Fulfilment and Strength to be found in the Law of God

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:25

Praise be to God indeed, for how fortunate is a nation to have been bestowed upon laws of righteousness that God himself designed! The flock of the modern world have been led betrayed greatly: being raised in an atmosphere of such lawlessness and individualism, the common man not only knows the fulfillment and wholesomeness of a Christian society – but he has been taught to resent and spit upon the laws and ordinances of God.

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. 

Psalm 1:1-4

The righteous, good and just law of God is the delight of the Lord and the blessing upon man. Christians are taught time and time again throughout the gospel of the Israelites and even the history of Europe; that a nation that disrespect God’s law and abandon his rule fall asunder.  The man with his life and convictions rooted in the law of God will indeed be like a fruitful tree, he will not wither and weaken at the stresses of the world – he shall prosper despite all the circumstances stacked against him.

The man who does not indulge in temptation like pornography will have a happy marriage.

The man who does not indulge in substances like alcohol and drugs will maintain a strong will, health and career.

The man who places God before all else, who cares not for popularity and petty politics will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Honest Prayer and Firm Doctrine are the only true sources of strength and fulfilment. 

Theonomy in the Westminster Confession of Faith

Westminster Confession of Faith 

Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.


The Westminster Confession of Faith, for better or worse: is the foremost doctrinal creed in use by the Presbyterian world today; this too includes the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

Sections I-V establish in fierce terms that the “covenant of works” has been abolished and that the works of the law of God are not sufficient to fulfill the penal demands of salvation.

Section VI is a firm statement regarding the usefulness of the law of God for Christian life and practice. It reads “It is of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts and lives.”

Summarily it makes the argument that the law of God is the foremost reflection of God’s character and desire for the lives of men. Paul writes of this heavily in Romans chapter 7.

Verse 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Verse 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.
Verse 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The WCF continues to argue that God is pleased ( approbated )  with the obedience of men to his law, it too concludes that the law prescribes the blessing we may expect upon our obedience to the law.

Section VII being the final section of the articles of the Law of God, reads that the use of the law is not contrary to the grace of the Gospel. Obedience to God’s law in-fact, complies directly with the gospel in subduing the sinfulness of man and enabling him to do that with cheer and determination, as God requires.


Antinomiansm therefore is unacceptable inside of the Church which professes the Westminster Confession of Faith. We Presbyterians must be uncompromising in our resolve and always remember that the eternal law of God is the ultimate reflection of God’s character – and we have been blessed by God to be granted the ability of will to fight against sinfulness and immoral desire.

“There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4

 

Evangelisation in the new century

 

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

Matthew 7:6


Christianity has for many decades been led astray by the call of church liberals to ‘modernise or die’ – a catch-call based on the fallacious argument that if the Presbyterian Church does not mould itself to be socially acceptable and meet the standards of this fallen world, it will perish and fall asunder, being unable to draw a honest congregation from amongst the lost sheep of our day. Presbyterianism however, will not survive without firm, bible-based preaching that is not afraid to learn through the lens of tradition and sincerity.

Chapter six of the book of John is an enormously relevant story to our situation today. Christ had with Him at this point an enormous following, consisting of those who had witnessed the miracles of Christ and were enamoured by His glory. Christ however, undaunted by the fear of losing popularity professed the word of life; “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” – this doctrine was hard teaching, and wasn’t popular with the people of the day for obvious reasons.

John 6 verses 61 and 66 read: “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” and “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” – this principle of unrepentant honesty and truth was not only set forth by Christ; but so too was it seen in the lives of the prophets of Israel and Judea. Christ and the prophets of our Lord have always dispensed the law and doctrine with courage and uncompromising zealotry: Placing truth before popularity every time.

The Presbyterian Church of Australia’s foremost doctrinal standard is the Westminster Confession of Faith; it reads in chapter xix of the law of God: “Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty.” St Paul said in Romans that ‘the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. ‘ Christians today must remember this; that God ordained laws and ordinances for us to glorify him, and to lead righteous lives.

