Who Are Biblical Gentiles?

 

By Jerry Gentry

 

To this question, let us reason together. First, let us look at the very first occurrences of the words often translated gentile/s in Holy Writ.  The underlying Hebrew word occurs 559 times in the Old Testament. The word and Strong’s definition is:

 

1471. ywŅ…g gowy, goę-ee; rarely (shortened) y…Og goy, goę-ee; apparently from the same root as 1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence, a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:—Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

 

Gen. 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

 

Gen. 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles [471. ywŅ…g gowy] divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations [471. ywŅ…g gowy].

 

From these verses we find that [1471. ywŅ…g gowy] “gentiles” and “nations,” applies to all of Noah’s progeny, including Canaan and his descendants as well, who show up later in history usually as enemies of God’s chosen people Israel. It is from this Canaanite line that we find Amalek, one whom God “will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Ex 17:14). Esau married into this line and produced the Edomites, perpetual enemies of Israel and of God, whom we understand to be the modern Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9 Khazarian Jews.

 

Thus, by Strong’s definition, Noah and his progeny would amass many “foreign nations” from their own loins! But that makes no sense to say “foreign nations” relative to Noah’s own seed. This is where such a presumptive nonBiblical definition confuses and carries us away from the straight line of Biblical truth. Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their seed after them, were not “foreign” at all to Noah. So right out the git-go, Strong’s personal idea about “gentiles” being “foreign nations” leads to erroneous thinking and inaccurate conclusions. The other words in his definition are accurate. But the idea of “foreign,” which implies something entirely different than the word “gentile,” is Biblically inaccurate.

 

“Alien” [5237. yĒrVkŽn nokriy, nok-reeę] is the word often used in scripture to mean people born outside the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

Here’s the bottom line: All Biblical “gentiles” descended from the loins of Noah and his sons, and were not “foreign” at all to Noah. On the contrary, these were family. And these would initially expand and grow into large groups and become “nations” or “gentiles.”

 

The Bible clearly states the same thing of Abraham and Sarah a little later, when God spoke to them:

 

Gen. 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations (1471. ywŅ…g gowy) have I made thee.

 

Gen. 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations [1471. ywŅ…g gowy, goę-ee]; kings of people shall be of her.

 

These “nations” or “gentiles” who would descend from the loins of Abraham and the womb of Sarah were not “foreign” at all to Abraham and Sarah. Abraham and Sarah would produce many “gentiles,” “nations,” or family members, who would be the “kindreds, nations, multitudes and tongues” found later on in scripture, such as:

 

Psa. 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

 

The Pslamist includes “kindreds” (4940. hDjÚDp◊vIm mishpachah, mish-paw-khawę; from 8192 (compare 8198); a family, i.e. circle of relatives; figuratively, a class (of persons), a species (of animals) or sort (of things); by extens. a tribe or people:—family, kind(-red) as part of the “nations” or “gentiles” (1471. ywŅ…g gowy). See also “multitudes” [1995. NwŅmDh hamown, haw-moneę; or NOmDh hamon (Ezek. 5:7), haw-moneę; from 1993; a noise, tumult, crowd; also disquietude, wealth:—abundance, company, many, multitude, multiply, noise, riches, rumbling, sounding, store, tumult); Joel 3:14-16; Matt. 4:25; Matt. 13:2; Luke 14:25; and Rev 17:15. Abraham’s primary “gentile” offspring would be Isaac, but also Ishmael and others were also “gentiles.”  Yes, Isaac too was a Biblical “gentile” and would produce through Rebekah a host of “gentiles.” We must let the Bible interpret the Bible, and not superimpose our own modern cultural or religious bias onto these words.

 

So far, we have found two key Old Testament fathers – Noah and Abraham, --  who would produce from their own loins a multitude of gentiles” (1471. ywŅ…g gowy). So far, nothing at all has been mentioned concerning the non-Adamic races, only Noah’s seed and Abraham’s seed. (I believe there existed also non-Adamic bipeds, mentioned briefly, but not dealt with specifically in the Bible, descended from among the “living creature” genres of Gen 1:24. How can we speculate specifically where the Bible is general or silent? We cannot. I am aware of and reject the notion that Ham produced blacks and Japheth produced the yellow skin races. An old Collins Encyclopedia from the 1950s showed Hamites to be white.

