the new virgin body of Israel. God can not marry a non virgin.
I agree with you. I don’t think there is a precident set in the bible that dictated that God HAD to die so that He could remarry us again. But, that’s what happened none the less.
“We love Him because He loved us first”.
And then we have what I believe to be a witness to this in Rev 18:7 when talking about the great harlot (Israel). She says “‘I sit as a queen and I am not a widow, and will never see mourning.'”
The harlot denies her status of being a widow and continues in her sin. It’s one of the things she is punished for.
I don’t think the old and new covenants should be confused with virginity in Scripture. Ezekiel 23:8 shows that in God’s eyes, Israel was not even a virgin even when they came out of Egypt (when the first covenant was made): “She did not abandon her obscene practices from the time in Egypt; for in her youth men had slept with her, and they handled her virgin breasts and poured out their obscene practice on her.”
Virginity is lost by practicing abominations and all manner of uncleanness, and by turning to the nations and to Babylon instead of the Lord Jesus. Jeremiah 31:21 says, “Return, O virgin of Israel”. How can we become virgins? By dying through the body of Christ and being joined to Him in purity and in newness of the Spirit, just as Paul has said. It says of the return in Isaiah 48:20, “Go out from Babylon! Flee from the Chaldeans…Lord has redeemed His servant Jacob.” And in Isaiah 52:11, “Depart, depart, go out from there, Do not touch what is unclean; Go out of the midst of her, purify yourselves”. Then in Revelation 18:4, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive any of her plagues”.
That same remnant who was to return were already called virgins (Revelation 14:4). They were unspoiled and had removed themselves from the uncleanness of Babylon. In summation, the new covenant produces virgins in us, but it is not the old covenant which made us not virgins. This highlights the need to be pure and unspoiled by the world.
I’d argue that Israel’s virginity was restored in Exodus 19:10 when they were consecrated and washed, a foreshadowing of the washing of the blood of Christ. But then of course, squandered it and went back to her old ways like it was prophecied to happen. Like Israel still does today.
But, I think it’s simple relative to what transpired. Israel married IAM. Israel played the harlot. IAM died on the cross for the sins of Israel.
Agreed. Virginity is sinlessness, so their virginity didn’t last very long. Sinlessness and marriage are in a way synonymous, because the marriage we had in the old covenant wasn’t like an earthly marriage. Some theologies take the marriage too literally, not understanding that it’s a metaphor, or shadow.
The marriage was adherence by both parties to the terms of the covenant, and I AM, as you put it, was a husband insofar as He kept His side of the bargain. If Israel had adhered to their side of the covenant, they would have followed the law and not been lawless and sinful. They would have been virgins.
I AM died, that we could die to that old covenant through Him, so that we could take the new covenant in His blood, “enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6). Better as those promises may be, the punishment is equally more severe, as “if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every violation and act of disobedience received a just punishment, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (Heb 2:2-3), and “Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb 10:28-29)
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Heb 10:26-27)
“Yet later, the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you.’” (Matt 25:11-12)
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter… And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matt 7:21&23)
Therefore, let us “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), and “be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choice” (2 Pet 1:10).
“……so maybe now you have a better idea of who Israel is……”
Bob —
Question — “who” is this addressed to? CFT or Comparet or …… someone else???
Your statement implies such a person does not know who Israel is. But that is strange, as CFT is one of only a few places who truly knows who Israel is! But yet you seem to be criticizing CFT or someone…just not sure who you are addressing here.
Lastly — what is your overall point you are trying to make here. Don’t be so esoteric.
that statement Question — “who” is this addressed to? CFT or Comparet or …… someone else???
is a hypothetical question to any reading the statement. I am well aware CFT knows who Israel is as do I. I do not believe it is the antichrists claiming to be “Jews” in the middle east. Comparet certainly knows who is Israel. the woman at the well was a divorced Israelite which is who Jesus came for.
Most demon-nominational churches want us to believe “gentile” means “non-Jew” as in not Israel and we know it does not mean that. They want us to believe the anti-christs are the “chosen” people, well chosen for what? Lake of fire most likely.
Thank you!
How did the woman at the well know that Jesus was a judean?
Good question; yes, as others in scripture thought that Jesus and his twelve disciple chums were of Galilee, did they not? So, yes, how did they know what the peoples of the areas look like? Did the Edomites look different to the Judeans, who looked different to the Samaritans, etc? I don’t think this could be so, as they must’ve all looked roughly similar as a fairly homogenous people (Im not an expert)… Edomites may have be the exception, but that is a guess.
I would say perhaps that maybe they all spoke differently – different accents? much like regional accents to-day? But that would be a guess on my part. Jesus speaks to the woman first… so maybe she picks His accent as one of Judea?
I have wondered about this also.
People often accuse Judas Iscariot of being an “Edomite”, but there’s no proof of that. And think about it…..if Judas looked different from the other disciples because he was an “Edomite”, then why didn’t the other disciples notice the difference? Personally, I know most of the time when I’m in the presence of someone who is ethnically different but can “pass” as White–whether Jew, or Italian, or Spanish–but no mention of this is made with Judas, so I have no reason to believe he was any different racially than the others.
Bob, all I see here is a list of verses from scripture here but no thesis, no point. No idea what any of this means….