Liberalised churches that seek to throw away the contents and real value of the Old testament and New testament laws will only distance themselves from the generation of youth raised in a lawless and wicked world. According to the British ‘Daily Mail’ Generation ‘Z’ is the most conservative generation since the second world war: William Strauss an American historian and author of the book ‘The Fourth Turning’ predicted accurately that a generation such as ours that has grown up in times of crises, faithlessness and moral depravity will ruthlessly seek strict and uncompromising religiosity in their teenage and young adult lives. Traditional Presbyterianism now has a golden opportunity to be the church and gathering place of this generation thirsting for the solution to the Western World’s state of moral degeneration.

Church liberalism has led to broken homes, alcohol and drug abuse, scepticism of God and worst of all: abandonment of natural, healthy gender roles and duties. Presbyterianism therefore, must take up the mantle of Christ and the prophets; We must be uncompromising on our beliefs, as we know both in theory and in practice that compromise on our world-view only leads to disunity, corruption and eventually weakness. The evangelical liberals of the church seek to draw in ‘wider sections of the community’ by compromising on the law of God; even though it has been proven time and time again throughout history that only honest and hard preaching based in gospel truth will bring God’s blessing, and a congregation that will stand the test of time.

Presbyterians today find themselves in a situation not too dissimilar from the Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century. Richard Cameron, the famous Covenanter preacher was martyred in his struggle against the indulgence of the Presbyterian church; submission to the institutions of the British crown. Today the Presbyterian Church of Australia in many cases has submitted to the institutions of modernity: Treating Feminism, Sodomy, Fornication and all the other stripes of immorality with unobjectionable, soft preaching.

To compromise on God’s perfect and good law not only alienates genuine members of the church, but also demonstrates weakness, and scepticism towards God. The ‘wider sections of the community’ which we would like to evangelise will not easily devote their entire lives to God if we are seen compromising on God’s law and ordinances. The theme for the P.C.A this year is “Taking God Seriously” – We ought to be doing so with courage and conviction.

Evangelising the ‘broader community’ will be most effectively performed if we demonstrate zealous love for our God. Today’s modern world of complacency and faithlessness bears children who would be enamoured and drawn in by our faithful zeal. An uncompromising Presbyterian Church would be like “the light of the world; A city set upon a hill that cannot be hidden.” to paraphrase Christ in Matthew 5:14

Young people with a thirst for religiosity are disenfranchised when they seek God and are met with confused church eldership who franticly invite them to “contemporary” music performances and light-handed bible studies. We must remember that those who can only be attracted by weak and heretical teaching are the sort of people who would not join the Presbyterian Church of Australia in the first place. Those hardened souls who can only be bought with chocolate cake, guitars and religious highs will join the ranks of evangelical “Hillsong” church or go to their local “C3”

Young Men, particularly those of the Presbyterian tradition: need religiosity not based in “feelings, emotion and spirituality” for these are often very feminine forms of religiosity. Young men need religiosity based in doctrine, law and duty. There is room for everything in the Lord’s church – but the feminisation of many Presbyterian churches in Australia has resulted in the wholesale alienation male Presbyterians. Lindsay Harold wrote in her article ‘For Women Whose Husbands Are Withdrawing From Church’: “Most men instinctively withdraw from Christianity that is focused on feelings. They don’t want Jesus to be their boyfriend. They don’t want to sing mushy love songs to Jesus or talk about their feelings about God. So a worship service that seems like just feeling happy thoughts about Jesus is going to grate and, over time, push them away.

The answer to getting men involved and passionate about church is apologetics. Apologetics is the study of the reasons and evidence for the Christian faith. It’s based on facts, not feelings. And men will engage with a Christianity focused on believing something they have evidence for and then going on a mission to change the world (or at least their corner of it).”

Conclusively it must be known that many younger Christians, or people inquiring into Christianity are discouraged by indifference on moral and political issues which are a direct abomination to God’s natural order. Presbyterian churches should seek to draw in the younger, conservative generation by zealous, uncompromising faithfulness to our gracious and loving God. We should return to history, tradition and gospel truth to proclaim a message of confidence and legitimacy: The solution to the depravity of our age.

Presbyterian Head Covering

 

1st book of Corinthians ; Chapter 11 –

First Section: Ordinances of the Church

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

St Paul’s ordinances of the church reveal that a man does not cover his head because he is the glory and image of God. Women must cover her head because she is the glory of man, and not in the image of God. We soon learn that long hair is the glory of a woman.

