HUMANITY: A Biblical View Of "Races" And "Racism"

Humanity - A Biblical View Of 'Races' And 'Racism'.pdf

Download PDF • 10.00MB

Then Peter opened his mouth and said, “I truly understand that God is not one to show favoritism, but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.

~Acts 10:34-35 (TLV)

He made from one blood all nations who live on the earth. He set the times and places where they should live.

~Acts 17:26 (NLV)

It seems that more and more frequently some particular societal event takes place that puts the “issue of race” at the forefront of headline news stories and the sermons of preachers. My question, however, in the year 2022 and beyond is a little different and quite simple: Why is this even an issue at all?

Now, I realize this is a hot-button topic and there are those who express great emotion anytime it is discussed. My goal in this message is certainly not to upset or offend anyone, but to examine the belief that human beings contain “different races” based on skin tone and other outwardly discernible features from a scientific, historical, and biblical perspective. What I cannot do is prevent those who approach this topic through cultural perspectives from becoming upset or offended by the facts.

Scripture is uniquely silent on the matter of “races”. This, it seems, must be due to the fact that there is no such thing, both biologically and biblically, as the false construct of “human races”. A construct, as a noun, is an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically ones considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence. A false construct is an idea or theory (or a religious belief for that matter, as you will see in this message) that can be proven wrong yet people still believe it against its being proven untrue.

Now, you might be wondering how I could say that “races” is a false construct. After all, we all know that there are “black people”, “white people”, “yellow (Asian) people”, and “red (Hispanic/Native American) people”. Right?

Well, let me ask you a few questions. Have you ever met a human being with black skin? How about white skin, have you ever seen a human being with actual white skin? What about yellow or red skin?

You should have answered NO to all of these questions because the simple reality is that nobody has skin that is any of these colors. All human beings have skin that is any of a wide variety of shades of brown. Recently I saw a special edition of crayons and pencils put out by the Crayola© company highlighting the diversity of people—the box contained crayons or pencils in a variety of shades of brown representative of the wide range of human skin-tones. I thought they were so wonderful that I bought a box of them, and I would gladly challenge anyone to open the box and take out the white pencil, the black pencil, the Asian pencil or the Hispanic pencil.

The shade of brown of a person’s skin is determined primarily by the amount of a complex polymer derived from the amino acid tyrosine called melanin a person has. All people have melanin in their body in all different amounts creating every shade of brown from lightest to darkest with not a single noticeable “gap” in the pattern. This is the major reason why it is literally impossible to define “races” by the color, or perhaps more appropriately shade, of a person’s skin. If we tried to do that, there would be no agreement as to where skin-tones—all of which are actually brown, not “white, yellow, red, or black”— transition from one “race” to another.

Think about it, today the term “black” is used very loosely, even applied to people with a very light skin-tone. I have known people whose skin-tone was close to my own yet they identified as “black”. I know a woman whose skin-tone is what some might call “white”, but because the rest of her family is dark enough to not be considered “white” I have had people tell me that she is a “black” woman. In contrast, I have known people who are considered “white” but have a skin-tone darker than some people I know who claim to be “black”. This all shows that there is no actual definitive line between one “race” and another, it’s all based on opinions.

So I want to take some time to look at where the concept of “races” comes from and why it is something that absolutely must be rejected by anyone who follows The Bible. While I do believe that God has a certain amount of forgiveness for genuine ignorance, the plain reality is that a person who adheres to the false construct of “races” is engaged in a strongly anti-Bible belief—as you will see in reading through this message.

The Tower Of Babel And The Origin Of “Races”

Now the entire earth had the same language with the same vocabulary. When they traveled eastward, they found a valley-plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, “Come! Let’s make bricks and bake them until they’re hard.” So they used bricks for stone, and tar for mortar.

Then they said, “Come! Let’s build ourselves a city, with a tower whose top reaches into heaven. So let’s make a name for ourselves, or else we will be scattered over the face of the whole land.”

Then Adonai came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. Adonai said, “Look, the people are one and all of them have the same language. So this is what they have begun to do. Now, nothing they plan to do will be impossible. Come! Let Us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand each other’s language.”

So Adonai scattered them from there over the face of the entire land, and they stopped building the city. This is why it is named Babel, because Adonai confused the languages of the entire world there, and from there Adonai scattered them over the face of the entire world.

~Genesis 11:1-9 (TLV)

In this passage we find the people of the world united in an effort against God. A significant point about this event is that the people were essentially recreating Eden, the tower being an artificial replication of God’s mountain from where the four rivers flowed. While I cannot go into detail about this, what is paramount to our study here is that these people were united against God and as a result God confused their languages and caused them to be dispersed. (If you want to read more about this, I recommend reading my articles Out Of Egypt → Into Babylon and NIMROD: Creator Of The Cities Of Men.)

It is through this dispersion that people developed into what would ultimately be called “races”. Now, let me clarify that this does not mean that God created “races”. God caused people to be dispersed to protect them from their own actions against Him. But this also caused isolation of human genomes that resulted in whole groups of people with outward physical features, including but not limited to skin-tones, to be noticeably different from other whole people groups.

I want to note that whatever would become known as “races” does not seem to have existed prior to this dispersion of people that resulted from the failed effort to “build a tower into the sky” in defiance to God. I have heard people teach that certain “races”, particularly the “black race”, has its origins in Genesis 2 because one of the lands flowing out of Eden was called Cush or that the “races” come from the three sons of Noah—“black” people from Ham, “white/Asian” people from Japheth, and “Semitic/Arabic” people from Shem (some have associated Asian peoples with Shem as well, instead of Japheth). I will discuss the error related to Genesis 2 separately, but for now let me say a few things about the “sons of Noah” theory.

As for the theory regarding the sons of Noah, this falls apart with proper evaluation of the claims made in support of it. Some have tried to apply “race” identifiers to the names of these three sons, claiming that Ham means “black” or “dark”, Japheth means “fair, light”, and Shem means “dusky, olive colored”. But this is simply not true, it is propaganda and rhetoric promoted by racist people who need to make things up to support a “race-based theology”—be it a “white-centric theology”, a “black-centric theology”, or any other theology built around the concept of a particular “race”. Charles Babers, Ph.D., states the following in his book Genesis: How It All Began:

There has been much written over time concerning the colors/races of these three sons; however, the Bible does not say anything in that regard. What it does say is where in the Bible that their descendants settled, and something may be inferred concerning their race and skin color from this. There are also people who claim that their races can be deduced from the meanings of their Hebrew names, but this is not the case. Ham is from the Hebrew root “Cham”, which means hot, [not black or dark]. Shem is from the Hebrew root “Shem”, meaning name, as in reputation or renown (not brown or olive-colored). Japheth is from the root “Patheah”, meaning open, roomy, spread out (not white or light colored).

