Author Archives: mhenry

Engaging Rich Pierce on The Good Samaritan

Moses’ Ethiopian Wife

“Moses married an Ethiopian woman” is a common statement made in defense of interracial marriage. The merits of this line of reasoning are examined herein, and the Biblical and profane record of Moses’ Ethiopian wife are explored. An adequate treatment of this subject involves not only Biblical history, but also geography and chronology. Few have the interest level or the patience for a full treatment, so I have tried to keep this as brief as possible while still covering the main points. First, here’s the verse being referenced:

“Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” ~ Numbers 12:1 (NKJV)

Descriptive Not Prescriptive

This verse merely recounts what happened; it does not contain any moral instruction. While moral lessons are often taught through parables, fables, or allegories, this is just historical narrative. A moral tale is of the general structure “Jim took action A with result B.” Depending on the result, we should either imitate Jim or avoid his mistake. This passage, however, is a classic example of “you can’t get doctrine from narrative”, which is to say, this is merely descriptive of what happened, not prescriptive for how all people should behave in all times and circumstances. The Bible often recounts the sins of otherwise holy men (2 Samuel 11), including Moses himself (Exodus 2:12, Exodus 4:13-14, Exodus 4:24-26, Numbers 20:12). Just because an admirable man took a certain action, that does not elevate his action to a universal principle (sometimes even when the Lord commanded it: Hosea 1).

Summarizing Numbers 12, Miriam and Aaron are envious of their brother Moses’ superior position with the Lord and Israel, and use his marriage to an Ethiopian woman as an opportunity for disparaging him. Their envy was the reason, and Moses’ marriage was the occasion. Paraphrasing, “Moses degraded himself by marrying an Ethiopian, so why should he have greater status than us, through whom the Lord has also spoken?” The Lord manifests and rebukes their envy, demonstrating that Moses is their superior, because He speaks clearly and directly to Moses, unlike other prophets. The Lord does not address the matter of Moses’ wife.

As punishment for their murmuring, the Lord strikes Miriam with leprosy, making her skin as white as snow. Despite the fact that this verse describes events in the Near East almost 3500 years ago, pastors like John Piper shamelessly eisegete this passage, interpreting her skin’s whiteness as some sort of modern American object lesson against racist whites. If Piper’s interpretation is correct, I find it strange that the Lord failed to make any mention of Miriam and Aaron’s “racism” when He appeared in a pillar of cloud specifically to rebuke them, and that Moses made no mention of it when he recorded this event under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No Bible commentator writing prior to the 20th century invention of the “sin” of racism made any observation similar to Piper’s. Not the reformer John Calvin, the Baptist John Gill, the Puritan Matthew Henry, the Lutherans Keil and Delitzsch, the Methodist and outspoken critic of slavery Adam Clarke, the Anglican Charles Ellicott, not Matthew Poole, Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset, David Brown, Albert Barnes, or others. I wonder what conclusion Piper would reach if he applied his critical theory approach to Exodus 4:6, where Moses is given the miraculous ability to make his hand snow white as proof of his divine endorsement. When arguing from silence, imagination is the only limitation.

The bottom line is, this passage simply has no bearing on the moral status of interracial marriage. If there’s any “moral of the story” to be had in regards to Moses’ Ethiopian wife, it’s that interracial marriage will cause friction with your biological family.

Polygyny Not Considered

While I could stop the article here and feel like I’ve said all that really needs to be said, in the interest of both defending Moses’ reputation and convincing the unconvinced, let’s delve deeper into this matter. In the entire Bible, which contains five books authored by Moses himself, this Ethiopian woman is only mentioned this one time, with no name or further details given. The wife of Moses that the Bible actually discusses multiple times was Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro from the tribe of Midian, a close racial cousin of Moses. For the remainder of this article, I will consider the following: A) was the Ethiopian woman Moses’ first wife or his second, and B) was Zipporah actually the woman being referenced by Miriam and Aaron?

I won’t consider the question of whether or not Moses was married to both simultaneously. My goal is to show that Moses’ marriage to this Ethiopian woman has no positive bearing on the moral status of interracial marriage. If this was a polygamous marriage, then it ruins the rhetorical value of using Numbers 12:1 as any sort of defense for interracial marriage. There is a certain deprecated, special-circumstance toleration for polygyny in the Bible, but even its most ardent defender would not call polygyny normative.

Moses Didn’t Marry the Ethiopian Woman During the Exodus

Most who use Numbers 12:1 as a defense for interracial marriage assume that Moses married a black woman among the “mixed multitude” (literally, “great rabble”; Exodus 12:38, Numbers 11:4, Deut 29:11) at some point during the 40 year Exodus. But the Bible never even hints at that, and its own record of the chronology of the Exodus does not reasonably allow for it either. One writer, who actually made the effort to examine the timeline, resorted to Scofieldian temporal gymnastics in order to rescue his mixed multitude wife theory, claiming that Numbers 12 is radically out of sequence. While it is true that Moses does not write in a strictly chronological format, sometimes organizing events topically, sometimes by order of importance, etc., the sequence of this particular event is clearly documented in Numbers.

Moses’ life was split into three 40 year periods: the Egyptian period from birth to age 40 (Acts 7:23), the Midianite period from age 40 to 80 (Exodus 7:7; Acts 7:30), and the Exodus period from age 80 to 120 (Numbers 14:33; Deut 8:4, 29:5, 31:2, 34:7). The 40 year Exodus may be split into two periods: the first two years and the last 38 (Deut 2:14). The first two years started with leaving Egypt, and ended when the Lord cursed the Israelites to wander in the desert until all over the age of 20 were dead, save only Caleb and Joshua (Deut 2:13-16, Numbers 1:45, 14:29-30, 26:63-65). The Bible records a great deal of the history of the first two years (Red Sea crossing, quail and manna, water from the rock at Rephidim, receiving of the Law, golden calf, ethical/sacerdotal systems developed, tabernacle, twelve spies), but only a few events in the remainder (Korah’s rebellion, the budding of Aaron’s staff) until the story picks up again in the last two years of the Exodus (Moses’ failure at the waters of Meribah, Aaron’s death, the bronze snake, Balaam, conquest of Midian, Moses’ death, etc. ).

There are two events of interest that we need to examine. At some point after the events of Exodus 4:24-26, Moses sent Zipporah and their two sons back to his father in law Jethro (Exodus 18:2). While Israel was encamped at the wilderness of Sinai during the Exodus, Jethro brought Moses’ family back to him (Exodus 18:5). This is the first event, and the second event is that of Numbers 12:1. Both occurred within the first two years of the Exodus. Israel made camp at the wilderness of Sinai 45 days (or two months, depending on the translation) after the beginning of the Exodus (Exodus 19:1) and stayed there for almost a year (Numbers 10:11). After leaving Sinai, they briefly camped at Taberah (Numbers 11:3), then at Kibroth-hattaavah (Numbers 11:34, 33:16), afterwards staying at Hazeroth for some time (Numbers 11:35, 33:17). The Hazeroth encampment is where Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses for his Ethiopian wife. After Hazeroth, Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea in the wilderness of Paran, which is the location where the Lord cursed Israel to wander in the desert for 38 more years (Numbers 13:26, 14:34, 32:8-12; Deut 1:19, 2:13-16; Joshua 14:6-12).