 

This idea that Ham produced black and Japheth yellow is sheer speculation, but widespread in acceptance in our day.

 

This idea was not widely accepted before 1910. Incidentally, the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th ed. 1910, which I have in my library, identifies Negro as “anthropoid,” contrasted with “human.” Of course the Edomites have edited all the current Encyclopedias and removed all such ideas. I believe members of the “living creature,” including blacks, Orientals, etc,. must be included in “all flesh” (Gen 6:19) living across the flood on the ark. Therefore these nonAdamic races exist today around the world! British scientists of the 19th century photographed some of these races and published books documenting their findings.

 

There is also an idea that Eve somehow gave birth to white, black and yellow. Is it possible that genetic mutation(!) from the womb of Eve explains the origin of the non-white races, since scripture states:

 

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men.

 

And,

 

Gen. 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

The laws of genetics and kind after kind render it impossible for Eve to produce black and yellow, if both she and Adam were white. The key words above are “nations,” “men” and “all living,” and how the Bible defines these terms.

 

If all races were born from Eve, then it is impossible to later have any distinct races on earth, because all bipeds would all be kinfolk and therefore miscegenation would be just fine. (Under the regime of Joseph Stalin, experiments were made that finally produced a female offspring from a male gorilla mating with a black woman. Experiments with white women never succeeded! The offspring of the ape and black grew up to adult and died in her 30’s, in Mexico. Photos of her show definite “anthropoid” features. Was this “out of kind” creature man or ape? Would we offer such a creature salvation? She could talk, and had an IQ above that of Chimpanzees.)

 

Who are the “nations” and “men” of Acts 17:26, and the “all living: of Gen 3.20? I believe these all descend from Adam, Noah and Abraham and their progeny, to whom the Bible is written.

 

Here are a few more instances where Biblical definition of the word “gentile” definitely contradicts Strong’s narrow “foreign” definition.

 

Example 1:

 

Jer. 4:7 The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles [1471. ywŅ…g gowy] is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant.

 

Jeremiah was writing to Israel and Judah (note v. 10), referred to here as “gentiles.” These “gentiles” against whom the destroyer would come were none other than Israelites and Judahites. The only way that I can see around this conclusion would be to render “destroyer of the Gentiles” to be some kind of idiom, which is highly speculative! Such has been argued regarding the “three days and three nights” prophecy concerning Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. When people don’t like what the Bible clearly states, bingo, just call it an idiom or allegory! I am only using this as an example, and I have no idea about your belief on the “three days and three nights” issue.

 

Example 2:

 

Gen. 25:23 And the LORD said unto her [Isaac’s wife Rebekah], Two nations [1471. ywŅ…g gowy] are in thy womb, and two manner of people [3816. MOaVl l}om] shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

 

Both unborn children – Esau and Jacob – would produce “nations” or  “gentiles” [1471. ywŅ…g gowy].

 

And again:

 

Gen. 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations [1471. ywŅ…g gowy] of the earth be blessed;

 

This is clearly a prophecy concerning a family of “nations” or “gentiles,” all kindred peoples descending from Isaac/Rebekah. This prophecy makes no reference to or implies no application to Chinese, Blacks, Japanese, “mixed multitude”, or other “people” to whom the Bible was never given.

 

Example 3:

 

Ex. 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation [1471. ywŅ…g gowy, goę-ee] These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

Ex. 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

 

Here the family of Israel is prophesied to become a “nation” or “gentile.” These are all Israelites, yet at the same time would become a “nation,” or “gentile.”