Furthermore, Reverend Tenolian R. Bell, Ph.D., states the following in his published article titled What The Bible Says About Races?:

All three have been misinterpreted to represent different races. “Thus Japheth represents the White or Caucasian race, Ham the Black race, and Shem the Semitic race” (Hays 2003: 56). Many serious theologians argue that Genesis 10 does not organize the world into racial categories based on the color of one’s skin (Sarna 1989; Brueggemann 1982: 91-92; von Rad 1961: 136; Crusemann 1996: 66). Sarna (1989) argues, “Racial characteristics, physical types, or the color of skin play no role in categorizing.” Felder (1991) reports that the authors of the Bible awareness of color/race were not based on politics, economic or social standing, or viewing people in an unfavorable way, with the intent to enslave or oppress them.

The fact is that “races” are not connected to the sons of Noah or any other biblical origin because “races” is not a biblical concept. The Bible opposes the idea of “races”. It consistently refers to nations, and nations are defined by land and borders, not the color of one’s skin or any other unique physical features. Many today want to use The Bible in addressing the issues of “race”, but The Bible does not address “race” because “race” is a false construct, a non-truth, and The Bible is The Truth. The Bible cannot be The Truth and contain an endorsement of a lie. This will become even more clear later in this message when I present findings from modern research into the human genome.

While the event documented in The Bible at the Tower of Babel is where most Bible scholars would see as the point in history that led to the development of what people today wrongly call “races”, it is actually not the place where the concept of “races” originates. For that we must look at the religion of the Egyptians—the nation of people that enslaved the Israelites for around 400 years.

The Egyptian Book Of Gates

The first known record, so far as I have found in my present course of study (as a researcher I am always open to new findings), of the concept of “races” is found in an Egyptian tomb painting commonly called The Book Of Gates. It is a funerary text dating to the New Kingdom (16th to 11th centuries B.C.). Versions of it are found in a number of tombs of Pharaohs during this time.

The most famous portion of The Book Of Gates is a depiction of four “races” defined by this time in Egyptian history, if not earlier. According to the Egyptian beliefs these four “races” were Themehu (the lightest skin-tone depicted), Nehesu (the darkest skin-tone depicted), Aamu (“Semitic”), and Reth (“Egyptian”). Something of particular interest to note is that the Aamu/Semitic peoples depicted in this tomb rendering are shown with tassels on the corners of their garments, Semite being a term so often associated with Israelites. This is interesting as the Israelites are told to wear tzitzit (tassels) on the corners of their garments (Numbers 15:38). Today this commandment is generally fulfilled with tzitzit on the tallit (prayer shawl), but these ancient records do validate that the Semitic peoples held this practice even if in a different way than done in modern times. But make no mistake, as you will see in a moment, there has never been a specific “skin color” exclusive to Israel. I will be showing definitive proof that the Israelites were always a blend of peoples from light to dark, something that is contrary to the beliefs of the pagan societies like Egypt.

A moment ago I pointed out that the Tower of Babel and the empire of Babylon/Mesopotamia was an attempt to recreate Eden, humanity having been banished from the original Garden of God. Now we see the establishment of “races”, which at their core are designed to classify people and divide them against each other. At Babel the people were divided through the confusion of languages and dispersed. God did this to save them from themselves. But human beings didn’t learn and so they created their own division of people with this concept of “races”.

Something else worth noting about this Book Of Gates is that it was a religious text. It was, at least in part—that part which dealt with these defined “races”—a record of Egyptian beliefs about the ability of each of these “races” to enter the afterlife (according to Egyptian beliefs).

This indicates that the concept of “races” was designed both as a social construct of corrupt government designed to divide and control people as well as a central part of the religious beliefs of the Egyptians. Interestingly, this belief was established and held, it appears, during the time when the Israelite people were still in slavery in Egypt. Many scholars date the exodus event anywhere from the early 15th century B.C. to the late 13th century B.C., which would be during the New Kingdom time period where The Book Of Gates was being recorded.

The Rekhmire Tomb

During the 18th Dynasty in Egypt there was a governor named Rekhmire during the reigns of Thutmoses III and Amenhotep II. In his tomb there are clear depictions of slaves working at brickmaking, exactly as described in The Bible. Because the dating of this tomb also appears to be in harmony with the time the Hebrew people were still enslaved in Egypt it is the conclusion of many, and my belief as well, that these images depict the Israelite slaves we read about in the biblical Book of Exodus.

In these depictions of slaves on the walls of this tomb there is something of particular interest. These slaves are shown with at least three different skin-tones, and these three tones match the Themehu, Nehesu, and Aamu “races” depicted in The Book Of Gates. This means that these slaves, which appear to be the actual Israelite people, were not identified as a “race”, but as a people and a nation—the biblical concept that contrasts against the pagan religious idea of “races”. To further emphasize this point, look at what J. Daniel Hays says in his book From Every People And Nation: A Biblical Theology Of Race:

In its early formative stage, Israel was far from being ethnically monolithic. The family of Jacob had Aramean, Amorite, Canaanite, and Egyptian elements within it. During the four-hundred-year sojourn in Egypt this mix evolves into the ‘Sons of Israel’. God then forms them into a nation and brings them out of Egypt, binding them to himself through the covenant. During this event, however, numerous people of other ethnicities, including the Black Cushites, participate in the Exodus and the Passover, becoming part of the ‘people of God’. Indeed, the trajectory of this Black presence appears in numerous places and plays a significant role in the early story of Israel. Moses marries a Cushite woman and Phinehas (the ‘Negro’ or the ‘Cushite’) emerges as the central faithful priest of the next generation.

Thus the Torah, the foundation of the Old Testament story, paints a picture of racial diversity among the people of God.

While I disagree with Hays in regard to The Bible speaking about “races” and his use of “race-based” language—The Bible refers to people and nations, which is different than “races” (as you will see)—he makes a valid point here that supports the notion that God’s people are intended to be a people that do not identify as “a race” or even “a compilation of races” but as a people and a nation. So The Bible doesn’t exactly paint a picture of “racial diversity” as Hays terms it, but rather of diversity alone, apart from an embracing of the false construct of “races”, among the people of God. We could go as far as saying the nation of Israel was genetically diverse, but to impose the notion of “races” would be wrong.

Another example of this is seen in Acts 13:1, where we find a listing of key leaders of Messiah’s community of Believers in Antioch. The text lists these people: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius the Cyrenian, Manaen (brought up since childhood with Herod the Tetrarch), and Saul. Let’s take a look at each of them.

Barnabas: A Levite, meaning that he was descended from the Tribe of Levi. This also makes him distinct in that the Levites probably should not be considered “Jews”, despite the fact that most today would consider anyone of an Israelite descent to be “Jewish”.

Simeon called Niger: This is the most unique of all of the men listed here, so I need to take a little extra time in discussing him. Many sources suggest that this man was named such because he was of African descent and presumably had dark skin. But is that really the right conclusion simply because he was called “Niger”, a word that today is often associated with very dark skin-tones?