Therefore, not only did these two events absolutely occur within a time period of two years, we can shave at least 1.5 months off the front (Exodus 19:1) and the same off the back (7 days + 40 days from Numbers 12:15 and 13:25), leaving us an absolute maximum of 21 months. Reasonably, the time period is almost certainly less than six months. While I am of the opinion that Jethro lived near modern day Al-Bad’ and that Mount Sinai is Jabal Maqla, which are only about 20 miles apart, the Scriptural record nevertheless seems to indicate that Jethro did not arrive until late in Israel’s nearly one year stay at Sinai. The supporting evidence is: A) the first several months at Sinai were so demanding of Moses’ time that a family reunion could not be accommodated, with Moses climbing the mountain eight times and spending 40 days on the mountain two separate times, B) it appears that the Law had already been received by the time Jethro arrived (Exodus 18:16), C) Jethro’s burnt-offerings (Exodus 18:12) suggests that the altar of earth and uncut stone was already built (Exodus 20:24-26), D) the presence of Moses’ brother-in-law at the very end of their time at Sinai (Numbers 10:29), and E) the parallelism between Jethro’s advice (Exodus 18:21-23) and its apparent fulfillment (Deut 1:9-18, Numbers 11:16-30). The book of Exodus starts with a prologue, moves to the plagues and the beginning of the Exodus, then once Israel reaches Mount Sinai, the book shifts to a topical organization of the salient developments during their time there: the reunion with Jethro, the Law, the Covenant, the Tabernacle, and the priestly system. To assume that the reunion occurred at the very beginning of Israel’s time at Mount Sinai is to treat the order of the text too woodenly, while ignoring the plain description of what transpired in their earliest days there (Exodus 19).

I would guess that Jethro arrived maybe as much as three months prior to their departure from Sinai. The only chronological data given about Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah is a month (Numbers 11:20) and three days (Numbers 10:33). If Miriam and Aaron’s insult happened two months into their stay at Hazeroth, that leaves less than eight months for all the events between Numbers 12:14 and 14:34. Three months plus one month plus two months gives my probable maximum of six months. Bishop James Ussher, in his famous chronology, Annals of the World, places these two events no more than three months apart, which seems very reasonable given the Biblical record.

These chronological evidences by themselves render highly improbable the notion that the Ethiopian woman was Moses’ second wife. Is it reasonable that within a six month time period containing some of the most epic events in history, to which Moses was the chief party, involving enormous demands on his time (Exodus 18:18), that Zipporah died and he remarried a negress from among the “great rabble”? It strains credulity to say the very least. Additionally, this was one of the most extensively documented time periods of the Exodus, which was recorded by Moses himself. It seems even a five-word note like “Zipporah died and Moses remarried” might have been in order, had it actually happened. Numbers 12:1 would have been an ideal place to add the note, yet Scripture is utterly silent about any of this. Further, if Zipporah did die, it was certainly not from old age, as she was much younger than Moses. Their sons, Gershom and Eliezer, where quite young, making Zipporah likely in her forties at most. The supporting evidence is: A) at some point in the prior 40 years (Moses’ Midianite period), she was unmarried and of child-bearing age, B) Moses placed Zipporah, Gershom, and Eliezer on a donkey to ride to Egypt (Exodus 4:20), but an average donkey can’t carry more than about 125 pounds, and even a mammoth donkey could only carry about twice that, and C) even a toddler would have put up some serious resistance to Zipporah’s impromptu flint knife circumcision (Exodus 4:25).

All that said, the best argument against the Ethiopian woman being Moses’ second wife is recorded in Leviticus 21:14. This verse, in a chapter about God’s requirements for priests, explicitly forbids them to marry interracially (so that they do not “profane their seed”, as verse 15 literally states). While Moses was technically more a prophet than a priest, he performed all three offices of prophet (truth proclaimer), priest (intercessor/mediator), and king (judge/ruler). Scripture often records Moses acting in a priestly role, and Psalm 99:6 plainly calls him one. I suppose one could make the argument that since Moses was Aaron’s brother and not his son that this requirement did not apply to him, though that is certainly a pedantic line of reasoning. Leaders are held to higher standards, but those standards are ones to which even the lowest man should aspire. While I would argue that there was a general Creation ordinance against interracial marriage (the “meet” of “help-meet” meaning compatible, suitable, fitting, proper, appropriate – in harmony with the man’s own nature), the very specific command of Leviticus 21:14 was ex post facto as regards Zipporah. It was not ex post facto, however, regarding Moses’ Ethiopian wife if she was his second wife. Moses literally received this command directly from God, and told it to the people. Are we to believe that Moses, with forethought aplenty, publically violated this law in the sight of God and all Israel in the most flagrant way possible, yet managed to maintain his position and authority? The idea is too incongruous to warrant serious consideration. Even if this command was not a factor, Moses was viewed as an outsider by his own people (Exodus 2:14, Acts 7:35), and could likely anticipate his siblings’ reaction as well, so why would he intentionally make the situation far worse by marrying a woman so obviously foreign?

The advocates for the Ethiopian woman being Moses’ second wife are asking us to believe that the octogenarian Moses, having just spent well over 80 days in the physical presence of the Creator of the universe, whose much younger wife died unexpectedly just weeks ago, leading a nation that viewed him as foreign, ruling the people to the point of exhaustion, having spotted a random Nubian female amongst the riffraff, decided to marry her, despite it being an egregious violation of a command given to him directly by the Lord. This is “straining to do some explaining” in the extreme. And if this were somehow, against all reason and experience, inexplicably true, how does it in any way commend to us interracial marriage as a sensible course of action? We are reasonably only left with the possibility that she was his first wife, or that she and Zipporah are actually the same woman.

Race or Place?

If they’re actually the same woman, we need some plausible way of identifying Zipporah as an Ethiopian. If the Bible only mentioned Miriam’s and Aaron’s grumbling and left it at that, we could simply take “Ethiopian” as a pejorative, in the same way that one might call a stingy gentile a “Jew”, a lazy white person a “nigger”, a workaholic American a “German”, or a bibulous Englishman an “Irishman”. In fact, the approach of rabbinic Judaism in dealing with Numbers 12:1 is most often to simply treat Zipporah as sharing certain characteristics of an Ethiopian without actually being an Ethiopian (for example, her character was as obvious as an Ethiopian’s skin color, in the manner of Jeremiah 13:23). The problem with that is, Moses does not stop with Miriam’s and Aaron’s insult, but plainly confirms that he did, in fact, marry an Ethiopian. It seems, therefore, a very weak position to simply identify Zipporah as characteristically, but not actually, Ethiopian.

