|
A Debate on Race & the Bible
The following is a debate that was conducted between Charles Weisman
(CW), of Weisman Publications, and Douglas Wilson (DW), the editor of Credenda/Agenda
magazine (P.O. Box 8741, Moscow, Idaho 83843). Mr. Wilson started the
debate and takes the position that there are no differences in the races
in God's eye or His plans, that all came from Adam, and that there is nothing
in the Bible that shows an inequality in the races. I think after
you read this debate and the following comments you will see the errors
of Mr. Wilson's position, or at least that he does not have all the answers
on the matter.
DW: While white racialists often make their appeal using scriptural
terms and names, they tend to argue from an appeal to the modern idols
of “history” or “science.” In this respect they have a great deal in common
with the leftist secularists of our age. Careful exegetical handling of
Scripture is, to put it mildly, not their strong suit. For example, Moses
had a black wife descended from Cush, the son of Ham (Num. 12:1). Miriam
objected to the woman's presence in the camp, and God chastised her sharply
for it. And although her resultant leprosy made her a good deal whiter
than she had been before (v. 10), this was hardly taken as a blessing.
-----------------
CW: God's creation was “kind after kind” and He called it “very
good” (Gen. 1). The term “kind” means species or race. While all of nature
verifies this principle, the opponents of Identity desire to ignore God's
word and work and develop their own humanistic order. We thus often hear
them say things like “Moses had a black wife” (Num. 12:1). Bible authorities
know that “Arabia” is spoken of in this verse (see Matthew Henry's Commentary).
When Moses lived “the present Ethiopia was unknown and uninhabited” (Lamsa,
Old Testament Light, p. 15). The wife of Moses was from the original
Ethiopia in Mesopotamia (Gen. 2:13; 2 Chr. 21:16). She thus was of the
same race as Abraham.
---------------
DW: The issue is not the woman's latitude and longitude, but
rather the basis of her race—her ancestry. The Hebrew makes it plain that
she was a Cushite—descendant of Cush. The Septuagint renders it as Aithiopisses,
which is a compound word referring to dark faces. This makes me even more
interested in the grounds you have for identifying the “kinds” of Genesis
with evolutionary taxonomy. In Genesis the word for “kind” is miyn, and
is applied to the creatures and their ability to reproduce. According to
your understanding of Genesis, do a black lab and a German shepherd belong
to different kinds, or the same kind? They sure look different, at least
to me.
---------------
CW: In biblical exegesis, it is important to understand
that words, meanings, languages and nations change with time. The Greek
word for Cush possessed the connotation of “dark” and referred to people
south of Egypt. But you cannot apply a more contemporary Greek definition
to ancient Hebrew words. The word Cush never meant dark in Hebrew, and
was “connected to Kish in Babylonia” (Unger's Bible Handbook). How
many Negroes were in Babylonia at the time of Moses? None! Therefore location
and time periods are relevant in the question of race in Num. 12. Words
must be put in there proper historical context. The word “species” existed
long before the concept of evolution, and is a well understood term.
--------------
DW: You are correct that “species” is well-understood term.
But you cannot have it both ways. Asked about black labs and German shepherds,
you appeal to the generally-understood definition of the word. Then, dealing
with Caucasians and Negroes you want to use the word in an entirely unique
sense. Which way do you want it? Are white men and black men members of
different species or not, and how can you possibly show this from Genesis?
In context, Genesis establishes “kinds” according to reproductive capacity.
And by the way, the woman Moses married was named Tharbis, princess of
an African city on the upper Nile named Saba (Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, Book II/Chap. x).
---------------
CW: That the word “kind” means “species” is undeniable (see
Strongs, Gesenius, Youngs). Species means a specific type or entity
created by God regardless of its similarity to other types. It is equivalent
to the term “race.” There are species of man and species of dog. I have
never used the term any other way. Species or kind does not refer to reproductive
capacity, any more than do the terms race, tribe or clan. The term describes
a biological type, not a biological function. It was only God's intent
that the kinds He created reproduce with their own kind. Reproductive capacity
is not a test of species. Also, the wife of Moses was named Zipporah (Exod.
2:21).