There are two lands in Africa with similar names: Niger and Nigeria. It is possible that this man came from one of these regions so named in modern times. It also means that the reference in his name, potentially being a reference to one of these land regions instead of his physical appearance, suggests that he could have been of a skin-tone other than the commonly assumed darker people of these nations. Some would argue that these two nations were not so-named until recent history, so cannot possibly have a connection to the use of the name Niger in Acts 13. However, as it turns out the word has a much older origin in this region. In an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Niger it says: “The country takes its name from the Niger River, which flows through the southwestern part of its territory. The name Niger derives in turn from the phrase gher n-gheren, meaning ‘river among rivers,’ in the Tamashek language.” This is a language native to this region in Africa, thus the name Niger as used for Simeon may have been related to this origin instead of any physical features he may have had, including his skin tone. This would not be the first place in Scripture a man is named after a river area where modern theologians get mixed up and identify it with “race”. They also do this with Cush, the grandson of Noah, who was likely named for the pre-flood land of Cush and not for the color of his skin or any other physical feature—which I will discuss in a moment.

Something else to note is that even if the use of Niger in Acts 13, describing something about Simeon, does indeed refer to something “dark” or even “black”, it does not necessarily mean it’s his skin. In his book titled The Curse Of Ham: Race And Slavery In Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which is a comprehensive and systematic destruction of the so-called “Curse of Ham” theology, Jewish scholar David M. Goldenberg states: “‘Niger’ and various derivatives were Latin cognomina chosen for the color of one's hair, eyes, or skin.” This indicates a possibility he was called this as much for the color of his hair or eyes as for his skin. Those who dogmatically insist that this name was given to him for his skin-tone are assuming that the name Niger meant 2,000 years ago exactly what it means to English speakers in western culture today—and their reasoning for this is to force a “racially-based” bias into their understanding of the text to try and support a “racially-based theology”, which is a totally irresponsible and racist method of hermeneutics. An example in comparison could be more like someone who would call a red-haired person today “Red” for the color of their hair, not the color of their skin. In other words, there are entirely too many alternate factors to conclude that “Niger” meant that Simeon was a dark-skinned man.

The use of the word “Niger” in his name is on its own no proof of what his skin-tone was or that it was the darker shade of brown associated with this word in modern times. It is entirely possible that being called “Niger” had absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin—it could just as likely have referred to the region he was from or to some other physical feature like his hair or eye color. So once again we are left with a different nationality, but no proof at all that he was a distinctly different “skin-tone” that could be assigned to one of the false categories of “races”.

Lucius the Cyrenian: Cyrene is what is today Libya in Africa. This is north of Niger and Nigeria and east of Egypt, though in the first century it is known to have had a heavily Jewish population. So, like Simon of Cyrene who aided in carrying Yeshua’s cross, there are debates over whether Lucius was a darker-skinned man most commonly associated with this region today or whether he was among the Jewish followers of Yeshua who would then have the more Semitic appearance of the Hebrew people. But, again, the Jewish people were historically diverse, so he could even have been “fair-skinned”, and the more important thing to note is that this man was from a different nation. The shade of his skin is secondary if even at all relevant to this discussion.

Manaen: Little is known about this man, but an important clue is given about his upbringing with Herod the Tetrarch, who was properly identified in history as Herod Antipas. This Herod was a ruler over Galilee and Perea. Galilee, of course, was the region where Yeshua was raised and spent most of his life and ministry. Perea was a stretch of land west of Jerusalem that expanded from the northern coast of the Dead Sea. Identifying Manaen’s physical appearance might be difficult at best, but clearly a different nationality than those we have already looked at.

Saul: Clearly the same as Paul, who went by both names. Saul/Paul was a Roman citizen who identifies himself elsewhere as being of the Tribe of Benjamin. He was from Tarsus in Cilicia, which is modern-day Turkey. While the modern Turks are often a lighter-skinned people, what many might consider “white”, indications are that in the first century there was a variety of people living in this region. Again, this shows that Paul was of a different nationality regardless of his “outward appearance”. There is, however, an interesting depiction of Paul, Yeshua, and Peter in a catacomb dated to somewhere between the second and fourth century that portrays both Yeshua and Peter with a more medium-brown skin-tone common to Semitic Middle-Eastern Jews living in first century Jerusalem, while it depicts Paul with a much lighter skin tone that many would call “white”. This provides a very strong argument for Paul being a “fair-skinned” person.

So in the council of leaders at Antioch we see representation of a variety of nations, and quite probably at least some diversity in skin-tones based on what is known about these nationalities of that time period—but the latter relies only on assumptions. Some have tried to use this passage to show “racial diversity”, but this is a difficult thing to do when discussing people who lived 2,000 years ago with no rendering of what they actually looked like (clearly we know there was no photography at that time). The best we have is a depiction of Paul from long after he lived when his portrait was painted in a tomb, though still close enough to his lifetime to suggest it to be probably accurate.

What we do see, however, is a blend of nationalities working together with people who probably were not all the same in outward appearance. God’s Kingdom is made up of people from all nations who reject the secular and pagan views of their culture, including those related to the false concept of “races”, to embrace His Son and His Torah.

So, in contrast to the establishment of “races” out of the pagan religions of Babylon and Egypt, we see that the people of God were always a diverse group of people from all nations who chose to be set apart and worship the God of The Bible. We see this in the depictions on the Rekhmire tomb. We see it through the “mixed multitude” that left Egypt (Exodus 12:38). We see it in one of the earliest councils of leadership over the community of Messianic Believers—the followers of Yeshua—in the Book of Acts. And we see it in the future Eternal Kingdom:

After these things I looked, and behold, a vast multitude that no one could count—from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues—was standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands and crying out with a loud voice, saying,

“Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

~Revelation 7:9-10 (TLV)

While some liberal modern paraphrase Bibles have forced the word “race” into this passage, the text based on the Greek documents it is translated from simply does not support the idea of “races”. I will get into that more a little later in this message in discussing the difference between “ethnicity” and “race”.

Ultimately what we see consistently throughout Scripture is a group of people who abandoned any “race” identifiers that may have been assigned to them and embraced God’s Kingdom where it is taught that we are of one blood and one common parentage. They did not identify as “black” or “white” or anything else. They identified with the nations that they hailed from and, more importantly, with the nation that is The Kingdom of God’s People. Biblically speaking, you are either a part of God’s Kingdom or Satan’s kingdom. Your physical appearance has nothing to do with it. And, as I will show you later in this message, anyone who endorses the idea that there are “different races of people” is not a part of God’s Kingdom.

The Edenic Land Of Cush

The name of the second river is Gihon—it winds around the whole land of Cush.