An actual Ethiopian in the most obvious sense would be a racial Ethiopian, but it also seems reasonable that Moses could have used Ethiopian as a demonym or gentilic, simply identifying Zipporah as being from the land of Ethiopia. Consider the difficulties even with modern terms. Germans are a people, and Germany is a place, but German is also a language. Some Germans live in Germany and some merely trace their lineage to Germany, only some of whom speak German. There is German work ethic, German engineering, German quality, German food, and German culture. Muenster is a city in Germany, but also a small town in North Texas, populated by the descendants of German immigrants. Consider me: what if 3500 years hence someone tries to determine my race or place of origin? My actual surname is Norman, but my family intermarried heavily with the Anglo-Saxons, yet we emigrated from Cornwall, one of the Celtic nations. However, I am Palestinian by birth, as in Palestine, Texas, which was named for Palestine, Illinois by the pioneer Daniel Parker, which was named for the land of Palestine by the French explorer Jean LaMotte, which the Greeks named for the Philistines, who actually lived in the Gaza Strip up to Joppa, and who likely originally came from the island of Crete.

The issue is not as straightforward as it first appears. As we progress, however, it will become clear that Numbers 12:1 may have reasonably been referring to the Midianitess Zipporah, by use of a demonym.

Cushite Not Ethiopian

So far, I have been following the KJV’s convention of using the word “Ethiopian”, but the KVJ itself was following the convention established by the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which was continued in the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate. In Hebrew, Numbers 12:1 actually uses the term “Cushite”, as do the majority of modern English translations (Kush and Chus are other variants). While we could just leave the Ethiopian identification at this point as a curiosity of translation, it’s important to remember that translators of the LXX were much closer to the events of Numbers linguistically, geographically, and temporally. The LXX was written in Alexandria, Egypt during the third and second centuries B.C., about 1200 years after the Exodus, in the language from which we get the word “Ethiopian”. There is some value, then, in examining what “Ethiopian” meant in the Hellenistic period.

The Hellenistic Concept of Ethiopian

The meaning of place names changes with time. Names that were once inclusive of vast and rather ambiguous regions now refer to specific countries with precisely defined borders. Syria once described a much larger region containing the Levant and western Mesopotamia. The borders of India were quite vague, essentially consisting of vast areas to the east in south Asia, and was sometimes used even more generally as a term for “remote places”. Libya was once the entirety of North Africa. Ethiopia often meant the part of Africa that was not Libya (that is, sub-Saharan Africa), but could even more generally refer to any location in the Torrid Zone (for example, peninsular India). “Ethiopian” properly means “sunburned” (literally, “burnt face”), which certainly included blacks, but also peoples who were swarthy or dusky as compared to the Greeks. It was originally an identifier of certain peoples with a particular skin color, not certain places, but since specific peoples live in specific places, it came to mean the places as well (consider the discussion above concerning the varied meanings of the word German). Even those who believe Moses married a black woman, and have spent the slightest amount of time researching the matter, do not place her in modern day Ethiopia, but in Nubia just south of Egypt in what is today Sudan.

As regards the question at hand, is it possible that during the Hellenistic period that the Midianitess Zipporah could have been considered an Ethiopian geographically? Midian was uncontroversially located on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba, in the modern Tabuk province of Saudi Arabia. While this is certainly north of what most today would deem Ethiopia, consider that ancient writers often identified areas even further north as “Ethiopia”:

“[W]e find Chaldea, Assyria, Persia, &c., styled Ethiopia by some very good authors ; nay, it must he allowed, that the ancients called all those countries, extending themselves beyond each side of the Red sea, indifferently India or Ethiopia.” ~ T. G. Tomlins, A Universal History of the Nations of Antiquity

“Aethiopia, beyond Egypt, a country better known to the ancients, than that in Libya, or on the Atlantic, a distinction used by Homer. The people of which last were called Aethiopes Hesperii. Whether Chus is the Scripture name for Aethiopia is disputed ; Bochart maintains that it denotes Arabia. The ancients comprised Chaldea under the name Aethiopia ; Strabo says that some called Phoenicia Aethiopia ; Aethicus, the cosmographer, places also the head of the Tigris in Aethiopia. The inhabitants of Sagri, or Zagri, a mountain on the other side the Tigris, Hesychius makes a nation of Ethiopians. And the inhabitants of the Susiana were anciently reckoned among the Ethiopians. Memnon, who came from Susae, to the assistance of Priam, is called by Hesiod, king of the Ethiopians, mentioned also by Virgil. It is to be observed that the Greek geographers called all the more southerly people, of whom they knew little or nothing, Aethiopes.” ~ Alexander MacBean, A Dictionary of Ancient Geography

“Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and India Ethiopians.” ~ Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, A History of Ethiopia

Cepheus of Greek mythology, husband of the beautiful but vain queen Cassiopeia, and father of the stunning Andromeda, was a king of Ethiopia. These three Ethiopians played prominent roles in the well-known Perseus story. Geographically, Cepheus and Cassiopeia reigned from ancient Joppa (attested to by Pliny the Elder, Pomponius Mela, Josephus, Pausanias, and others; like much of Greek mythology, this story had an authentic historical basis, but was embellished and mythologized with time). In ancient artwork, the Ethiopian Andromeda is repeatedly shown with fair skin, and very often with European features. (When Jonah attempted to flee to Tarshish about 760 BC, he went through the port at Joppa, then under Phoenician control. There is an interesting parallel between the sea monster Cetus of the Perseus story and the great fish of Jonah. The “Kraken” may literally have been Jonah’s “whale”, the massive skeletal remains of which were carried off by Marcus Aemilius Scaurus to Rome from Joppa.) In Homer’s Odyssey (c. 8th Century BC), Menelaus, during his period of wandering after the Trojan War, visited an Ethiopia in association with other locations unambiguously known to be Levantine. At least one scholar specifically identifies Menelaus’ Ethiopia with the greater Joppa area. The ancient historian Ephorus (c. 400 – 330 BC), in a reference surviving in Strabo’s (64/63 BC – c. AD 24) Geographica, also references certain Ethiopians on the Mediterranean coast, despite Strabo’s glosses to the contrary. Tacitus (c. AD 56 – 117), in his Histories, even mentions a theory of the origins of the Jewish people that conflates them with the Ethiopians.

There are even two references from the Hellenistic period directly addressing this matter that survived in Book 9 of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Praeparatio Evangelica. The first reference was from Ezekiel the Tragedian, a Hebrew from third century BC Alexandria, who in his play retelling the Exodus wrote:

Then, concerning the daughters of Raguel, [Moses] adds this:

“But here, behold! some seven fair maids I see.”

And on his [Moses] asking them what maidens they were, Zipporah replies:

“The land, O stranger, bears the common name
Of Libya, but by various tribes is held
Of dark-skinned Aethiops: yet the land is ruled
By one sole monarch, and sole chief in war.
This city has for ruler and for judge
A priest, the father of myself and these.”

(Note that Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews also names Zipporah’s father “Raguel”, who the Bible confusingly names both Jethro and Reuel. One was likely a title or an honorific in the manner of Mahatma or Atatürk.)

