With these passages, they assert that you must be a pure-blooded Caucasian Israelite in order to be saved. However, the issue with this infographic is that none of these passages highlight racial admixture as an issue: 

• Genesis 6:1-7 is about the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men,” leading to widespread wickedness and the Nephilim giants. It does not address racial admixture between humans, but admixture between fallen angels and mankind. 
• Genesis 24:1-4 describes Abraham instructing his servant to find Isaac a wife from his homeland rather than Canaan. Canaan was the offspring of Ham and belonged to the Adamic race, so the concern is religious purity and avoiding pagan influence—not racial purity. Of course, Christian Identity adherents will assert that these Canaanites intermixed with Nephilim seed-lines in the postdiluvian period—however, they will never be able to prove this, as there is no explicit mention of such a thing occurring in the Bible or contemporary extra-biblical sources. That Canaanites were the offspring of Nephilim giants is simply an ad hoc theological fabrication employed as a means to excuse their pseudo-biblical fallacies. Nephilim admixture among “Canaanites” is definitively debunked by archaeogenetic remains from Canaan, as they are consistently proportional to the size of the average Bronze Age human and entirely lack anomalous DNA. All Canaanite samples can be modelled as a four-way admixture between Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Natufian Hunter-Gatherers, Zagros Neolithic Farmers, and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers. While one may argue that a non-human source cannot be detected in these samples because we lack the DNA of the Nephilim, Anakim or Rephaim, this is refuted by the fact that the genetic distance between these samples and their admixture models is relatively low; conversely, if there was an undetected genetic component present in these samples, the genetic distance would be far higher and indicate a missing component—this is not the case. Moreover, if Canaanites were the result of Nephilim males mating with Human females, they should carry paternal haplogroups that are exclusive to their own grouping—however, all YDNA Haplogroups found among Canaanite samples are also found throughout Europe. For example, Haplogroups J, E1b, T, L, and R1b are present in both Canaanite samples and modern Europeans. Accordingly, if Canaanites were the patrilineal offspring of Nephilim giants, then Europeans must also be. This, in turn, would backfire on the Christian Identity cult and debunk their claims of racial purity. 
• Genesis 26:34-35 describes Esau marrying a Hittite woman, which causes grief to Isaac and Rebekah. Once again, the Hittites were offspring of Canaan, who belonged to the Adamic race and utterly lacked anomalous non-human DNA. So, the issue is the woman’s pagan background and potential for leading the family of Abraham away from YHWH—not her ethnicity.
• Genesis 28:1-2/6-7 speaks of Isaac sending Jacob to marry within his family in order to preserve faithfulness to YHWH—not to avoid racial mixing. Again, the concern is avoiding idolatry.
• Genesis 34:1-31 outlines the story of Dinah and Shechem. The outrage is in regard to Shechem’s violation of Dinah (rape and abduction)—not racial admixture.
• Exodus 11:7 distinguishes between Israel and Egypt in the context of the final plague (the death of all firstborns). It is about YHWH’s protection of His people during judgment—not racial admixture.
• Exodus 12:5 and Leviticus 22:19 also have nothing to do with mixing or race. Rather, they are about offerings without blemish or deformity.
• Exodus 33:16 quotes Moses asking YHWH to distinguish Israel from other nations in a religious sense. This is about God’s covenantal relationship with Israel—not avoiding racial admixture.
• Exodus 34:10-16 expresses how Israel was warned not to make covenants with pagan nations, as to avoid being led into idolatry. The issue is faithfulness to YHWH and their Covenant—not racial purity.
• Leviticus 19:19 is about agricultural laws (not mixing seeds, livestock, or fabrics)—it has no implication on interracial relationships.
• Leviticus 20:26 showcases how YHWH called Israel to be holy (set apart). This is about spiritual consecration—not racial isolation.
• Leviticus 21:14 states how Levitical priests are instructed to marry virgins from their own people in order to maintain ceremonial purity. This is pertinent to their sacred office—not racial admixture.
• Numbers 23:1-30 & 24:1-25 contains prophecies by Balaam, who blessed Israel instead of cursing them. This passage expresses how the enemies of Israel would be shattered, but there is no mention of race or integration.
• Numbers 25:1-18 describes Israel’s fornication with Moabite women, which led to Ba’al worship. The condemnation is for spiritual faithlessness—not racial admixture.
• Deuteronomy 7:1-4 instructs the Israelites not to marry foreign tribes who are related to them—not due to race, as they were the same race, but because “they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods”. 
• Deuteronomy 22:11 is about fabrics, not humans. 
• Deuteronomy 23:2 refers to illegitimate offspring (of specific forbidden unions) not entering the assembly of Ancient Israel. It is about legal and ceremonial standing in the Old Covenant, not race or exclusion from salvation in the New Covenant.