~Genesis 2:13 (TLV)

As already mentioned, I have heard some very poor theology that teaches “black people” come from this passage in Genesis 2, because it refers to “the land of Cush”. This is the type of thing you might hear from proponents of the extremely racist Black Hebrew Israelite cult, from those who promote Black Liberation Theology, or any other racially driven or race-based theologies. To further advance this error, some English Bibles replace the word Cush in this passage with the word Ethiopia, a region in modern-day Africa with a long history as a nation. I want to take a moment here and show just how ridiculous this is.

So, how does this passage lead to a supposed conclusion that it references the origin of “black people”? Well, because modern Ethiopia is considered to be “the land of Cush” in reference to the region settled by a man named Cush, the grandson of Noah born to Ham as mentioned in Genesis 10. Makes perfect sense, right? Genesis 2 refers to “the land of Cush” and we know “the land of Cush” is the region settled by this man named Cush. Let me ask a couple of questions here.

1. How can a portion of land that existed before the flood, even mentioned before the fall of humanity, be named for a man who was born after the flood?

2. How can a portion of land be referring to a “race” of people who allegedly come from there when that portion of land is documented at a time when The Bible records there were only two people on the entire earth—Adam and Eve?

The Edenic “land of Cush” could not possibly be the same place that would be today called “the land of Cush” or Ethiopoia named for a post-flood man who may have settled there. While a separate topic, I do believe the observable evidence supports a global flood that lasted the span of a year as described in Genesis chapters 6 though 9. As such, all land would have been radically changed—original Eden and the other regions described in Genesis 2 would have been completely destroyed and entirely new land formations would have developed. Simply put, through a global flood belief it would be impossible for the “land of Cush” described in Genesis 2 to be the same region known as Ethiopia today. And even for those who believe in “local flood theology” it is still wrong to conclude that the land mentioned in Genesis 2 before the fall of man is named for a man who would not be born until many generations later.

Another part of this entire argument says that the name “Cush” means “black”. In reality, the word itself is of an unknown origin and scholars tend to believe it is Canaanite. Any original meaning, particularly in its use in ancient Hebrew tracing back to Genesis 2, would also be unknown. The meaning of “black” assigned to this word appears to be more modern, much like how the names Niger and Nigeria, through historical events like the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, have evolved into derogatory terms for darker-complexion people leading most people today to associate these words with “black”.

If the name “Cush” was a reference to “black” in Genesis 2, it would most likely have been a reference to the rich, dark soil of the land that would be highly sought after for growing fruit and vegetables. But, again, that is if it was referring to anything “black” at all. This would be like the Egyptian hieroglyph “km.t”, which is a word primarily used of the rich black soil along the Nile River that was essential to Egyptian agriculture. This appears to be the origin for the Egyptian word “kemet” that refers to darker-skinned people, which is also an example of a word that started out as describing a portion of land with rich, black soil along a river ideal for agriculture that eventually led to use in describing the physical appearance of people. Clearly “Cush” in Genesis 2 could not be describing people with a particular outward appearance when there were only two people alive at that time—and nothing even remotely suggests that Adam referred to Eve as “Cush” or vice-versa.

It is most likely the case that Ham chose the name Cush for one of his sons as an homage to this portion of land mentioned in Genesis 2—which would mean that the man was named after the land, not the land named for the man. There could be a number of reasons for this. Perhaps this land was not included in the portion of the Garden of Even that Adam and Eve were banished from and Ham, who was alive before the flood, had fond memories of this place. Or, because we see it highlighted in Genesis 2, it may have become a place of legend so many generations removed from Adam and Eve. While Adam died long before the flood at 930 years old, it seems he was still alive during the lifetime of Noah’s father Lamech, so Noah would have been only one generation removed from the eye-witness account of what Eden was like. These are both very plausible theories of why this name was chosen by Ham for his son. The idea that the name was chosen because of his skin color or “racial identity” is very much unlikely.

I cannot begin tell you just how wrong it is to claim a region of land in the pre-fall, pre-flood Edenic world was named after a man born after the flood and further claiming the name was a reference to “black” people. And why do people dream up this stuff? They do it because they “feel called” to be the voice of religious subcultures built around the false construct of “races of people”. They think they are doing Kingdom work, but it is impossible to be doing Kingdom work when you have to twist and manipulate Scripture and promote outright lies. When people do this kind of stuff it becomes very difficult to take them serious and believe anything they have to say. It’s really sad that people who claim they place their faith in the words of The Bible feel the need to misrepresent The Bible to promote completely unbiblical beliefs.

Racism Is A Pagan Religion

For the most part, calling something “pagan” today, as a Bible-believer, primarily means that you are saying it is radically opposed to biblical faith. The proper definition of “pagan” as a religious term is a reference to polytheistic religion—or a belief system that has many gods. While the term is sometimes abused, we must be willing to call things “pagan” when they are beliefs built on other religions—especially when the other religions are polytheistic like that of the ancient Egyptians.

Having established that the concept of “races” is a false construct and finds its origins in the beliefs of the religions of ancient Babylon and ancient Egypt, I now want to focus on showing that “racism” is itself a false religion not to be embraced by God’s people. This is a very important part of this message, so I hope you, the reader, will really lock into what I am about to share here.

When dealing with words like “racism” and “racist”, so often these are viewed only in terms of “racial hatred”—where someone hates people they consider to be of another “race”. This is a form of “racism”, but it is not the whole picture. We must be careful about this because extremes of this narrow view of these terms has led to some claiming that “racism” is systemic and can only be committed by those who have the power to oppress people of a “different race” on a mass scale. Those who promote “systemic racism” theories will often tell you that “racial hatred” isn’t really racism, but bigotry and/or prejudice, minimizing even acts of “racial hatred” in order to elevate what they claim to be “systemic racism” as the only true racism. Perhaps it would be wise to go back to basics and look at the dictionary definitions of bigotry and prejudice.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Prejudice: a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

These two words are certainly characteristics of many forms of “racism”, including racial bias, racial hatred, and systemic racism. But clearly it is wrong to say that some of these forms of racism are not really racism and minimize them to bigotry and/or prejudice when by definition these words are characteristics that apply to some forms of racism and a whole lot of other things that are not racism too.

“Systemic racism” is debated and many reject it as totally unfounded, but assuming it is a legitimate behavior of modern society it is still merely a form of “racism”, one of the branches on the tree of racism, and not the entire concept of it. Arguments in support of “systemic racism” tend to be circumstantial, thus making it a theory or even a conspiracy theory. Basically, regardless of the fact that some agenda-driven people will not like it, what has happened in some societies—including The United States of America—could be the result of systemic racism or it could be simply the natural result of a lot of racist acts and just plain bad decisions that snowballed out of control. In order for it to be truly systemic would require “the system” to intentionally have done all of the “racist” things that have been done throughout history with a clear intent to oppress one group of people, and that has not been proven—and probably never will be either.

There is, however, a lot of this circumstantial evidence used to support the claims of “systemic racism”, and that is not something to be lightly dismissed. In other words, while it should be treated as a theory or even a conspiracy theory, it should also be taken serious. But again, none of these things are the whole of what is “racism”, but merely extensions of it. And that leads us to the all-important question: What is racism, really?