The second reference was from Demetrius the Chronographer, also a Hebrew from third century BC Alexandria, who wrote:

“There is therefore no inconsistency in Moses and Zipporah having lived at the same time. And they dwelt in the city Madiam, which was called from one of the sons of Abraham. For it says that Abraham sent his sons towards the East to find a dwelling-place: for this reason also Aaron and Miriam said at Hazeroth that Moses had married an Aethiopian woman.”

In its ancient usage, there is so much ambiguity in the term that the land of Midian could reasonably fall within the general category of “Ethiopia”, and clearly did in these two surviving references. Further, it is significant that the translators of the LXX chose to use this broad, imprecise term when they could have specifically identified the woman of Numbers 12:1 as a Cushite, as the Hebrew did, by using a demonym form of “Χούς” or “Κους” (Chus or Kush/Kous). The Kingdom of Kush (c. 1069 BC to 350 AD), centered in Nubia just south of Egypt, would have been well known to them. If they had been convinced that this wife of Moses was a Nubian woman from Cush-proper, why would they have favored the ambiguous term over a specific one?

The Biblical Location(s) of Cush

Reviewing all Biblical references to Cush leads to an initially surprising conclusion: unless one is willing to embrace absurdities, there was clearly more than one land of Cush. It seems the Cushites migrated and took their place name with them, much like the Galatians. There are at least three Biblical lands of Cush:

Mesopotamian Cush: This was located at the north end of the Persian Gulf in what is today the Iranian province of Khuzestan (notice the name artifact “Khuz”), and extending to Babylon under the Cushite Nimrod. The Karun River, which flows through Khuzestan into the Arvand Rud (the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates), is almost certainly the Gihon of Genesis 2:13, which “flows around the whole land of Cush.” Khuzestan basically corresponds to ancient Susiana, whose capital Susa was the city of origin for the famous Ethiopian king Memnon (a mythologized figure killed by Achilles in the Trojan War).
Arabian Cush: Over the span of many centuries, Semites have come to dominate the Arabian Peninsula, but they once shared Arabia side-by-side with Cushites. While Cushite tribes were broadly dispersed in Arabia, their principal settlement was in Arabia Felix (basically, Yemen), where their descendants are still found to this very day. It seems that Cushites emigrated from Mesopotamia to Arabia after the Babel dispersion, though that is not entirely uncontroversial.
African Cush: The Arabian Cushites eventually colonized Africa south of their Hamitic cousins the Egyptians, in the regions of Nubia and Abyssinia, where Cushitic languages are still spoken. It is of interest that the Kingdom of Aksum, centered in Eritrea, eventually came to rule the Cushitic settlements on both sides of the Red Sea, after they conquered the Arabian Himyarites in 525 AD.

Arabian Cush is often referenced in the Bible. Check the “Cush” entry in any book of sacred geography written prior to the time when the subject of Africans in the Bible became highly politicized, and you will often find a discussion of Arabian Cush. Samuel Bochart’s Geographica Sacra, Edward Wells’ An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament, and Rev. Charles Forster’s The Historical Geography of Arabia, all expound the case for Arabian Cush. A handful of others discussing this topic include Johann Michaelis’ Spicilegium Geographiae, Augustin Calmet’s Great Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Elijah Parish’s Sacred Geography, and John Mansford’s A Scripture Gazetteer. Bible commentaries mentioning Arabian Cush as the proper, probable, or possible identification for a particular Biblical reference to Cush include those by Albert Barnes, Joseph Benson, John Calvin, Adam Clarke, Charles Ellicott, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Robert Jamieson-Andrew Fausset-David Brown, Carl Keil-Franz Delitzsch, Alexander Maclaren, Matthew Poole, and John Wesley, as well as the Geneva Study Bible, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, and The Pulpit Commentary. (

Bible Hub read more

Preventing and Curing COVID-19 With Items From The Grocery Store

Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor and this is not medical advice. If you’re diabetic, currently taking an ACE inhibitor, or are on any drug where the following items are contraindicated, DO NOT use this protocol.

Prevention:

1,000 mg Vit C daily
2,000 IU Vit D3 daily
10 mg Zinc daily
200 mg Magnesium daily
3 mg Melatonin daily, before bed
4 oz Tonic Water with real Quinine daily

If you have COVID-19:

12,000 mg Vit C daily (take to bowel tolerance)
6,000 IU Vit D3 daily
100 mg Zinc daily
200 mg Magnesium daily (no change)
15 mg Melatonin daily
1 liter Tonic Water with real Quinine daily

If you do not improve after 48 hours, seek medical help.

Notes:

COVID-19 is real, but its danger is being greatly exaggerated and used as a pretext for all manner of evil: mandatory vaccines, a one-world digital currency, further socialization of medicine, destruction of small businesses in favor of multinational corporations, increase of the surveillance state, destruction of the right of assembly, destruction of churches, etc. By offering a simple preventative and cure, it is my hope both to help people and to undercut the official narrative.

Those with existing morbidities, especially ones impacting lung health, are the most at risk.

The title is a bit click-baity, but the idea is to be able to prevent/cure COVID -19 with commonly available items in case you have no access to a health-food store or prescriptions. If available, I would recommend avoiding grocery store vitamins, instead favoring decent brands like NOW Foods, Solaray, Carlson Labs, Nature’s Way, etc.

Avoid multivitamins like the plague. For minerals like zinc and magnesium, buy the most absorbable forms you can. Avoid inorganic forms like oxides and sulphates. Instead, use the organic/chelated forms like orotate, gluconate, citrate, acetate, or picolinate.

The best forms of Vit C, in decreasing order, are: intravenous Vit C, liposomal, sodium ascorbate powder, and pill forms with added rose hips/citrus bioflavonoids. The best Vit D is what your body makes when exposed to sunlight. For supplementing, take the D3 form and, if you can, co-supplement with Vit K2 in the MK7 form. The recommended dosage of K2 is 100 micrograms per 1000 IU of D3.

Unless otherwise noted, all dosing should be spread out as much as possible. Your body needs to be fed little doses throughout the day rather than just taking one big dose. This is especially true for Vit C and D3. Since Melatonin makes you sleepy, I recommend taking it only right before sleep.

The main idea here is to boost and regulate your immune system, reduce inflammation, lessen sepsis, and fight free radical damage with antioxidants.

The only specific anti-viral is the tonic water, which contains quinine. Unfortunately, it contains very little quinine (about 80 mg per liter), so this is more about reducing viral-loading that fully eliminating it. If you can obtain a more potent dosage, do so, but the idea of this post was for readily-available items, and tonic water is readily available. Try to find an unsweetened brand if possible. If not, tonic water generally has about 1/4 the sweetener of most soft drinks, so at the recommended doses the amount of sweetener intake is not extreme.

COVID-19 interrupts the oxygen-carrying mechanism of red blood cells, and in the process also creates a destructive free radical. It is thought that quinine, hydroxychloroquine, and chloroquine, all members of a common family of anti-malaria drugs, can keep this from happening by binding to the virus. While hypoxia is noted, ventilator use often does more harm than good.