---------------
DW: Okay, so the “term describes a biological type.” Please
show from Scripture the criteria and boundaries of such types. You hold
that blacks and whites belong to different species, with no scriptural
support given thus far. If the standard is not reproduction, which is clearly
mentioned in Genesis (e.g. 1:11-12), then what is the standard? Please
distinguish (scripturally) whites and whites with a black great-grandmother.
What standard for “biological types” are you using? If it is scriptural,
then give the exegesis. If it is not scriptural, then my original charge
stands, i.e. that you appeal to modern idols of history or science. So
Zipporah was a Cushite in your reckoning? Here I thought she was a Midianite.
---------------
CW: God commanded Israel not to mix or hybridize the different
kinds (species) of plants and animals (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). He also
told them not to mix with other racial types or alien women (Deut. 7:1-3;
Ezra 9:1-2,12; 10:10-11). This proves that different kinds can reproduce
but that it was not God's plan. Hybrids are the doing of man, not nature.
God created black and white and said all of His creation was “good” or
appropriate as is (Gen. 1:31). It is the humanists, antichrists, United
Nations, etc., which want to disrupt God's order and have all races be
as “one,” reminiscent of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:6). What is your standard
for having the different races be as one?
---------------
DW: When one can’t answer a question, he can still ask a few
of his own. Please note first that you have not given us scriptural criteria
for defining the boundaries of species. God told them not to marry outside
the covenant; race was not the issue. When false gods were rejected, intermarriage
was acceptable—see Rahab (Matt. 1:5), Ruth (Matt. 1:5), Zipporah (Ex. 2:21),
and a beautiful captive woman (Dt. 21:1-14). Without scriptural criteria,
how do you know that God created white and black at the very first? The
bluehelmets want one world under their tomfool gods. We preach one world
under Christ, our only standard. In Him, every nation comes together (Rev.
5:9).
---------------
CW: Zoology and ethnology are common Bible subjects. The Bible
lists by name many species of plants, animals and humans. The Israelites
knew what the “boundaries of species” were and we know today. Negroes are
not mentioned in Scripture, but you apparently want someone to show you
a verse that says Negroes and whites are different kinds or you are not
going to believe it. By that reasoning one cannot say gorillas and chimpanzees
are different species because Scripture does not mention them. That's nonsense.
What do you think is the origin of the races? The issue is race, not covenants.
Israel could not marry Hittites because they were of a different race,
as archeological records attest.
---------------
DW: Identifying a biblical distinction between gorilla and chimpanzee
is not necessary because no ethical claims are connected to it. But all
ethical requirements must be supported by Scripture. Scripture does not
prohibit racial intermarriage the way you do, and Scripture does not give
criteria by which the “prohibited” races may be identified. Following your
example I could, on my own authority, forbid the intermarriage of natives
of Canada and the United States. The races originated because God confused
human languages at Babel, and people began to marry within their own language
group. If the issue is race, not the covenant, then how do you explain
the scriptural examples of intermarriage which I gave earlier?
---------------
CW: If a chimpanzee and a gorilla are different creations of
God, then it would be unethical for us, pursuant to Leviticus 19:9, to
cause them to intermix and produce a hybrid primate. There is no evidence
that “Rachab” of Matt. 1:5 is the “Rahab” of Josh. 2:1. Many Moabites at
the time of Ruth were racially kindred to the Israelites. Deut. 21:10-14
pertains to captives in wars among Israelites (i.e. Judges 20 & 21)
or kindred types. Notice the contrary directive given in regards to other
races in Deut. 20:16-18. If God somehow caused the different races at Babel
by giving the people different languages and separating them from one another,
what is your ethical grounds for undoing God's order by integration and
interracial marriage?
---------------
DW: I am glad to see you have better success distinguishing
the chimp and gorilla than you did with the black lab and German shepherd.
The hybrid laws are in the same category as the dietary laws, i.e. part
of the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” which were abolished
in the cross (Eph. 2:14). So why do you oppose biblical integration? The
church at Antioch was integrated in its eldership (Acts 13:1). One of their
elders was Simeon called Niger, or Simeon the Black. But this integration
was done freely, organically, in Christ. So we oppose all humanistic coercive
integration. The great blessing at Pentecost was God's reversal of Babel.
Only the Lord Christ brings unity.
--------------
CW: Matthew Henry states that the “ordinances” (Eph. 2:15) were
“the ceremonial law,” which did not include the food laws and hybridity
laws. The basis for these laws is grounded in nature, and will never change
unless God changes the nature of the things involved. That Simeon was called
Niger no more makes him a Negro than does Peter's name make him a rock.