The key to understand what “racism” really is can be found in examining the use of the suffix “ism”, as well as the suffix “ist” used in “racist”. An “ism” is a unique belief, practice, system, or philosophy, typical to a political or religious ideology or movement. So, when applied to a political ideology we might look at words such as socialism, capitalism, or communism. With regard to religion we would have such terms as Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Atheism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, and so on. A person who practices such faiths is often designated with the “ist” suffix, such as a Buddhist, Atheist, or Taoist.

Because we can trace the origins of the false construct concept of “races” to some of the oldest pagan religions, two belief systems that The Bible was written in direct opposition to, we can then define “racism” in terms of being a religion that was born out of the original religious belief established in Babylon and Egypt. “Racism” is the religious belief in “races”. So by even labeling people as “white, black, red, or yellow”, or with terms contextually applied to a particular “race” based on other outward physical features such as “Asian” or “African-American”, one is engaged in a religion that is contrary to the faith of The Bible. In other words, if you even say “black” or “white” or any other term associated with “races” in the context of identifying either yourself or anyone else as being of a particular “race”, YOU ARE A RACIST just in that act alone—and, as I will show in more detail in a moment, you are also a pagan, as opposed to a genuine follower of Yeshua and The Bible.

Let’s talk for a moment about the examples I gave of “Asian” and “African-American”, which could certainly apply to any group that uses a broad term associated with “races”. When someone says they are “Asian”, for example, they are claiming that they are from the continent of “Asia”, which consists of a number of nations. The term “Asian” typically describes physical features considered “Asian”, most common of which is a particular eye shape. This makes the term “Asian” a “race-identifier” and therefore “racist” in this context. It would be more appropriate, biblically and biologically, to identify with a particular nation from which you or your family lineage comes from. Thus, for a Believer who truly seeks to follow The Bible, since The Bible places the focus on nationalities and ethnicity, not the false construct of “races”, it would be more appropriate for someone with this heritage to identify as Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, or any other national identity as opposed to the broader term of “Asian” that is typically associated with outward features used to identify the “race” of “Asian”—such as eye shapes and hair styles. After all, most of Russia is considered part of Asia but most Russian people would be classified racially as “white”, not “Asian”. This further shows that terms like “Asian” or “African-American” are “race identifiers” and so using them would make one a racist.

Let’s consider also “African-American”, used primarily of people of dark skin-tone living in the United States. First of all, there are peoples with this same darker skin-tone in the U.S.A. who have no biological connection at all with the peoples of the continent of Africa, but most people would still classify them as “African-American” simply because of their skin color. Additionally, there are parts of Africa, such as the nation of South Africa, where the people are predominantly of the lighter skin-tone so often defined as “white” under the false construct of “races”. These people would be right to also identify as “African-American” if this term were not a “race-designation”. But this all falls apart when you factor in these two points that there are people of darker skin with no biological connection at all to Africa and people of “lighter” skin-tone that are wholly connected to Africa.

“Racism” is a false religion that when examined as a religion falls apart when its beliefs are viewed in greater depth. Biologically science has long acknowledged that the idea of “races” has no support whatsoever. Every human has DNA that is 99.9% identical to every other human. It is in that remaining 0.1% that we find these “differences” that are used to categorize people into “races” and claim one “race” is different from another “race”. Imagine if everyone focused on the 99.9% that is humanity instead of the 0.1% used to create this fantasy of “races”!

Biblically any honest religious scholar would have to admit that The Bible does not identify anyone based on the concept of “races”. Yet today the majority of people in America and the world, including the vast majority of “Christians”, believe that there are “races” and acknowledge them every time they identify people, including themselves, as “black, white, yellow, red, Asian, African-American, etc.” because of the color of their skin or other external physical human traits. This, particularly where professing followers of Yeshua are concerned, means that they are engaged in another religion. That not only makes them a “racist”, but also they are embracing an Anti-Messiah spirit. Consider this prohibition from The Torah:

When Adonai your God cuts off before you the nations that you are going in to dispossess, when you have dispossessed them and settled in their land, be careful not to be trapped into imitating them after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods? I will do the same.’ You are not to act like this toward Adonai your God! For every abomination of Adonai, which He hates, they have done to their gods—they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

~Deuteronomy 12:29-31 (TLV)

In this passage we find a general prohibition against the appropriation of pagan religious beliefs, practices, rites, and rituals into the worship of Yah—The God of The Bible. As with any such passage of Scripture there are liberal interpreters of The Bible who would try to explain away a passage like this. One of the popular takes on if I have heard is that this commandment was specific to the Israelites and the land of Canaan, so it only commands Israelite people not to embrace Canaanite religion. Of course views like this fall apart when you look at the whole Bible and how ALL paganism and idolatry is clearly deemed to be forbidden under this general prohibition.

This commandment when viewed from a point of logically erring on the side of caution, where you simply assume that the appropriation of all pagan religious beliefs and practices are prohibited by the commandment, would certainly apply to such things as Christmas and Easter, which are the creations of the Roman Catholic religion and likely also inspired by other religions. Since, if we are being totally honest, Roman Catholicism is a pagan religion then associating these holidays with events in the life of Yeshua and celebrating them would be a transgression of the commandment against appropriating pagan religious practices into our faith practice.

Another example may come with the prohibition against tattooing your body from Leviticus 19:28. Some who try to argue away this commandment in order to justify the practice by claiming the tattoo prohibition is exclusively when doing this “for the dead”, which was an ancient pagan ritual involved with ancestral worship. But when you apply Deuteronomy 12:29-31 to the equation, then getting a tattoo with some type of Bible or Christian symbology, as many who take to these type of interpretations do, would be using an ancient pagan religious practice in their worship of Yah—which is directly prohibited by The Torah. Think about that the next time you see some “Christian” who tattoos Bible verses, crosses, “Jesus faces”, or any other such symbology onto their body.

In regard to “racism”, having established that this is a religious belief rooted in the religions of Babylon and Egypt, then any belief in or acknowledgement of “races” also violates this commandment. When people try to argue that The Bible supports the concept of “races”, they are violating Deuteronomy 12:29-31 by taking a pagan religious belief and trying to force it into The Bible. This is especially true when they create “race-based theologies” like those of the Black Hebrew Israelite cult, the Ku Klux Klan, Black Liberation Theology, or just teaching things like “black people” come from Genesis 2:13. A “race-based theology” will ultimately lead to a blatantly “racist theology” and really is racist to begin with because it requires you to believe in the totally false belief that there are “different races of human beings”.