 

Example 4:

 

Mic. 5:8 And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles (1471. ywŅ…g gowy) in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

 

Where is the “remnant of Jacob” today, but living right here in America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc., “among the gentiles” identified in the Bible as descendents of both Noah and Abraham. Yes, our lands have been flooded with “alien” “mixed multitude” and nonAdamic “living creatures” also. These are not Biblically referenced specifically or identified as being “gentiles” ever that I can find in scripture. There exist “aliens” [5237. yĒrVkŽn nokriy, nok-reeę ], or “foreign nations,” genetically or geographically outside, Israel, which are “foreign” to Israelite “gentiles.” All “Gentiles” are defined as descendants of Noah and Abraham. But the majority of “gentiles” historically would be narrowed and come through Isaac and Jacob.

 

Example 5:

 

Jer. 31:7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: [1471. ywŅ…g gowy] publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.

 

Can you imagine Jeremiah shouting this among the Blacks or Chinese or mongrel peoples? That would be preposterous!

 

Who later became by fulfilled prophecy “chief of the nations?” None other than Great Britain and the United States, from Joseph! And note this scripture does not refer to an “alien” [5237. yĒrVkŽn nokriy, nok-ree] non-Israelite nation. It refers to “Jacob,” who has become the prophesied “chief of the nations [i. e., gentiles],” descended from Noah and Abraham.

 

Further, it was prophesied that:

 

Rom. 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (See also Gen 21:12; Heb 11:18).

 

Here we learn that God would narrow down his work in the earth, eliminating “the children of the flesh,” bringing these to a full end, choosing to place his Divine favor upon “the children of the promise.” These “children of the promise” descending from the loins of Isaac and womb of Rebecca would multiply into “thousands of millions” [i.e., billions] (Gen 24:60). I see no scriptural call, need or reason to relegate this phrase “thousands of millions” to allegory or figure of speech. Herein we find specific numbers, contrasted with other non-specific phrases, i. e., “as the sand of the sea” and “as the stars of heaven.” These other phrases are non-specific as to numbers, and could therefore be interpreted variously as “many” or “multitudinous.” These phrases also have other applications. The sand holds back the tides. The stars give light, and paint beautiful scenes in the night sky. But “thousands of millions” gives only one meaning: “billions,” descended from Isaac and Rebekah, and were prophesied to become great “nations” or “gentiles” in the earth. I believe when we estimate all those sons and daughters of Isaac gone before, plus all those sons and daughters of Isaac living now, the figure is a few billion at least.

 

As to the remainder of those nations mentioned in Gen 10, note they would all except Jacob come to a full end. Outside the many Ishmaelites, Moabites, Canaanites, Edomites, “mixed multitude” and maybe a few others, I believe the other Shemite, Hamite and Japhethic pure nations no longer exist today because they were prophesied to come to a full end. To the sons of Isaac God would “give all these countries [776. aRr®X }erets, ehę-rets;]” (Gen 26:3-4). “Countries” here is land. Not only Isaac, but Esau and progeny must also be counted among “gentiles.” As you know, he married the Canaanite, and produced the Edomites.

 

It is clearly prophesied that all other “nations” or “gentiles” descended from Noah and Abraham outside the Isaac/Jacob line would die out:

 

Jer. 46:28 Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the LORD: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.

 

From the original “gentiles” descended from Noah and Abraham, there would be multitudes of “gentiles,” who know not their origins. Canaanites (Edomites) were spared because of the prophecy in Gen 3:15. Moabites were spared for the specific purpose of being God’s washpot (Psa. 60:8 Moab is my washpot;) for Israel. And of course the nonAdamic peoples of the East, outside scripture, and the nonAdamic peoples of black Africa, not specifically dealt with in scripture, and also the “mixed multitudes” coming about through miscegenation “as in the days of Noah” (Mat 24:38) would continue to multiply, thus fulfilling prophecy.

 

As you know, God prophesied interracial marriage would occur, which has become rampant in the West during the last few decades. Miscegenation was nearly unheard of during the founding of our nation 250 years ago. Even during my childhood, 50 years ago, my hometown of Nocona, Texas, forbad a black to remain within the city limits overnight. Such “aliens” could pass through during daylight, but would be found, tarred and feathered, if they were caught after dark! My how things have changed in just 50 years!

 

Next we see that God’s name shall be “great among the Gentiles,” and “great among the heathen.”