Second Section: The natural law of God

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

St Paul reflects on the Genesis creation story to make clear that woman is not the image & glory of God as she was created for the man. Paul continues to argue that natural law deems it unholy for a woman to pray to God without a covering and that long hair is a glory to women as it is a natural covering for her.

Church ordinance deems that it is unholy for a woman to pray to God without covering her hair; and that if her hair is uncovered she has committed a dishonour equal to shaving or cutting off her hair.

So where is the reasoning behind this?

It can be argued firmly that women should cover their hair as it is a glory to them; covering her hair is for modesty  ( 1 Timothy 2:9 ).

The covering is an important symbol to denote Godly submission to her husband. Just as man is the head of woman: God is the head of the angels – those angels whom in rebellion ( Job 4:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6 ) bring darkness to the world. She must then wear the “power” ( a sign of submission ) upon her head.

Let us not forget that the only time in the scripture in which women had their hear uncovered in church was in Numbers 5:18 ; where these women were uncovered to be identified as those who stand accused of being disloyal, rebellious wives who had committed adultery with other men.  Genesis 24:64-65 also shows that Rebekah wore a head-covering as a symbol of her submission to Isaac.

Conclusively it must be understood that 1 Corinthians 11 is written in two discrete sections. The law of the scripture demands women dress modestly in church and given the second section of this chapter; they must cover their hair in church as the hair of a woman is the glory of a woman. Ultimately women must wear the head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands and submission to the ordinances of God and the fathers of the church.

There are no contradictions in scripture; and we know the Presbyterian church has always advocated head-covering until the age of church liberalism in the 1960s : We should look to the combined wisdom of the many generations to find balanced and clear doctrine.

Read more here

A. R. Fausset (1821-1910)

Fausset co-authored with David Brown and Robert Jamieson the work, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.

“In putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man (which is her true ‘honor’), and of her connection with Christ, man’s Head. Moreover, the head covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Gen. xxiv: 65), and chastity (Gen. xx: 16). By its unlawful excitement in assemblies is avoided, women not attracting attention. Scripture sanctions not the emancipation of woman from subjection: modesty is her true ornament.”

“It hath a threefold use, For decoration, as in Isa. iii. 23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 6. 3. And mainly a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands…”

M. R. Vincent (His Word Studies in the New Testament was published in 1886)

“The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the Christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man.”

J. Vernon McGee (1904-1990)

“Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, ‘All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won’t cover my head.’ Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection.”

John Knox (1505-1572)

“First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: ‘Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,’ (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection).”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature….So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead [for] something else: ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?’ Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard.”

“Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not…” (John Calvin’s Commentary on Head Coverings)

Existence of Evil.

But there stands out the great fact of the existence of much suffering in the universe of God; and reason asks: “If God is almighty, all-wise, sovereign, why, if benevolent, did He admit any suffering in His world? Has He not chosen it because He is pleased with it per se?” It is no answer to say: God makes the suffering the means of good, and so chooses it, not for its own sake, but for its results. If He is omnipotent and all-wise, He could have produced the same quantum of good by other means, leaving out the suffering. Is it replied: No, that the virtues of sympathy, forgiveness, patience, submission, could have had no existence unless suffering existed? I reply that then their absence would have been of God no blemish or lack in the creature’s character. It is only because there is suffering, that sympathy therewith is valuable.

Suppose it be said again: “All physical evil is the just penalty of moral evil,” and so necessitated by God’s justice? The great difficulty is only pushed one step farther back. For, while it is true, sin being admitted, punishment ought to follow, the question returns: Why did the Almighty permit sin, unless He be defective in holiness as in benevolence? It is no theodicee to say that God cannot always exclude sin, without infringing free agency; for I prove, despite all Pelagians, from Celestius downwards, that God can do it, by His pledge to render elect angels and men indefectible for ever.

Does God then choose sin? This is the mighty question, where a theodicee has been so often attempted in vain. The most plausible theory is that of the optimist; that God saw this actual universe, though involving evil, is on the whole the most beneficent universe, which was possible in the nature of things. For they argue, in support of that proposition: God being infinitely good and wise, cannot will to bring out of posse into esse, a universe which is on the whole, less beneficent than any possible universe. The obvious objections to this
Beltistic scheme are two.