I was listening to one minister recently, a guy who claims to be a “prophet”, and his statements basically said that “white” preachers should use their “white privilege” to the benefit of “black” preachers and “black” Christians. Such a view is totally racist, and clearly if a person were a real “prophet of God” they would not say such ludicrous things. I have seen “preachers” and political activists alike, particularly among those who consider themselves “racially black”, stand before their audience and declare themselves a “proud [black, white, etc.] man/woman” or engage in political or social activities under mantras built on the concept of “races”. These people are racists—engaged in racism. And as such they are literally adhering to a religious belief opposed by Scripture.

Ethnicity And “Race” Are Not The Same

I want to take a moment to talk about another common misunderstanding I encounter with people when addressing the totally unbiblical concept of “races”. Some people claim that The Bible has a lot to say about “races” under the banner of the Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos). The claim is that this is the origin of the word “ethnicity”, which is true, and that “ethnicity” is another word for “race”, which is not true. Try as you may, try as you might, you cannot replace one word with another to make The Bible support an unbiblical belief. When studies in the human genome have proven that “races of people” do not exist, then that means “races of people” is not a part of the design of God’s Creation. And anything that is not a part of God’s Creation is definitely unbiblical.

The Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos), from where we get the English word ethnicity, is most commonly associated with the word “nation” or “nations”. It would be the equivalent of the Hebrew word “goy” (גּוֹי), which refers to Gentiles, as can be seen in reviewing the Septuagint where variations of ἔθνος are used to for גּוֹי. A nation is a portion of land with boundaries and anyone who lives within that portion of land is of that nationality. Let’s look, once again, at a couple of basic dictionary definitions.

Ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Nationality: the status of belonging to a particular nation.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly some claims are so easily debunked when you just go back to the basics? Sadly, so much of the time people, in trying to sound smart, fail to look at the foundations of the ideologies they are trying to talk about, and so they end up sounding foolish to anyone who actually possesses wisdom, knowledge, and truth.

Nationality describes the nation a person belongs to and ethnicity describes the culture of that nationality. Culture is the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group—so things such as clothing styles, music, foods, and other such things, NOT outward physical features, are an indication of a person’s culture and ethnicity. None of these words, which are connected to the Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos)—as well as the Hebrew word גּוֹי (goy), one of the Hebrew words used of Gentiles—have anything at all to do with physical human characteristics like skin-tone, eye-shape, hair type, height, facial features, or anything else people might use to try to define “races of people”.

All throughout history, as we saw earlier with the Hebrew people and as we see today with the United States and many other nations, nationality is not bound by “race”. You can be any shade of brown, from the lightest to the darkest, and be Israelite, American, French, German, Russian, Japanese, or any other nationality and ethnicity. This, of course, is because nationality, as well as ethnicity, is based on where you live or where you were raised, not what you look like.

What has happened is that many people look at a Strong’s Concordance, see that ἔθνος (ethnos) has “race” included in the definition, and just assume that’s what it means. The reality is that this is one of the places where it appears Strong’s Concordance is not exactly right. Strong's Concordance is a good resource, but it was written in 1890 and in many cases can be misleading and contains numerous known errors according to some scholars.

When we look at Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and other sources it turns out the better definition of ἔθνος (ethnos) is “a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together, a company, troop, swarm, a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus (the human family), a tribe, nation, people group,” and in direct biblical applications, “foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles.” If you really want to simplify it, ἔθνος (ethnos) means “an ethnic group”, and of course ethnicity is influenced by nationality, culture, and religious beliefs—not physical characteristics. Interestingly, the King James Bible, which is the source used in most of these lexicons and Bible dictionaries, translates ἔθνος (ethnos) twice as “people”, five times as “heathen” (pagans), sixty-four times as “nation(s)”, and ninety-three times as “Gentiles”. In other words, this word as applied in Scripture has a whole lot more to do with being a pagan—one who does not wholly follow God and His Word—than anything else. And that is really something when you consider that racism—the belief in “races”—is essentially a pagan ideology.

As another major example of how twisted this gets when people replace the proper interpretation of ἔθνος (ethnos)—as nations or ethnicities—with the word “races” is a claim I heard recently that Yeshua’s prophetic mention of “nation against nation” (Matthew 24:7, Mark 13:8, Luke 21:10) can be rendered “race against race”. Thus, this person was claiming that this shows an eschatological theory that there will be “race wars” in the latter times, and of course since there are wars between people who claim to be of “different races”—primarily in the United States—it would look like this person’s claim had validity, especially to gullible and biblically illiterate American “Christians”. Except it didn’t and it doesn’t—not biblically anyway.

The phrase “nation against nation” is a Hebrew idiom for an all-out global war. It is not about literal “nation against nation”, as many looking at the Scripture from an “American” mindset think. This is further shown in the phrase accompanying it: “kingdom against kingdom”. Obviously a kingdom is not a reference to “races of people” at all—like nations, kingdoms are portions of land with boundaries.

We also must turn our attention to Isaiah 19:2, which is what Yeshua was citing when He made his “nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom” prophetic declaration. In the Isaiah passage we find something very interesting. It says: “I will stir up Egyptian against Egyptian. Everyone will fight against his brother, and everyone against his neighbor—city against city, kingdom against kingdom.” While Egyptian is clearly a reference to a nationality or ethnicity, let’s assume it is a reference to a “race of people” since the entire concept of “races” is rooted in ancient Egyptian religious beliefs. If it were, then the passage, as well as the statements of Yeshua, would be talking about people warring with people within their “race”, not against people of “other races”. This would be further emphasized by the next statement: “Everyone will fight against his brother, and everyone against his neighbor.” So clearly there is no possible way, in proper context, that these passages are talking about “race wars”. They are talking about an end-time global war where everyone is fighting against everyone—“race” is not a factor.

So, basically, any of these people who use ἔθνος (ethnos) to support the idea that there are “different races” of people, and that The Bible supports this idea, really are being pagan racists because that’s what ἔθνος (ethnos) is all about—it is a word that more than anything else, in the context of Scripture, refers to those of the pagan nations who have not entered into covenant with Yah through faith in Yeshua. The call of Scripture is to come out from among the nations (ἔθνος) and be separate to Elohim.

The actual Greek word for “race” or “races” is φῦλον (phylum), or φυλή (phylí), and it is not used anywhere in the entirety of the Apostolic Scriptures (or what many will call the “New Testament”). There is, however, a single use of a word derived from this root word in the Book of Acts.

He said to them, “You yourselves know that it is not permitted for a Jewish man to associate with a non-Jew or to visit him. Yet God has shown me that I should call no one unholy or unclean.

~Acts 10:28 (TLV, emphasis added)

This word translated here “non-Jew” in this passage is the Greek word ἀλλόφυλος (allophulos) and it simply means “foreign”, though it can also mean “of another tribe or race”. This is because it is built by combining φῦλον (phylum) with ἄλλος (allos), which means “another, other, different”.

