By Davis Carlton

A Facebook friend passed along some criticism of my article originally posted on Faith and Heritage, A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism. I would like to respond to this criticism. To my knowledge this has not been posted anywhere online and the author is currently anonymous, but I would still like to respond to some of the concerns that were raised.

Linguistic Issues

Objections were raised about my claims about Biblical concepts in their original languages. The objector notes that I and other Kinist writers aren’t linguists or Biblical scholars, and then expresses doubt about the accuracy of the claims that I make in the original article about the meaning of Biblical words and terms. He writes, “contrary to their ad hoc claim made in Carlton’s footnotes, a ‘nation as it is defined in Scripture’ is in fact not defined the same way in the Bible as it is ‘defined in the Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary…’ that is both an assumption, and patently false.” He continues, “It does not matter how many biblical proof texts a person cites when one doesn’t understand the meaning of the key words around which one builds-out an entire theological system.”

First I would like to agree that I am not a linguistics expert in the Bible’s original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. I do not know these languages and I rely upon concordances, lexicons, and translations to gain insights into what words in the original languages mean in the English language. I apologize if that wasn’t clear in the original article. My footnote was perhaps misstated and I’m considering how I could have more clearly stated my case. I was making a comment about how the concept of national identity had changed over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in the English language and the reference to Black’s Law Dictionary was given simply to demonstrate this fact.

The Bible uses a variety of words to describe different relationships based upon hereditary closeness. Prominent Biblical figures can be, and often are, identified by the hierarchy of descent from common patriarchs. For example, Jesus was a man by virtue of his descent from the first man Adam. From there Jesus could be identified as a Hebrew, encompassing the nations descended from the Shemite patriarch Eber (Gen. 10:24-25); an Israelite because of his descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel); of the tribe of Judah because of his descent from Judah the son of Jacob, of the clan or house of David.

My anonymous interlocutor points out that the Hebrew term “goyim” and the Greek term “ethnos” which are translated as nation in English Bibles are used collectively of all non-Israelites who are not in covenant relationship with the God of Israel. This is true, and when the context indicated that this was the likely meaning English language translations often use a word like “heathen” to indicate this. A good example of this is Psalm 2:1, in which the Psalmist asks, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” However, it is obvious that this is not the only way in which this terminology is used. There is ample evidence that the same words are used to distinguish multiple nations of distinct groups of people based upon descent from different ancestors. The Bible most frequently identifies nations by the name of their ancestral patriarch; the Israelites are the descendants of Israel (Jacob), the Edomites are the descendants of Edom (Esau), the Moabites from Moab, the Ammonites from Ben-Ammi, etc.

There are also several places in which the concept of nations cannot simply be collapsed into the broadly collective concept of heathen non-Israelites. An example of this would be in Psalm 86:9, “All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.” The same word for nation is used here that is translated as heathen in Psalm 2, but is modified to say that all nations or every nation, and simply does not refer to the collective non-Israelite world. As I stated before, I do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, and so I rely upon lexicons, translations, and commentaries as do most Christian believers. That being said, I do think that there is ample reason to believe that the Biblical authors had the concept of racial and ethnic differences in mind when they authored the Scriptures as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. I believe that our taxonomy of race, ethnicity, tribes, clans, and families is properly indexed to the appropriate Biblical terms. I am no linguistic expert as I have readily admitted, but I don’t see any reason to doubt Kinism on linguistic grounds based upon what my anonymous interlocutor has presented.

The Heart of the Matter: Race and Eschatology

My anonymous interlocutor raises several questions about national identity which imply that ethno-nationalism is impracticable. “Ethnonationalism cannot comprehend scaling levels of heritage. That I can be proud to be a child of Abraham, a citizen of Hawaii, a bastard child of various Germanic peoples, who speaks Roman Latin, who also shares in the misfortunes of the American People, seems unthinkable to them. More unthinkable is the fact that those allegiances can be ranked in meaningfully ascending order seems unthinkable even more so.”

And again, “There is also a practical problem with the ethnonational vision, namely, what’s to be done? Even if everyone was ethnically pure, according to bloodlines, the problem remains. Take Hawaii for example: Does Kauai gain independence? They were never conquered. By what measure do we redraw the boundaries of nations? Are they geographic or historic? Are they imagined or do they fall along naturally occurring boundaries like oceans and mountains? Can wars be won and fought? Can a nation exert its force over another? Can someone like Emma ever bear a legitimate offspring for the throne of a kingdom based on a blood that does not flow in her veins?”

In response I would like to point out that an ethno-nationalist perspective does not need to deny the legitimacy of these questions in order to be true. Christian ethno-nationalism or Kinism is presented as the ideal for national identity as revealed by God in the Bible and generally practiced throughout Christian history. This does not mean that these rules have always been observed either in Christendom or the world in general. When God’s Laws are violated we are left with difficult questions of how to fix the problems caused by disobedience. For example, all Christians should support Biblical teachings on marriage and family as well as understanding how the institution of marriage and family benefits society. There are questions that arise when God’s commandments regarding sexuality, marriage, and the family are disobeyed. What about illegitimate children? Who raises them? Should the mother or father or their respective families? Should the couple marry if they aren’t married already?

These questions don’t have easy, one-size-fits-all answers and require wisdom to navigate, but no one should conclude that these questions somehow disprove the truth the Christian teaching about marriage and family. The same applies to similar questions that can be posed about today’s circumstances regarding national identity. Disobedience to God has brought about extremely difficult circumstances in the West, so difficult that I believe that only divine intervention can save us, but this only serves to vindicate ethno-nationalist principles. It is extremely foolish to suggest that the breakdown of the family indicates that the institution of the family needs to deconstructed and it is just as unwise to conclude that ethno-nationalism is untenable today because of the prevalence of racial amalgamation. This is especially true in light of passages in which God promises that Israel will be overrun by foreigners as a punishment for disobedience (Lev. 26/Deut. 28).

Several other similar questions are raised, but I would answer them in a similar fashion. “What about Pentecost? What about Galatians? If, as I have shown above, the words in the Bible and the narrative sweep of Scripture function differently than the narrative provided by ethnonationalism, what are we to make of the radical statements made about ‘being made one’ in Christ? If we are to take seriously the Biblical proclamation that ‘God judges nations’ we need to also take seriously the Biblical claim that ‘there there is no Jew or Greek.’”

Honestly these questions have already been amply addressed by Kinists several times. Ultimately I believe that the primary difference between ethno-nationalists and my anonymous interlocutor is a matter of eschatology. What is God’s ultimate purpose for ethnic distinctions? Kinists affirm that Christian unity can and does transcend racial and ethnic distinctions without abolishing them. The persistence of distinct nations has been God’s design from the very beginning. As for Pentecost, I am content to close by reaffirming the observations of Francis Nigel Lee:

“Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow. In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor – the cultural treasures – of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.”¹