The parasiticide Ivermectin has shown great ability to kill COVID-19 in vitro. This is commonly available without a prescription in agricultural stores and is used for the treatment of parasites in horses, cattle, pigs, etc. It is sold at Tractor Supply, for example. It is approved for human use as Mectizan or Stromectol. Take only a single dose at the onset of symptoms. Dosage is 0.1 mg per pound of body weight. For example, if you weigh 160 pounds, then take 16 mg.

COVID-19 most often kills by means of a cytokine storm. This is an overreaction of the body’s immune system. Melatonin and D3 are immune system regulators that prevent this. A cytokine storm is often noted when you get better (as your immune system fights), then get much worse (as your immune system overreacts). In severe cases, you can take fish oil supplements (which contain eicosapentaenoic acid) as an immunosuppressant to calm the cytokine storm. If available, the rheumatoid arthritis drug Kineret (generic: Anakinra) works well.

It is my experience that most folks can’t handle too many options or too much data, but if you are up to it, I would recommend adding to your COVID-19 arsenal by also supplementing with selenium, thiamin (Vit B1), and quercetin (preferably with bromelain). Use the recommended dosages on the bottles.

For further study:

http://web.archive.org/web/20200405061401/https://medium.com/@agaiziunas/covid-19-had-us-all-fooled-but-now-we-might-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb
https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/nyc-doctor-says-coronavirus-ventilator-settings-are-too-high/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320520303313
https://www.evolutamente.it/covid-19-pneumonia-inflammasomes-the-melatonin-connection/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/bill-sardi/anti-parasitic-agent-ivermectin-abolishes-coronavirus-particles/ read more

The Whimper of the Sheltered Saxon

(With apologies to Rudyard Kipling.)

The virus was not in their blood,
It came to America very late,
With fear and panic that was no good,
When the Saxon sheltered in place.

They were all easily moved,
They were impatient – unwilling to wait,
And didn’t care if it could be proved,
When the Saxon sheltered in place.

Their credulity high and suspicions low,
With glazed eyes and resigned to their fate,
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon sheltered in place.

The media preached it to the crowd.
It was taught by the State.
The pundits all spoke it aloud.
When the Saxon the sheltered in place.

Our degeneration was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When time shall count the date
That the Saxon sheltered in place.

Pastor Chuck Swindoll’s Gay Compromise

On Tuesday, I had the displeasure of attending the Christmas Eve service at Pastor Chuck Swindoll’s gigantic Stonebriar Community Church in Frisco, Texas, an extremely affluent northern suburb of Dallas. It’s within easy driving distance, and they have an incredible pipe organ, choir, and instrumentalists, so I thought it would be an evening of beautiful music for my family. Unfortunately, the string quartet felt a little threadbare in such a massive space, and the choir was on vacation, for which the passionless voices of over 3000 mumbling yuppies was no substitute.

But the main disappointment wasn’t that the church was basically phoning it in, but that Pastor Swindoll, known for decades and by millions of evangelicals for his Insight for Living radio ministry, took the opportunity to compromise with the sodomite revolution. Despite a standing room-only crowd in a 3000 seat auditorium full of Christians and non-Christians alike, Swindoll not only choose to pray a prayer that substituted mawkish treacle for the Gospel, but also, in carefully chosen words, sought worldly praise by lowering the social cost of sodomy:

Our Father, we are grateful for peace within our hearts that comes through a relationship with You because of Jesus. And this evening I pray for those whose hearts are heavy, for whatever reason. I pray that they may be encouraged and strengthened from these few minutes we’ve had together. Thank You for the beauty of tomorrow, and all that it brings to our lives; all the memories it brings back to our minds, all the hopes and dreams for tomorrow. Thank You Father than since childhood this has been the day of the year that You have especially blessed. Make it special, we pray, as we gather with family and friends, or perhaps, even as those who gather with just another friend or their partner in life. I pray that You would make the day very special. We commit to You the new year and all that it holds. But first, we commit ourselves to You as our Savior and Lord, in the name of Your son Jesus we all pray. And everyone said…Amen! read more

Occult Symbolism of the Feminist Pussyhat

Symbolism is Not Entirely Subjective

I’m no expert on the occult, so this post is simply intended to provoke thought. Additionally, frank talk regarding the occult use of phallic and yonic symbolism is unavoidable for any worthwhile discussion of this subject matter. I have sought to address this in the most modest and dignified manner possible, and have pixilated portions of one particularly salacious image.

It is commonly noted that modern urban Christians find the agricultural illustrations of Scripture to be foreign and obscure. What is less commonly appreciated is that most Christians today live, eat, and breathe in an Enlightenment atmosphere, having received the materialist worldview they were taught in government schools as an unexamined first principle. Thus, things like the necessity of blood atonement, the dedication of first fruits, the supernatural role in fecundity, etc., matters once understood on an implicit level, now seem strange and mystifying. Such also is the case with rightly comprehending symbolism.

While itself very old, the notion that there is no accounting for taste (de gustibus non est disputandum) is an apt sentiment for our post-modern era. While post-modernism isolates every man in a closet of his own private meaning, in Christianity, all facts are connected through the universe’s one and only Creator and Sustainer. Truth is one because there is only one God, and no particle or fact is outside of the meaning He gives it. You might like vanilla and I might like chocolate, but it’s unlikely that either one of us has a gastronomic affinity for bat guano. There is some accounting for taste; so too with the meaning of symbols. Admitting a degree of subjectivity in the various meanings of a symbol, there remains some portion that is concrete and inescapable.

Occult Intuition

Even though many of Christendom’s enemies possess a high degree of worldview-consciousness, I do not claim that even (((Jayna Zweiman))) and Krista Suh, founders of the Pussyhat Project, are fully aware of the pussyhat’s symbolism. What I do claim is that there is an inescapable symbolism of the pussyhat, produced not only by its creators, but by the common philosophy of those who wear it, its shape and color, and its antecedents. When a symbol like the pussyhat finds such rapid and widespread cultural penetration, even to the extent of causing regional shortages in pink yarn, and overnight establishes itself as a part of our shared experience and common cultural consciousness, it possesses a certain resonance that extends far deeper than a simple fad. For lack of a better term, it sparks an “occult intuition” in the population. Just as Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species spread like wildfire, satisfying 19th century philosophy’s need for an anti-supernatural theory of origins, the pussyhat has provided our feminized post-modern era with a high visual-impact unifying symbol, exploiting subconscious recognition between the symbol and the thing symbolized.

(((Jayna Zweiman))) donning her pussyhat.

The Pussyhat’s Predecessor

In both the form and the philosophy represented, the antecedent of the pussyhat is the occult Phrygian cap. The Phrygian cap’s origins date to classical antiquity, with representations in art and statuary surviving from at least the 4th century before Christ. The cap represents both a male prepuce (foreskin) and a rooster’s comb. Some variants include extended ear flaps, simultaneously representative of testicles and a rooster’s wattles.

Stéphane Hessel looking rather like an outraged rooster.