If Pentecost was “God's reversal” of what you said happened at Babel, then
all races became “one” race again. The whole idea is preposterous as languages
have nothing to do with race. Pentecost was a gathering of Israelites dispersed
in other lands. Peter addresses them as, “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:22).
Pentecost was not a multiracial assembly.
---------------
DW: The ceremonial law does not include the dietary laws? But
when God declared unclean animals clean, He makes the very point you contest.
You call unclean what God has declared clean (Acts 10:15). To make matters
worse, in keeping the dietary restrictions, you have erased His picture
of cleansing both Hamites and us Japethites. What next? Are you going to
say our bacon is really the ten lost tribes of beef? When a stone is thrown
into a pond, the waves move outward concentrically. Pentecost was that
stone, and the waves moved through Judea (Acts 2), to the Samaritan half-breeds
(Acts 8), and to the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 10; Mark 16:15).
Glory!
---------------
CW: The function of ceremonial law was to point to Christ and
His atoning sacrifice for sin. When the antitype came, the types were no
longer needful. Neither the food laws nor hybridity laws were typical of
the salvation, redemption or justification perfected by Christ. In Acts
10, Peter is tested for his willingness to preach to the nations. He tells
of a vision he had of different creatures which represent the nations.
That men are the subject is clear from v. 28. It is not about actual food!
All of this causes me to wonder why so much truth (history, science, God's
laws, Scripture) must be nullified or distorted to support the humanistic
concept that all races are one.
--------------
DW: The method you have employed throughout our discussion is
this: you appeal to a common definition of a word (e.g. species), and use
that common understanding as the reason you do not have to answer any questions
about it. That accomplished, you then use the same word with a completely
unique definition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. You are quite right
that men are in view in Acts 10. Are blacks not men? The dietary and hybridity
laws were typical of salvation—the key distinction between holy and profane
was taught in them. You deny God has made from one blood every nation among
men (Acts 17:26). This is the fallacy of not believing God.
END OF DEBATE
The "fallacy" that Mr. Wilson had fallen into with his last
two comments is that he has confused the concept of sanctification with
that of salvation. Sanctification dealt with the "distinction
between holy and profane," not salvation. I have not found one Bible
scholar that states the food laws (or hybridity laws) were typical of the
salvation Christ worked for us. Even the broad and universal usage
of sanctification used by Mr. Wilson is erroneous, as the sanctification
brought to us by Christ is something that exists in the spiritual realm,
not the physical.
It is apparent that all who take Mr. Wilson's position must resort
to universalism, that is giving generic words (i.e., man, all, whosoever,
gentile, earth, salvation)
a universal meaning so that they apply to every thing and person, including
those not intended by the writer or speaker. Interpreting things
without drawing any distinction between them is not "rightly dividing
the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).
Note that Mr. Wilson employs one of the common tactics used by many
who deny racial facts or oppose Israel Identity theology, and that is trying
to discredit or nullify the use of history and science in ascertaining
the truth. They might sarcastically refer to history as "holy
history," or say that using history is an "idol," or that
science is "secular." It is understandable why they want
people to stay away from history and science in dealing with racial issues,
it is because these sources have so many facts that cannot be swept aside
with bad interpretation. Also note that like others who want to trash history
and science, Mr. Wilson cannot adhere to his own standards, as shown by
his use of history (Josephus) to support his position.
It is interesting that Mr. Wilson at first tried to say that the word
"kind" did not mean species as it obviously does, but
only meant the ability to reproduce. He later back away from his foolish
position by admitting that the term "describes a biological type."
He apparently had an aversion to the fact that the Bible uses
scientific terminology and supports the facts of nature. Mr. Wilson
at first said that Acts 10 was biblical proof that the food laws were abolished.
He later acknowledged that this chapter deals with men, not food.
Mr. Wilson started off by saying that "careful exegetical handling
of Scripture" is not the "strong suit" of those who believe
in racial separation, Israel Identity, or what he calls "white racialists."
This has to be the most hypocritical and backwards remark he could
make. He is one of the worst Biblical expositors and interpreters
I have ever seen. Of course, this is the result when one attempts to support
a falsehood and deny a truth.
-Charles Weisman
|