It assumes without warrant, that the greatest natural good of creation is God’s highest end in creating and governing the universe. We shall see, later in this course, how this assumption discloses itself as a grave error; and in the hands of the followers of Leibnitz and the optimists, vitiates their whole theory of morals and their doctrine of atonement. The other objection is, that it limits the power of God. Being infinite, He could have made a universe including a quantum of happiness equal to that in our universe, and exclusive of our evils.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

Robert L. Dabney
Systematic Theology 


Terms:

theodicee – an attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.

beneficent – resulting in good 

Regarding “Double-Predestination” in the Reformed Theology.

Whenever it is said that the Lord hardens, it is not meant that He does so by infusing any sinful qualities into the heart of man: as it is expressed by the apostle, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” For He is incomprehensibly holy, and infinitely removed from being accessary to anything that is sinful in the creature. But, It is said He hardens when He not only permits and leaves the man to the hardness of his own heart, which is natural unto the sons of fallen Adam, but also when He withholds or withdraws somewhat of that grace given to the creature, on which hardness of heart follows

William Guthrie.
Presbyterian Covenanter

This out of interest; was made in reference to Romans 9:16-18:

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

Our argument is that a man, having not been given grace by God’s sovereign reign – is predestined to damnation.

We do not make the argument that God had any role in making men lawless and sinful, for we after the fall of man – do that by our own free agency.

The case for fertility: Large families are good families

As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Psalm 127:4-5

Hardly will you be given the advantages to a large family; but what cannot be denied is simply this: Large families are the cornerstone of Christian civilisation, it provides the scale for traditions and morality to propagate and it creates the means for the welfare of families and all their descendants.

Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan posing in the grass at their Malibu Canyon Ranch

Large families raised in a proper household in which the father is the head, provider and unquestioned authority, the mother is the nurturer, carer and glue – children raised in Christian instruction can grow up with influences and moral guidance which produces immense drive for duty and family life.

Traditions established by a respected father and loved mother might live for multiple generations through their children; the power parents wield over the future is immense; making the state of today’s families to be such a tragedy. Be it prayer before dinner, helping eachother with homework, spending time together between work and school – wholesome traditions stand the test of time.

Children growing up with large numbers of siblings will later in life provide the ultimate safety net; No government or charity could compare with the financial, emotional and physical support provided by 8-12 siblings. A man finding himself out of work can rest far easier knowing he may have half a dozen brothers to help him find new employment, a meal or shelter.

The girls and women of the family might find emotional and social comfort in eachother; in this new age of debauchery – girls raised in the old ways will be bullied and ostricised by the ordinary women (whores) that live around them. Their friends and companions often will then need to be their sisters, daughters and mothers. Larger families thus means more emotional and social support for our girls: To raise any less than three girls in the old ways and releasing them into the world would be a tragedy: the loneliness and ostricism that would befall them would cause trouble in ways we can only imagine.

Conclusively; to the Christian folk out there – do not pass off having large families because you want to fulfill your own indulgence: think of the wellbeing of your children, in large quantity they will be powerful and well – raised in the proper blood-ties and traditions established by you and your wife: Your descendants will conquer the world.

 

Origins of the Pharisaic Jews

The hook-nosed serpents we prosecute today are not of Israelite/Judean(Jewish) stock: They are in reality Edomites.

After the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, some of the Edomites who had mixed with the Judeans in their land, resettled with them in Judea. ( Jer 40:11-12 ) Two centuries later, all of Edom was driven out of Mt. Seir

The Edomites were driven from Petra westward by the Nabatheans in 312 B.C, and before the middle of the second century B.C, they were occupying not only southern Judah, but also Hebron and the country to its north as far as Bethzur
( 1 Mac 4:29; 5:65 )

Later it was John Hyrcanus who conquered all of Edom/Idumea and undertook the forced conversion of its inhabitants to Judaism. Thereby the Edomites became a section of the Judean people.
( Page 378 of the 1971 Encyclopedia Judaica )

Later it was Herod ( an Edomite ) who took power; and his first act was to execute forty-five of the Judean aristocracy to eliminate any competition for the leadership of Judea. He then eliminated all the old priesthood by killing the line of Hyrcanus, Aristobulus and Antigonus: to then replace the entire power-structure of the Judean religion with his own Edomite kin; this being the origin of the Pharisees who murdered Christ.