The Phrygian Cap as Male Prepuce

Man is most god-like in the creation and taking of life. Thus, most pagan religions emphasize fertility and sacrifice. Phallic imagery in particular is endemic to paganism of almost every variety, no matter how far removed, from ancient Mexico, to China, to India, to Egypt, to Italy, to Norway, and just about everywhere else. The masculine principle is the active principle, and the feminine is passive. The male is vigorous, potent, and vital, generating life, while the female nurtures it. Even in Christianity, the imputation of original sin is through the male.

But the Phrygian cap is not only a fertility symbol, but also a symbol of being uncircumcised; that is, uncircumcised in both flesh and heart: a covenant-breaker. Solomon made Israel famous in the ancient world, and circumcision as a national characteristic of Israel was certainly renowned and likely notorious. The subsequent diaspora of Israelites also made the covenant people well known in foreign lands (a key aspect of the preparation for the Gospel: praeparatio evangelica). In evidence of this common knowledge, Phrygia and the Apostle Paul’s hometown of Tarsus were both on the Anatolian peninsula. (Tarsus can be reached by car from Phrygian Yazilikaya in less than 7 hours.)

Further, Satan and his familiars are forever inverting and corrupting Biblical symbols and sacraments to blaspheme the Lord. To wear a giant representation of a foreskin on one’s head is to candidly declare one’s opposition to the Lord of the circumcised. To better comprehend the symbolism of being uncircumcised in the Old Covenant era, it is helpful to first understand the symbolism of circumcision:

And yet we must inquire, whether any analogy is here apparent between the visible sign, and the thing signified. For the signs which God has appointed to assist our infirmity, should be accommodated to the measure of our capacity, or they would be unprofitable. Moreover, it is probable that the Lord commanded circumcision for two reasons; first, to show that whatever is born of man is polluted; then, that salvation would proceed from the blessed seed of Abraham. In the first place, therefore, whatever men have peculiar to themselves, by generation, God has condemned, in the appointment of circumcision; in order that the corruption of nature being manifest, he might induce them to mortify their flesh. Whence also it follows, that circumcision was a sign of repentance. Yet, at the same time, the blessing which was promised in the seed of Abraham, was thereby marked and attested. If then it seem absurd to any one, that the token of a favor so excellent and so singular, was given in that part of the body, let him become ashamed of own salvation, which flowed from the loins of Abraham; but it has pleased God thus to confound the wisdom of the world, that he may the more completely abase the pride of the flesh. And hence we now learn, in the second place, how the reconciliation between God and men, which was exhibited in Christ, was testified by this sign. For which reason it is styled by Paul a seal of the righteousness of faith. ~ John Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 17:11

Attis wearing the Phrygian cap.

Pagan Gods Who Donned the Phrygian Cap

There are far too many depictions of the cap surviving from classical antiquity to list here, but I will mention three notables from the pagan pantheon who were often shown wearing the cap:

Attis, the consort of Cybele, who castrated himself, died, was preserved with no decay, and was resurrected. He was primarily a fertility god, in spring’s lively “resurrection” from winter, and was later also worshipped as a solar deity.

Priapus, a god of fertility and male genitalia, who’s chief notable feature was his enormous, constantly engorged male sex organ (the medical term, priapism, comes from this god). The ancient practice of representing a god alternatively as a man or as a man with a beast’s head, was apparently also applied to Priapus. There exists in the Vatican an ancient bust of Priapus with a rooster’s head, whose beak and wattles are replaced with human male genitalia. The Greek inscription in the base of bust reads, “Savior of the World”.

Mithras, god of a Roman mystery religion often viewed as Christianity’s chief early competitor. Mithras’ most common representation was in a scene wearing the Phrygian cap while sacrificing a bull, and looking over his shoulder at the sun god Sol. Starting with the French revolutionary writer and creator of the Christ-myth theory, Charles François Dupuis, Christ-deniers have repeatedly treated Jesus as a fabrication based on Mithras. Mithraism was quite popular but particularly so in the Roman military.

Anti-Social Justice, Anti-Globalist, Pro-Western Civilization Homeschool Curriculum Now Available

By Jack Saxon

The Wait Is Over

Getting ready to start a new homeschool year? Already started? Either way, you need to read this.

In 2013, Tribal Theocrat published a two-part podcast interview with Bobbi Leigh Swagger, a veteran of the homeschool industry. Bobbi said, among other things, that homeschooling was infected with pietism, Statism, and multiculturalism; adding that there really was no curriculum out there that openly addressed these issues, coming down on the side of historic Christian and Western Civilization.

That was true then. But no longer. Such a curriculum does now exist. And readers and supporters of Tribal Theocrat need to know about it.

A Homeschool Curriculum for Fighters

The Christendom Curriculum is a brand-new homeschooling option for Christian families. The only openly Christian Nationalist, pro-European, pro-Christendom, anti-Globalist, anti-Multiculturalist, anti-Social Justice curriculum that I’m aware of, this is exactly what traditional, right-wing, red-pilled Christians need in order to give their children, not just a non-PC education, but an education that is specifically designed to help kids fight back against the anti-Christian and anti-Western oligarchs and their culturally entrenched minions.

That last point is important: The Christendom Curriculum was not made for typical, let’s-bring-back-the-1950s-but-be-nice-about-it Conservatives. It was made for fighters—for families willing (even if they’re not yet able) to go out and contest the claims of the Satanic Leftists and Globalists over our culture—and especially over our towns and counties and neighborhoods and families. Fighters who are spoiling for a brawl. Fighters who want to win, even if it takes a generation or three. Fighters who want a place for their families in the great, history-making battle of our time.

The Real Deal

Don’t listen to the voice you’re probably hearing right now, saying, Don’t get your hopes up—all this tricked out trumpeting of Nationalism and Anti-Social Justice will turn out to be nothing more than a weak cover for yet another exercise in pious civnattery, a thin veneer of tough talk covering an interior rotted out with virtue signaling and self-loathing.

No. This is the real deal. This is the Curriculum that goes where no other has yet dared. Written from the perspective of historic Reformed theology, with the moral and social sensibilities of all past Christendom, and determined to honor our ancient fathers who are daily reviled and vilified, The Christendom Curriculum openly identifies the enemies of our civilization, calling them by name—and teaches children to love their wonderful, godly, hard-working, valiant, racist ancestors.

That is why I say: even if you already have your curriculum picked out or are in the middle of an academic term (every homeschool family has its own schedule), if you care about these issues, you should consider replacing, or even just supplementing your current study program with The Christendom Curriculum. The price is so low that it’s worth getting for supplementary purposes even if you already have a decent curriculum that you like.

This Curriculum doesn’t pull its punches, taking on Social Justice, Multiculturalism, and Globalism, and teaching young people how to deal with them. How does it do this? By combining study of the Bible and the Great Books of the West with select readings in current challenges and a unique series of dozens of original worldview essays—called Battle Papers—that introduce a wide variety of topics related to our current civilizational crisis:

Cultural Marxism
Racism
Slavery
Israel, the Jews, the Church, and the West
Just War
Feminism
Hatred, Prejudice, and Stereotyping
The Last Days and the Culture Wars
Christian Nationalism
Immigration and the Bible
America First
Social Justice

Among others. The essays above are assigned for children in Years Seven and up, but the younger children are included as well through two series of essays called Culture War for Kids and The Story of Christendom. Culture War for Kids is a one-of-a-kind series of short, packed papers that teach issues related to Christian Nationalism and Culture War in a way that children can understand. To take one example, youngsters are introduced to the mindset of Social Justice Warriors by means of the very apt and child-appropriate image of the Tattle-Tale.