• Joshua 23:12-13 warns Israel of the punishment they will incur if they mix with tribes related to them (such as the Canaanites)—not because of race, but again because of idolatry. The issue is spiritual corruption, not racial admixture.
• Judges 3:5-8 expresses how Israel mixed among the pagan nations and fell into idolatry due to intermarriage. The problem is spiritual unfaithfulness, not racial integration.
• – 1 Kings 8:53 has nothing to do with mixing or race. It is about Israel being chosen out of all nations and being taken out of Egypt in the Exodus. Matter of fact, a “mixed multitude” exited Egypt alongside the Israelites (Exodus 12:38). 
• 1 Kings 11:1-8 emphasized how Solomon’s foreign wives led him into idolatry. His condemnation was a result of allowing these wives to turn his heart away from YHWH, not for mixing with other races.
• 1 Kings 16:30-31/21:25 concern Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel, who introduced Ba’al worship to Israel. The issue is her paganistic influence, not racial admixture.
• Ezra 9:1-15 & 10:1-44 confronts Israelites who married foreign women, thus leading them into idolatry. The concern is spiritual corruption, not ethnic purity.
• Nehemiah 8:1-18/9:1-3/10:28-31/13:1-31 highlight covenantal renewal and the separation from pagan practices. The focus is on preserving religious purity, not racial homogeneity.
• Psalms 106:28-35 condemns Israel for mingling with the nations and adopting their false idols. This is a spiritual concern, not racial.
• Isaiah 2:1-9 describes the future glory of God’s kingdom drawing all nations together in worship, and does not forbid racial integration.
• Jeremiah 2:13-25 rebukes Israel’s spiritual adultery and has nothing to do with racial purity.
• Ezekiel 16:15-39/44:6-23 use marriage as a metaphor for Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH. It is not about ethnic mixing, but spiritual adultery. 
• Hosea 5:3-7, 6:7-10/10:1-10 condemn Israel for idolatry and faithlessness—not for racial mixing.
• Romans 1:29-32 lists sins resulting from rejecting YHWH, with no mention of race or miscegenation.
• 1 Corinthians 3:16-17/5:1-11/6:9-20/10:1-10 discuss moral purity, sexual sin, and avoiding idolatry—without any mention of racial admixture.
• 2 Corinthians 6:14-19 explicitly states that Christians are to be separate from “unbelievers”, and does not command them to ostracize other races: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.”
• Galatians 5:19 and Ephesians 5:3 list sins that believers should avoid (for example, sexual immorality), but do not mention racial admixture.
• 1 Thessalonians 4:13 speaks about the hope believers have regarding those who have died in Christ. It has nothing to do with racial mixing or integration.
• Hebrews 12:8-17 emphasizes discipline from YHWH as evidence of being His child, and warns against immorality and godlessness. There is no reference to race or ethnic mixing.
• Hebrews 13:4 emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and condemns sexual immorality. It does not address or prohibit interracial relationships.
• 2 Peter 2:9-16 describes God’s judgment on the wicked and His rescue of the righteous, appealing to examples such as Noah and Lot. It is about moral decay, not racial admixture.
• Jude 1:3-11 warns against false teachers and their immoral behavior, using examples of rebellion and divine judgment. It does not mention or prohibit interracial relationships.
• Revelation 2:12-14 & 2:18-23 warn against false teachings and sexual immorality within the Churches of Asia. They are about spiritual and moral purity, not race. Matter of fact, Acts 13:1 states, “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” The term ‘Niger’ is derived from the Greek “Νίγερ”, which referred to darkness or blackness. Thus, Simeon’s nickname is a reference to his dark-skin. If non-white individuals were barred from Christianity, the Apostle Paul would have shunned Simeon and excluded him from the Church—this was not the case. 
• Revelation 5:9 celebrates Christ’s redemption of individuals “from every tribe and language and people and nation,” explicitly affirming the inclusion of all ethnicities in Christ’s kingdom.
• Revelation 7:9 mentions a vision of a “great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” worshiping YHWH. This blatantly refutes the claim that racial purity is required for salvation.
• Revelation 11:9 describes how people from every nation will witness God’s works, affirming the universal scope of His plan—not exclusion based on race.
• Revelation 13:7 speaks of the beast waging war against Saints from “every tribe and people and language and nation.” Again, it emphasizes the widespread reach of the Gospel and in no way commands us to ostracize those who are not Caucasian.
• Revelation 14:6 mentions an Angel proclaiming the eternal Gospel to “every nation and tribe and language and people,” thus affirming the inclusion of all ethnicities in YHWH’s redemptive plan.
• Revelation 17:15 states that the waters where the harlot sits represent “peoples and multitudes and nations and languages…” This is not a rebuke of diversity, but an emphasis on the widespread influence of Satan and his stronghold. 
• Revelation 21:24 describes the nations walking by the light of the New Jerusalem, and does not mention race or reprimand those who are mixed. 
• Revelation 22:2 describes how the tree of life’s leaves are “for the healing of the nations,” affirming Christ’s intention to gather the gentiles unto himself. Again, this verse does not mention race or reprimand those who are mixed. 