 

Mal. 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; [descendants of Noah and Abraham, by Biblical definition] and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

 

Where has he Lord’s name been declared “great among the Gentiles?” It was 1742 before the his Name along with modern medicine found it’s way into central Africa, later into China, India, Japan and the East. But throughout church history, His Name has been declared great among the “gentile” remnant of Israel, to this day! Church history proves the church of God was always a white church, never interracial, for at least 1700 years! The only place in church history where I have found a black being baptized was Carthage, under Tertullian (circa 180AD), North Africa. And it was a singular occurrence, by the apostate Roman church which also taught many other heresies which I can enumerate, if necessary.

 

Next, we will look at the “gentiles,” of the New Testament. This is Strong’s:

 

1484. e¶qnoß ethnos, ethę-nos; probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan): — Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

 

Here we find the basic word used throughout the New Testament, translated as “gentile/s.” It is my firm conviction that Strong makes the same mistake with his definition of ethnos being “foreign” here, as with the equivalent Hebrew word goi. This idea is based on cultural or religious bias, not on Biblical evidence.

 

Proof? First,

 

***** Matt. 4:15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;*****

 

Is not Galilee part of the ancient lands God gave Israel for an inheritance? Or must we pass this too off as a metaphor or figure of speech? Galilee is not a “foreign” or “alien” place, but part of Israel.

 

Second:

 

***** Matt. 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

 

Where has God’s judgment been shown historically, except under the Common Law of Great Britain and the United States, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution? No other “nation” has grown as great as the United States of America, founded up the Ten Commandments and Common Law which was restored to a degree from time to time amongst our peoples, such as under the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, etc.

 

***** Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.

 

It is clear without argument that Jesus was delivered by the “Jews” to the “gentile” Romans for execution. Who were the Romans? Well if God made a full end of all the other “gentile” descendants of Noah and Abraham (with exceptions noted above, for God’s prophetic purposes), then the Romans were heathen Israelites, “gentiles,” descended from Noah and Abraham. The Louver in Paris displays many Roman statues, which every one look to the eye like people we identify today as Israelites! The heathen (later “Christian”) Roman Emperor Constantine the Great was born in York, England, to a heathen Roman Israelite father General Constantius and a Christian British Israelite mother Helena. There remains a public statue of Constantine today in York, commemorating his birth and birthplace. There are reams of historical evidence that the British and the Romans were kinfolk, both descended from Israelite stock.

 

***** Matt. 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

 

Who were the only known “gentiles” Jesus could have been referring to? Romans? Greeks? We would not think of Chinese, Japanese, Blacks, etc, in this context, would we? Greeks and Romans were both Israelites of the dispersion. Diadorus of Sicily, ancient historian, references two exoduses of Israelites from Egypt, one by sea, and one by land. What ever happened to Zerah, twin brother of Phares, from Judah, who disappeared from the Bible? Did he and other fellow Israelites depart Egypt by sea to found or join the ancient city-states of Troy, Sparta, etc. Did Jeremiah leave Egypt by ship carrying two daughters of Zedekiah? And on his way to Ireland he dropped one daughter off at one of the Greek city-states, for marriage? Did he take the other, Tea Tephi on to Ireland, where he landed at Tara Hill (Hill of the Law) and gave Tea Tephi to Irish King Heremon? Someday I hope to visit the grave of Jeremiah, located just north of Dublin, in a cave, with numerous ancient writings.

 

***** Mark 10:33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

 

***** Luke 18:32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:

 

Who were these “gentiles,” but Romans, certainly not blacks or orientals.

 

***** John 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

 

Here is a clear reference to “the dispersed” or Diaspora, as it is referenced in many historical books on Israel. Of course they then knew about divorced and dispersed Israel, who had become heathen, pagan, idolatrous, etc. But these people were still genetic Israelites, preserved by God for his purposes in the earth, and not cast away at all (Rom.11:10). Here “gentiles” are referenced as “dispersed.” I can find no other people in scripture who were ever “dispersed” by having been given a bill of divorcement by God, and sent away into captivity, except Israel of the Northern Kingdom.