What the Good Guys, and the Bad Guys, Are Saying

As I said, it’s a brand-new Curriculum, but perhaps one way to judge its effectiveness is by the head-exploding effect it’s already having on SJWs, as evidenced by comments fired at The Christendom Curriculum from social media:

“Racist, xenophobic, radicalized hate curriculum.”

“Racist white nationalists intent on white washing history. NOT Christian AT ALL. These people straight up work for satan.”

“Did someone bring Hitler back to band together a new Nazi crew out of us homeschoolers???”

“This should be reported to the FBI as a white nationalist hate group!”

“You’re trying to indoctrinate a new generation of neo-Nazis.”

“Wow, just wow.”

And my personal favorite:

“I rebuke you devil, in the name of Jesus. You have no power here. #BeGone.’”

On the other hand, here’s what some actual Christian homeschoolers are saying:

“I think you are brave and it’s so awesome to see someone wanting to fight back!”

“Y’all are finally here! I’ve been hoping and searching for a curriculum like this! Thank you!!!!!”

“Wow! All ‘conservative Christians’ ever want to do is gently back up and continually give up ground while doing everything they can to apologize for existing and try desperately not to offend someone. So I’m signing up.”

“Don’t listen to the Globalist losers and Cultural Marxists. Keep up the good work.”

“Someone is finally just doing something thousands of homeschooling moms contemplate all the time.”

“My husband actually directed me to your curriculum and it sounds wonderful!”

“Thanks for creating this necessary resource!”

“I’m very excited and definitely in!”

How it Works—What It Costs

The Christendom Curriculum provides hundreds of digital (PDF) books—mostly older, public domain works, free of the current plague of political correctness; along with the previously mentioned collection of dozens of helpful, introductory essays and study helps to guide students and to provide the thematic framework for the course of study.

Students spend the academic portion of their day in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Simple as that. But much more guidance is provided in each Year’s Complete Guide, plus the 95-page Christendom Curriculum Parent’s Manual which is included with purchase. Members get access to a Member’s Only site with a Parent’s Library, and more benefits in the works, like weekly member video meetings and a mini-magazine focused on homeschooling from a Christian Nationalist perspective.

Helpfully, the cost is near the low end of the spectrum when compared to most homeschool curricula: $187 annual tuition/membership, plus $50 per Grade/Year Pack. Each Year Pack is only purchased once and can be re-used as younger children age up; additionally, any future updates to purchased Year Packs are provided free of charge.

For a family of three children, this amounts to less than 93 cents per day, to educate all the family’s children for the entire year.

A Civilizational Turning Point

Here’s the main reason The Christendom Curriculum is so important. The civilization our ancestors built has been badly damaged; indeed, we must steel ourselves to admit that what came before is, in any meaningful sense, over.

We are living in a time of great crisis—but also of great opportunity. As we return to Christ, our people can become the founders of a New Christendom, a New West, that will still retain the grandeur and glory of the Old, but stronger, truer to the faith of our fathers. Different, yes, but still familiar. Still home.

If history is any indicator, this will take at least three generations. The first generation must be occupied with Battle, with driving out the invaders that have brought us to the point of collapse. Then comes Building, as the second generation learns from the past to create a new civilization for the future. The third generation is one of Beauty, when our grandchildren, by God’s grace, may enter a time of peace that allows great art and literature and music to flourish once again.

But it begins with Battle, here and now.

The civilization emerging from our current era-ending transition may well endure through the next thousand years, or beyond. The Christendom Curriculum takes this multi-generational task seriously, and helps parents prepare their children to carry this mighty work beyond our time.

Find out more about The Christendom Curriculum by watching the two-minute video below, and by clicking here: https://www.christendomcurriculum.com/learn-more

Poll Finds Nearly One-Third of PCA Ministers are Sexually Attracted to Roadkill

Tribal Theocrat recently teamed up with TGC to conduct a poll of over 4000 ministers ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America. The poll concerned their romantic, sexual, and gender identities, as well as their porn-watching habits. One surprising result: over 31% of all PCA ministers admit to being romantically and sexually attracted to roadkill. Some other interesting results, from respondents with roadkill attraction (RKA):

The poll asked for any commentary or personal testimonies that respondents would like to share. The following are a few of these comments:

The question that plagues us is NOT, “How do we keep this plague out of the Church?”, but rather, “How do we make the Church a safe space for the roadkill-attracted?” The question is NOT, “How do we cure RKA?”, but rather, “How do we make RKA serve the Gospel?” ~ Rev. Zane Halverson, King’s Highway Presbyterian, San Antonio, TX

It really hurts my feelings when laymen pretend to be understanding, but immediately wash their hands after shaking mine. I know that’s what they’re doing the restroom. One parishioner actually vomited after seeing the collection of roadkill art I keep in my office. It was all tasteful, and my session knows I’m celibate, but some people seem incurably judgmental, like they don’t even know it’s the current year. ~ Pastor Holden Finch, St. Lazarus Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN read more

A Sermon on Christian Unity: The Proto-Kinism of PCA Founder John E. Richards

(The founding of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was the work of many men, but in any list of those most essential to its founding, along with names like Kenneth Keyes, Paul Settle, Morton Smith, and Jack Williamson, the name of Dr. John Edwards Richards would most certainly be found in a prominent position. Richards helped organize and lead Presbyterian Churchmen United, one of the four bodies that brought the PCA into being. In 1969, Richards and an associate led this group in publishing a Declaration of Commitment to the Word of God in 30 major newspapers, which was signed by over 500 ministers. In 1972, he retired from the pastorate to serve as the administrator for the Steering Committee for a Continuing Presbyterian Church, and spent much of his time traveling to churches to present the issues and debate liberal opponents. He was elected to prepare the docket for the first ever General Assembly, and literally wrote the book on the founding of the PCA, The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America, from which the following is extracted. At the main campus of Reformed Theological Seminary, the professorial chair for systematic and historical theology is named in his honor (ironically, a position held today by social justice warrior Ligon Duncan). It is difficult to overstate Richards’ contribution to the founding of the PCA.

I am in debt to Nathanael Strickland of Faith & Heritage for making me aware of The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America, as well as for giving me permission to reprint his find here. Oddly enough, I am apparently also in debt to Ligon Duncan, because Richards expressly thanked him in the book’s acknowledgments for his assistance with printing and promoting the book, which was sold by the PCA denominational bookstore for years (not entirely without controversy). Finally, this post would not have been possible without the diligent transcription efforts of a friend, to whom I am very grateful.