This is interesting because the only use of the actual Greek word for “race” or “races” in the entire Bible—and there is no Hebrew word for “race” or “races” used because “races” is not a Hebrew concept—is in the context of Acts 10. And what is the context of Acts 10? It is the passage of Peter’s vision of the white sheet with clean and unclean animals. While this is not a study on the food laws—and I have covered that aspect of the passage in great detail in my article Get Up Peter, Kill And Eat—we know that the message of the vision was that the Good News of Yeshua is for all people. The entire context of the passage was essentially to tell Peter and everyone else not to be a racist. And here we have it; the only place in the entire Bible that even vaguely refers to “races” is in the context of the primary, and only, “don’t be a racist” verse in the entire Bible.

You cannot believe that there are “different races of people” and call yourself a true follower of The Bible and God The Creator, because the idea of “races of people” is completely contrary to the design of Creation in accordance with The Bible.

Who Are The Real Racists?

There is no denying that racism is a reality in the United States and certainly other parts of the world as well. But the only reason it exists in America and anywhere else is because people still adhere to the ancient religious belief that there are “races” of people—something that has no basis in biology or The Bible. I highly recommend taking time to watch the messages Tower Of Babel: Origin Of Races by Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis and the Origin Of Races episode from the TBN series Creation In The 21st Century with host David Rives and guest Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson.

There is no doubt that in America’s history racism evolved out of the slavery of people taken from the continent of Africa. But I have to wonder, in modern America, while racism from those identified by the racists as “white” against those called “black” still lives in the hearts of some, where is the most racism to be found today? It seems I see the most racism is being expressed by those of a darker complexion these days. Not too long ago a friend shared with me some thoughts expressed by one of his family members who was contemplating why “whites” (his family member’s words) are branded as racists and no other “race” is. Though I do not wholly share these views, consider what this young man had to say and really try to understand his perspective:

“There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... And that's OK. You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you.... So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live? You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom HaShoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP. You have BET...

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we'd be racists. If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that? A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant. If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists. You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists. You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist. I am proud... But you call me a racist. Why is it that only whites can be racists?? There is nothing improper about this. Let's see which of you are proud enough to share it. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have LOST most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves! BE PROUD TO BE WHITE! It's not a crime YET... But getting very close!”

Now, let me be clear again that the concept of “races” is a false construct and anyone… ANYONE AND EVERYONE… who bases their beliefs and ideas about people on this concept of “races” IS A RACIST, by definition as I thoroughly explained earlier in this message. So, yes, in exposing a lot of “other racism” this fellow was still being racist perhaps without knowing it. Again, I do not condone or endorse everything he said. But listen to the heart of his message. So many times we hear people wanting us to listen to the cry of their heart and why they “feel oppressed”. Well, that goes both ways, and when you have people who feel like this person then the people claiming to be oppressed are doing to others the exact same thing they have complained about having been done to them. That is heavily racist.

Look also at the movement and the phrase built on it “Black Lives Matter”. “Christians” have been torn over this phrase, as the formal organization established under it stands for a number of very anti-Christian beliefs. Now, this message is not about these issues, but they are matters that most “Christians” are passionately opposed to. So what do we do when many are equally passionate that so-called “black lives” really do matter?

Well, first we have to ask if that statement is really true of the communities who rally behind it. Typically the rallying behind this phrase occurs whenever a person called “black” by the racists dies or suffers any perceived injustice by someone called “white” by the racists (and as a reminder, by “racists” I am referring to those who believe that humanity is divided into “different races” based on outward physical features, not necessarily those who hold racial bias, racial hatred, or are a part of some kind of systemic racism—so anyone who calls people terms like “black” or “white” is a racist, even if they don’t actually hate anyone they believe to be of “another race” then they believe themselves to be).

Here’s a question: What about the millions of unborn children slaughtered in the abortion clinics of our nations? Many of them are from mothers identified by the racists as “black”, but apparently the lives of these babies do not matter because the “Black Lives Matter” organization stands in favor of abortion. What about the “black” police officers being killed by those who engage in riots in the name of “Black Lives Matter”? Well, they are the police, so those “darker complexion” people apparently chose to be on the wrong side and didn’t matter to the agenda. What about the businesses and communities in predominantly “black” neighborhoods where many rioters looted, vandalized, and burned things down in the past? Once again, it seems those “black lives” don’t matter too much. To quote Thomas Sowell: “We keep hearing that ‘black lives matter,’ but they seem to matter only when that helps politicians to get votes, or when that slogan helps demagogues demonize the police.”

The real racists are anyone who believes that there are “different races of people”. And racial hatred is found in all so-called “race” groups because the entirety of the demonic spirit of racism is to classify people into groups and then divide them against each other. And if you believe that there are “races” of people you are only one step away from engaging in racial hatred. As long as you believe that there are “white” people and “black” people and “red” people and “yellow” people and “Asian” people and “African-American” people and “Caucasian” people and any other “race” of people you or society can dream up you are a racist submitted to a demon spirit and all the devil has to do is throw one fiery dart into your mind about a person you believe to be from “another race” than what you believe yourself to be and you will cross over from foundational racism—the general belief in “races of people”—to racial hatred. In reality, simply believing that there are races will cause you to say or do things that will be perceived by someone as “racial hatred”. It is impossible to believe that there are “different races” and not be a racist, because racism is, at its root, a pagan religious belief that there are “different races of people”.

The Only Race In The Bible

From one man he made every nation living on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.

~Acts 17:26 (CJB)

I opened this message with this passage, but it bears repeating. Biblically and biologically there is no such thing as “different races of people”. To believe that there are is to embrace the views of ancient pagan religion and to embrace an anti-Messiah spirit. Consider this quote:

“I am therefore not completely human until I have found myself in my African and Asian and Indonesian brother because he has the part of humanity that I lack.”

—Thomas Merton, Feb. 1963

The fact that Merton pairs “Indonesian” with “African” and “Asian” indicates that he is using all of these terms in the context of nationalities or ethnicities, as opposed to “races”, but either way his point is fascinating. I have already referred to the fact that all humans have a 99.9% identical DNA. There are an estimated 20,000 human genomes and with that the possibility that there are as many shades of brown in human skin-tones. The reality is that people who are so noticeably different that they can even be classified into “races” are that way due to a loss of genetic data. Like we saw earlier with the Tower of Babel incident, the people became isolated and as a result a loss of genetic information in each isolated group caused people to take on noticeably different outward physical features.

Ken Ham and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, in their respective aforementioned presentations, refer to a pundit square—simplified for illustration. They show that the “one man”, be it Adam (and Eve) or Noah (and his wife), that we originate from had to have the most diverse gene pool possible to feed genetic information into all the variety we see today in humanity. Additionally, the model shows that people who are furthest from the center of the chart, such as those with the lightest and darkest skin-tones, are a result of a loss of genetic coding. This is not to say they are inferior or superior, remember we are still talking about differences that occur in only 0.1% of our genetic code. This is what Merton is essentially pointing out. Other people have a part of humanity he lacks because they have actual genetic information that his own family lineage has lost—and in like manner he has genetic information that others lack.