 

***** Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

One such “gentile” king Paul witnessed to was King Agrippa, whom Paul identified as being a fellow genetic Israelite:

 

Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:

 

Acts 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

 

Had not Agrippa already known about his genetic Israelite origins, it would have been highly presumptuous and offensive for Paul to have included Agrippa among his own common Israelite racial heritage.

 

And incredibly, Agrippa knew and BELIEVED the prophets, which would have made absolutely no sense, if her were a nonIsraelite:

 

Acts 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.

 

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

 

How could Paul have known that Agrippa believed the prophets, if such were not true? And because of this fact, Agrippa was almost converted to Christ! What a masterful and inspired sermon Paul made to this heathen “gentile” Israelite King!

 

***** Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

***** Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

 

*****Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. The very first “gentile” convert was Cornelius, an heathen Israelite Roman (non Judahite). There is no evidence that Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Canaanites or “mixed multitudes” were present here.

 

***** Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

 

***** Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

 

Which peoples lived in “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia?” Blacks? Chinese? “Mixed multitudes”? No, these were white, Israelite lands. Where is the evidence to the contrary? I submit this idea to the most thorough search in history and archaeology.

 

Where did Paul go, when he declared,

 

*****Acts 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

 

There exists an ancient bronze monument in the city of London, England, which I have visited, stating Paul was there. Where else in Europe did he travel and bring the gospel? Why did he fail to enter central Africa? Why did the Holy Spirit restrain him from traveling further east from Macedonia, into India, Japan, China, etc.? Why was Paul “forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia” (Acts 16:6) except that there existed peoples there who were outside God’s promise of salvation?

 

***** Acts 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

 

*****Rom. 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

 

Perfect harmony here. First to the Judahites, later to the divorced and dispersed heathen idolatrous “gentile” Israelites living afar off, all descended from Noah and Abraham, later narrowed through Isaac and Jacob (Rom 9:7; Heb 11:18). To specifically identify many of these Israelite nations of that time, please read the list of nations in Acts 2, whom Peter addressed twice in the same chapter as “ye men of Israel” and “house of Israel.” There was a pretty impressive list of “gentile” Israelite nations represented in Jerusalem at the first Pentecost. And there are no “aliens” mentioned.

 

***** Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

Paul contrasts “we” (Judah) and “they” (dispersed Israel). Who but Judah and Israel are “under sin?” Who but “Judah” and “Israel” are subjects of the New Covenant (Heb 8:8)? Sin is defined as “transgression of the law” (1John 3:4). How can those who never received the law be in transgression? Only those descendants of Israel and progeny, who were present at Horeb, to whom were given the Ten Commandments, can sin be adjudicated. Americans are not “adjudicated” by the laws of France. Frenchmen are adjudicated under French law, and Americans under American law. Certainly there are blessings in this life when “aliens” take up the Bible and attempt live by it’s principles. But in no way does such a change of lifestyle entitle them to receive “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Rom 9:4), which Paul clearly states belong to those “who are Israelites.”

 

There is no record in scripture of God ever giving the Ten Commandments to the nonAdamic or Mongrel races. The blessings accruing to “aliens” from learning and applying these high principles of living result from the example set by the Israelite nations dominating the earth, as prophesied in scripture. A better life here and now, but not salvation, results.

 

Rom. 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

 

Rom. 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

Rom. 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

 

*****1Cor. 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

 

“Such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles.” From white South Africans I have known well and spoken with, there are no bounds to the sexual deviancies practiced by males and females among the Zulu flooding into South Africa. You can read the Talmud and find the disgusting sexual deviancies practiced and piously justified by the Rabbis. Obviously, Paul here refers to “civilized gentiles,” such as the Romans and Greeks, descended from Noah and Abraham, and not to Blacks (aliens) or Canaanites (gentiles). And most likely, Paul did not have the alien Chinese or Japanese in mind either, both of whom have historical codes of conduct developed from their own prophets, such as Confucius, etc., and not from the Bible.