The Historical Birth of the Presbyterian Church in America is a collection of historical documents that led to the founding of the PCA, with introductions and commentary by Richards. The extract reprinted below contains both his introduction, and the sermon on Christian unity that he delivered in 1965 and distributed to all ministers in the PCUS. ~ Mickey Henry)

Dr. John Edwards Richards

Causes of Separation in 1973

With the background of history already given here, the reader will wish to know exactly the causes of the separation in 1973. It must be noted that the liberal majority departed from the “Old School” Theology and polity, while the conservative minority remained true to the “Old School” Theology and polity. So in reality, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is a continuation of the “Old School” Presbyterianism in the United States. As in any other history there were certain attendant conditions that affected the time and nature of the division.

First. The Liberal Majority rejected the theology of the Westminster Standards, the verbal inspiration of the “Old School” and joined with a larger Presbyterian body which permitted many creed as its standards.

Second. The long standing effect of “Higher Criticism” and the more recent Existentialism of Neo-orthodoxy, left open the door for ordaining men of almost any belief.

Third. The liberal departure extended to the polity of the church, where almost all control was in the hands of the clergy. The Old School Polity had guaranteed certain rights to the laity and to its congregations.

For instance, the constitution guaranteed every congregation the right to select its own pastor and officers. It also gave them the privilege of owning its own church property. Some congregations lost their property to the liberal majority, which others had to fight the legal battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they usually won on “Neutral Principles.”

Fourth. The liberal majority frequently misused church organizations for the purpose of defeating their opponents. One of these was the “Commission on the Minister and His Work.” This writer, along with many others, were visited by the Presbytery Commissions who sought to supersede the authority of Church sessions. Another instrument used against the conservatives was the organization of Presbytery Executive Secretaries, Synod Executive Secretaries, and General Assembly Executive Secretaries. The Presbytery Executives, (usually clergymen) would take their orders from the Executive head in the General Assembly Executive Boards. Thus the laymen in the church found themselves the victims of a hierarchy of clergymen.

Fifth. Another historical movement which had its effect upon this church process was the feminist movement. The PCA evolved during this period in which the authority of women was increasing in all walks of life. Women came to the forefront in every phase of the world’s activities. Therefore the election of women to church eldership was a big part of the liberal movement. Those who base their ethics on the particular existing situation rather than on moral creed readily made women to be ruling and teaching elders. This, of course, is in direct opposition to the teachings of scripture. According to Paul’s letters to Titus, Timothy, and Romans, women were not to assume these offices. The conservative view that officers should be elected who conform to the Biblical requirements naturally did not hold to the view of women ruling and teaching elders. Since the early days of the PCUS women had separate organizations which rendered service to the Lord. One of the finest organizations existing in the old PCUS was the Women’s Auxiliary. Many of its workers had become world-renowned in the Lord’s service. When the PCA was born, the “Women –in-the-Church” became the Lord’s Instrument (WIC) of the PCA.

Sixth. The elevation of the social gospel above the gospel of redemption became evident. In the 1960’s, the social aggressiveness of minorities, including marches on Washington D.C. and civil disobedience, foreshadowed the effect upon the work of the church. It became the popular thing for ministers to demand of their congregations immediate change in social mores and civil law. In this atmosphere a sermon was preached in First Presbyterian Church, Macon, GA., on July 25, 1965 titled, “As God is One,” concerning spiritual oneness. This sermon emphasized the spirituality of the church and the gospel of redemption. The Session of that church distributed the sermon to every minister in the PCUS. Many replies were received, about 60% were favorable, about 40% opposed. A copy of the sermon is recorded herewith.

As God is One

A Sermon on Christian Unity

Dr. John E. Richards, Pastor

Text: “…That they may be one as we are one.”

John 17:22

Jesus Prays for Us

It is good to know that Jesus prays for His people and from His recorded prayers we can learn His earnest desires for us. The Apostle John records in the seventeenth chapter of his Gospel Our Lord’s prayer to the Father on behalf of His followers. He prayed for the disciples with Him at the time and then for us, saying “neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” The twentieth century Christian has come to his faith through the word of these apostles of old who walked and talked with the Christ, and have left us in writing and inspired record of Him. John said, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” He said of his gospel, “These ae written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” So we believe and become recipients of His gracious prayer. read more

A Dozen Quick Arguments Against Interracial Marriage

Race is a blood relationship that can be succinctly and Biblically defined as a group of people sharing common descent from a particular man. As such, it is a pattern that repeats at any scale. In the broadest sense, there is one race, the race of Adam. In the narrowest sense, my son is of the race of me. In truth, the Bible doesn’t deal too much with races, but predominantly uses the broader concept of nations. A nation is a group of people sharing a common race, religion, location, and history. Simply put, the people of a nation share a common identity that forms the basis of a shared understanding.

A shared understanding is the foundation of any functioning community. This is a principle that works at any sociological scale, whether at the macro scale of nations or the micro scale of the family. A man and woman who do not understand each other and who do not possess a harmony of interests should not get married. Healthy, productive, and God-honoring communities are founded on similarity; dissimilarity breeds conflict. Those seeking a spouse should strive for the greatest degree of equal-yoking possible, whether measured by religion, race, location, language, culture, class, intellect, interests, age, etc.

God’s Law is revealed to us in summaries of broad moral principles. The Bible does not explicitly answer every possible moral question, but it nevertheless authoritatively speaks to every possible moral question by means of the necessary and logical consequence of what it does explicitly reveal. The Bible does not explicitly forbid a 16 year-old male orthodox Presbyterian, white English-speaking New Yorker, with a 130 IQ and hailing from an upper middle class family, from marrying an 85 year-old female Pentecostal, black Bantu-speaking Pygmy, with a 70 IQ, coming from the depths of poverty. Nevertheless, I hope we have the moral fortitude to call this something worse than just “a bad idea.” The Bible spends little time defining its terms, and much wisdom could be found simply in contemplating what a marriage is from the standpoint of ultimate purposes.

With that introduction, here are a dozen quick arguments against interracial marriage:

1. Marriages that are racially and ethnically homogeneous are Biblically normative. A number of verses can be utilized in making that case: Genesis 24:3-4, Genesis 27:46 – 28:9, Exodus 34:15-16, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers 25:1-9, Numbers 36, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-6, Judges 14:3, I Kings 11:1-6, Ezra 9:1 – 10:44, Nehemiah 10:30, Nehemiah 13:23-27, and Ezekiel 44:22.

2. Adam’s poem upon the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, reads:

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Eve’s formation from Adam’s own flesh is a compelling creation pattern for all future marriages. The First Mention Principle of Biblical hermeneutics is: “God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God.” This is obviously the first instance of marriage, but what about the first instance of miscegenation? The one that comes to my mind is Esau’s polygamous marriage to two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34). These marriages greatly grieved Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:35, 27:46, 28:8). You could also make a case for Ishmael’s marriage to an Egyptian woman, but he was half Egyptian himself (Genesis 21:21). Speaking of which, that whole Abram/Hagar episode didn’t work out too well either.

3. Rushdoony’s exposition of unequal yoking is to the point:

…St. Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization, and against yoking an ox and an ass to a plow (Deut. 22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (I Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.

Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association. read more