There is only one race in The Bible, and it’s not any of the “races” society wants to label people and not even “the human race”, at least not in the sense I have been talking about in this message. Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:7 (CJB): “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

I decided to do a word study on this. I found that in the most popular translation of The Bible, the King James Version, the word "race" is used FOUR TIMES. That's it! And those four times it is used in the context of running a race, not the context of dividing human beings into categories based on the color of their skin or any other physical feature.

As I progressed forward, I found in another popular translation, the New International Version, where "race" appears 16 times, does use the word both in the meaning of running a race and of human beings as a race. But it is just that—in the latter it is referring to "the human race", which is a reference to ALL human beings as one "race", although "race" is still not really the best term to use even in this case. We are humanity, not "the human race". There was one exception, Ezra 9:2 (NIV) refers to "the holy race", as it is in a couple of other translations. This is clearly a poor translation as it is a reference to the distinction between those who are in covenant with God vs. those who are not, which really should not be referred to in the totally unbiblical term of "races".

There are some more liberal paraphrase Bibles that use "race" in reference to human classifications more loosely. But these are paraphrase Bibles that mean well in trying to present Scripture in modern slang, but when they do things like this they fail. A good example is Revelation 7:9, which should not refer to "races" but to nations and peoples. I will not fault the translators for their efforts, despite their failure to recognize this error they had good intentions in this. But it serves as a good example of why we should not refer solely to paraphrase Bibles without first knowing what a passage of Scripture SHOULD be saying. It is irresponsible hermeneutics, and quite frankly heretical, to replace a word with a completely different word that has no place in Scripture simply to support a totally unbiblical belief. But that is what people are doing when they replace ἔθνος (ethnos) and גּוֹי (goy) with “race” or “races”.

So this leaves us with a staggering fact: In the original language and context of The Bible, the ONLY "race" is the one we are called to run. It is the race of FAITH, chasing after the prize of eternity with our Messiah. This is what the Apostle Paul had to say to us about "race" in The Bible:

Don’t you know that in a stadium the runners all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win! Every competitor exercises self-control in all respects. They do it to receive a perishable crown, but we do it to receive an imperishable one. So I run in this way—not aimlessly. So I box in this way—not beating the air. Rather, I punish my body and bring it into submission, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

~1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (TLV)

You were running a great race! Who blocked you from following the truth?

~Galatians 5:7 (TLV)

In like manner, the writer of the Book of Hebrews tells us:

Therefore, since we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also get rid of every weight and entangling sin. Let us run with endurance the race set before us, focusing on Yeshua, the initiator and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, disregarding its shame; and He has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

~Hebrews 12:1-2 (TLV)

Ecclesiastes 9:11 says that "the race is not to the swift" and our Messiah Himself said it will be those who "endure to the end" that will be saved (Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13).

Galatians 5:7 warns of things blocking us in our race for truth. Perhaps today for many it is the embracing of this totally false construct, this complete lie not supported by science, this outright demonic unbiblical anti-Messiah spirit of "belief in races of people" that is the thing blocking many from truly being a part of God's Kingdom. The hatred I have seen from all sides of this issue is thick, and many are going to be rejected by God over it. And as long as you believe that there are "races of people" you are always going to be prone to "racially based" hatred and division. This is evident in the fact that many today are casting hate toward other Believers not because a man was killed by a police officer and not because there were slaves from Africa brought to America, but because they STILL BELIEVE that there are "white" people and there are "black" people.

As I have said and will continue to say, if you actually believe in the idea of "different races of people", that act of belief alone makes you a racist. If you use the terms like "black, white, yellow, red, Asian, Caucasian, African-American, etc." in a way to describe people into "race classifications", then you are a racist. I know a lot of people who reveal themselves every day as racists simply by using these terms, often without even thinking about it. STOP USING "RACE" IDENTIFIERS IN YOUR SPEECH!!! You will notice I use these terms in quotations and italics to signal that I DO NOT acknowledge them as valid descriptors of human beings. I am only using these words in this message in the first place for educational purposes to show why they are not proper terms to use.

I'M NOT “WHITE”. And if you are a few shades or more "darker brown" than I am, YOU ARE NOT “BLACK”. We must stop using these words that promote the idea of "different races", because they are incorrect and when you use them you are being a racist, divisive, and BEARING FALSE WITNESS against your neighbor by calling them something that is not based in truth. In Hebrew this is called lashon hara, or “evil speech”.

A lot of people don't like it when some people say "I have 'black' friends". Good, they should oppose such silly racist statements.

I have friends. They are all human. They do not all look like me; most look very different than me. I do not consider them "black" or "Asian" or “red” or anything else. I consider them PEOPLE. Just like me. If we believe we all come from ONE BLOOD like The Bible says, then EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON THIS PLANET is my relative, my brother, my sister, my cousin, my niece, my nephew, my uncle, my aunt, my mother, my father.

People get upset when the phrase “All Lives Matter” is used as a rebuttal to the mantra “Black Lives Matter”. But here’s the thing, biblically EVERY LIVING THING IN OUR GOD’S CREATION IS WHAT MATTERS. The primary mandate to humanity in the first two chapters of Genesis is to care for everything God created. “All Life Matters” is the call to humanity. As long as people are busy arguing about what human lives matter they will never step into the purpose for which they were created—and that is exactly how Satan wants it to be.

When it comes to the “war of words” between people saying “black lives matter” and “all lives matter” there is only one of these two statements that draws attention to “race”. Think about that. One group says “of course all lives matter, but we are focused on these ones right now”. How much more racist can you get? When people do that they are still placing a higher emphasis on what they consider to be a particular “race” of people, which again is totally racist.

Most people today have such a narrow view of this topic that what they think they are doing to stand against racism is not doing much of anything at all. They win a battle here and there, but all they are doing is lopping branches off of the tree of racism. The tree will grow new branches as long as there are still people who believe that there are “different races of people”. Even if society successfully ended all “racially-based hate”, so long as people believe that there are “different races” it will only be a matter of time before the belief in “races” turns into “racial hatred” once again. The only way to truly solve this problem in humanity is to recognize that there are no “races” of people and cut the tree out at the roots.

What is the root? It’s the pagan religious belief in the totally false construct of “races of people” that is not at all supported by biblical beliefs or biological research. Embracing the Bible view that there are no “races of people”, that we are all HUMANITY from one blood, is the only thing that will ever end racism permanently.

Join the race that those in The Bible ran, the race that does not compete against anyone but yourself, the race that knows no human by the color of their skin, the race that runs for the prize of eternity with our Master and Messiah... YESHUA!

THAT is "the human race", not a "racial" classification based on outward physical features, but the "human race" ran by all humans where you are either running toward or away from God. And THAT is the only race in The Bible. Will you become a runner?

~Blessings and Shalom~

©2022 Truth Ignited Ministry

www.TruthIgnited.com Facebook.com/TruthIgnited www.youtube.com/c/TruthIgnited