 

***** Gal. 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

 

***** Gal. 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

***** Eph. 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

 

Who were these “gentiies in the flesh,” called the “Uncircumcision?” Who were the “Circumcision in the flesh?” Can we not rightly conclude that these were all kindred peoples descended from Noah and Abraham, and in this instance descended from the Northern Kingdom, divorced Israel (Jer 3:8) of God, having become “uncircumcised,” contrasted along side the descendants of the Southern Kingdom, often disobedient but not divorced, who continued to teach “Circumcision in the flesh?”

 

On a personal note, in the mostly heathen nation of Belarus (White Russia), where I write this today, circumcision of males is uncommon. Now IF Belarusian people, who are nearly 100% white in appearance, descend from Noah/Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, which I believe to be true, then it makes sense that Belarus today fits the pattern of the Uncircumcision, compared with the Circumcision of the true Judahites.

 

This author will leave off now answering further the question, “Who are Biblical Gentiles?” The author welcomes all rebuttals, clarifications, corrections, comments, etc.

 

Lastly, we must consider another question? Can/will peoples born outside the genetic “gentile” Israelite family inherit salvation?

 

Now if the Biblical meaning of “gentile” above will stand the test of truth, it puts a different light on the question peoples outside the family inheriting salvation. If God intends to save non-Israelite “gentiles,” we are limited by Biblical definition to peoples descended from the loins of Noah and Abraham. We must reject Strong’s definition and hold strictly to Biblical definition. Will God also save Biblical “aliens” [5237. yĒrVkŽn nokriy, nok-ree]?

 

Are we limited to the following “gentiles” and “aliens” only, as previously mentioned: Canaanites, Edomites, Moabites born of incest from Abraham’s nephew Lot, “mixed multitudes”, and possibly a few others. Where will we put the hairy looking humanoid biped creatures, photographed and published by British scientists, during the 19th century? Where will we put the offspring of ape and black woman, from experiments under the Joseph Stalin regime? What about Chimpanzees, who sometimes walk uprightly, and can learn many words and learn how to flush a toilet? Should we offer these “salvation” also, to become the faithful toilet flushers and maybe banana pickers in the future kingdom? And maybe God will “save” our favorite pets and/or livestock, by the faith of their owners??? Where will we draw the line, notwithstanding our own racial or cultural bias? Where is the Biblical evidence otherwise?

 

Now, a final note on race. There exist pure nonAdamic races which God created in Gen 1:24, including Blacks and Orientals, and possibly Reds. All the pure races God pronounced good, whatever races those are. Therefore there is no room for hating that which God has declared to be good. (Skinheads, put away your AK47s! White Supremists, get on your knees and repent of your racial entitlements and hatreds)!

 

But in no way does the pronouncement of “good” infer or confer inheritance of salvation which is always presented in scripture as an inheritance within a family of kindred “gentile” people. To imply or confer salvation outside the family is sheer speculation, man made, dangerous, presumptuous, and has no scriptural basis that this author can find anywhere, Genesis to Revelation, notwithstanding my or another person’s pure, benevolent and loving attitudes and motives toward “aliens” or ““mixed multitudes”” born outside the pure “gentile” family.

 

It does great injustice for those of “gentile” Israelite origin, who know and believe Christ, to whom the promises pertain, to hold out the carrot of salvation to anyone to whom the Bible never speaks specifically. Therefore, where the Bible is silent, those of Israelite heritage and Christian faith, must also remain silent, I believe. God in his sovereignty is capable of handling all “aliens,” “mixed multitudes” and other non-Israelite “gentiles” quite well, with benevolence and fairness, without my having to understand specifically. There are bodies “celestial” and there are bodies “terrestrial.” There are different glories among vessels. There are gold goblets and there are brass spittoons. He makes “vessels unto honor” and “vessels unto dishonor,” all molded from the same clay. That is His business, not ours. I propose that we “let God be true and every man a liar.” So be it, including this author!

 

 

Copyright © 1999-2008 Church in the Wilderness | 230 PR 3471 | Big Sandy, TX 75755

Phone: 903-714-7767

This Site Maintained and Hosted by CWS