 

Slavery of the Negro

 Just as the wife must be submissive to her husband, too must the negro be submissive to his master ( Gen 9:25, Col 3:22 ). God commanded the husband must “love your wives and do not be harsh with them.” just as he commanded the master Masters, supply your slaves with what is right and fair, since you know that you also have a Master in heaven.” ( Col 4:1 ) and “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” ( Exodus 21:26-27 ) : You can see clearly; there is no change in character for how slaves were supposed to be treated before; and after Christ. 

This obviously is not to discount the horrible treatment of negro slaves during some periods in history; more often than not perpetrated by Jewish slaveholders ( who made up a majority of the slaveholding industry ) – God however has ordained the ideal relationship of hierarchy for the races; The benevolent white Christian man keeping the Negro in a status of dignity and lawfulness before God.

Just as man has the authority in family due to the natural susceptibility of a woman’s character to sin ( 1 Tim 2:14 ) ; too the white man must have authority over the negro for his natural susceptibility to sin and temptation: only too obvious in this our Lord’s year 2017. History tells us; under righteous leadership and authority of White Christian slave-owners, the negro was sponsored cradle to grave with food to eat, a roof over their head and the decency of employment. Culturally and Religiously; the Negro under the firm instruction of the White man came closer to God than he has ever come, both before and after slavery.


There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

Fools trying desperately to defend their egalitarianist ideology will use this scripture to suggest race no longer exists; and the hierarchies of such also do not exist. If such is true; then we must too abolish the established roles of men and women, as there is Jew nor Greek, nor is there man or woman.

Such an argument would be far too difficult to make knowing how frequently we are instructed to keep the traditional family order; and that man and women are distinct sexes who have distinct duties; roles and places in the family order. ( 1 Peter 3:1, Col 3, Eph 5:22 )

We must to seek to looking to the scripture to understand that distinct races have distinct duties, roles and places in the racial order.

The servile instincts of slaves rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service … never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other. The tempter came, like the serpent of Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of ‘freedom’ … He put arms in their hands, and trained their humble but emotional natures to deeds of violence and bloodshed, and sent them out to devastate their benefactors.

Jefferson Davis

Made in God’s image: A White Man

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:26

There can be no doubt in the mind of the learned gospel-reader: that Adam, and his descendants were of a fair, white complexion. Adam‘s name itself is derived from the hebrew word אָדַם ; which means ” to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:—be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).”


Having read the numerous historical accounts addressing this topic, we find that the white identity of the Adamite race is implicit both biblically and more recently, in 18-19th Century theological thinking. Let us look to the Scriptures, the Apocrypha and other related texts:

Description of Abraham’s wife Sarah from the Dead Sea Scrolls: “…Her skin was pure white…” Description of Sarah from the Genesis Apocryphon: “…How fair are her breasts
 and how beautiful all her whiteness!…” The Book of Noah 106: “…And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful…” 1 Samuel 17:42: “And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth and ruddy and of a fair countenance…”

Solomon 5:10: “My beloved is white and ruddy the chiefest among ten thousand…” Lamentations 4:7: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk they were more ruddy in body than rubies…” Isaiah 29:22: “Therefore thus saith God, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.” 1Samuel 16:12: “So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance. And God said, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.””
Knowing now the physical description of the Adamic race, we ask- where then did the negro appear? We do not pretend to have an absolute answer to this question; there are two primary schools of thought: Firstly, and traditionally, it is believed the mark of Cain was in fact dark skin, and his descendants, who made up most of the Hamitic race were tainted by this curse which travelled through genealogy.

Second to this theory is the pre-Adamic theory; in which the Coloured races were created separate from Adam and are effectively animals, also known as “The beast of the field”.


I’ve no personal interest in picking a side in the debate regarding the origin of the coloured races, but one thing is for sure: God, Adam, the Israelites, and all those non-mongrelised of the genealogy of Adam were White. More specifically, the Israelites, Nazarines and close family by blood were of a pure white, and ruddy countenance as described both in the description of Adam from Genesis and through all the other scripture and apocrypha referenced here today.