As evident, every single time YHWH commands Israel not to mix with the nations, they are nations directly related to Israel and descended from Noah. There is no indication that these passages pertain to race or miscegenation, but rather that they regard spiritual-monogamy and loyalty to YHWH. The concern is always that these foreigners will drag Israel into detestable practices such as idolatry—race is never mentioned as a factor. 

Despite the fact that these passages solely state a theological concern, proponents of the Christian Identity cult will simply dismiss it and unwarrantedly assert that all these foreign nations mongrelized with Pre-Noahite races or even Nephilim seed-lines, thus invalidating the stance that this admixture was forbidden on the basis of pagan-influence and idolatry. In order to defend this position, they will appeal to Genesis 6:9 and posit that the Noahites were originally pure-blooded, but mixed with impure lineages post-flood: “These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” (ESV)

The issue here is that the Christian Identity movement is misinterpreting a statement about Noah being the only righteousness man in his generation or age. Proponents that Noah was genetically pure will only ever acknowledge translations that swap “blameless” with “perfect” and pluralize the term “generation”, thus invoking an assumption that this is referring to his ancestral “generations” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, ERV, WBT). In reality, the majority of translations render “perfect” as “blameless”, and “generations” as “generation”, “of his time”, “at the time”, or “among his contemporaries”. For example, the NIV translates this verse as “blameless among the people of his time”, and provides zero indication that this has to do with race. This is a valid translation of this passage, as there are two terms in Genesis 6:9 which are translated as “generation(s)”:

‎1) Strong’s 8435: תּוֹלְדוֹת (toledoth); meaning descent, family, history. This term is used at the beginning of this verse when the author states: “These are the generations of Noah.” After this, it is briefly explained that Noah was the only righteous man in his generation, but where the account of Noah’s “generations” (toledoth; family, history) begins is two verses later in Genesis 6:10, which lists off the sons of Noah.

‎2) Strong’s 1755: דּוֹר (dor); meaning a revolution of time, an age, a generation, a dwelling. This term is used when the author states, “a righteous man, blameless in his generation”. Therefore, the statement that Noah was “blameless in his generation” is an independent clause from “These are the generations of Noah.” The mention that Noah was blameless serves as a parenthetical statement, explaining why Noah was chosen.

Furthermore, the term translated as “blameless” or “perfect” is Strong’s 8549: תָּמִ֥ים (tāmîm); meaning entire, integrity, or truth. Thus, the most applicable translation would be integrity, which denotes blamelessness. 

‎Ultimately, the root terminology proves that this is about spiritual purity and righteousness rather than racial purity. 

‎The context of Genesis 6:9 further substantiates this. For one, verse 5 states that “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” Key terms here are “human race”, “wickedness”, and “evil”. This passage evidently contrasts the righteousness of Noah from the wickedness of his contemporaries. This is compounded by Genesis 6:11, which states: “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.” Again, this is about righteousness and spiritual purity

‎Furthermore, it is impossible for there to be one single couple, of an entire race, which is genetically pure. From a genetic perspective, all humans, including Noah and his wife, would have common ancestry. If we consider Noah to be pure-blooded in the sense of having no intermingling with other lineages, it would require an unrealistic scenario of extensive inbreeding throughout his ancestry, which is not attested to by the Bible. This would predispose Noah, his forefathers, and his descendants to genetic disorders, diseases, physical deformities, reduced intelligence and cognitive ability, etc. If we go with the claim that Noah was immensely inbred, we can expect atheists to assert that this caused him and his descendants to be schizophrenic, and that figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc, never actually interacted with YHWH or his Angels. ‎The only other way that Noah wouldn’t descend from, and share common ancestors with these “genetically impure” Adamites, is if a massive influx of Non-Adamic foreigners migrated into his region only one generation prior, and every single person mixed with those incomers except for Noah’s parents—this is equally as ridiculous. 

Ultimately, there is no proof that Noah was genetically pure, or that the Noahite nations whom Israel mixed with were mongrelized with non-Noahite bloodlines. 

The aforementioned conflation between a periodical generation and a familial generation also makes itself apparent in misinterpretations regarding eschatology. A prime example of this derives from Matthew 24:34, which states: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The term “generation” appears in nearly every single translation of this verse, especially those of prominence (NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NLT, ASV, CSB, etc). However, there are a few obscure translations that swap “generation” with “race” or “lineage”:

• Godbey New Testament: “Truly I say unto you, This race may not pass away until all these things may be fulfilled.”

• Catholic Public Domain Version: “Amen I say to you, that this lineage shall not pass away, until all these things have been done.”

This mistranslation arises due to a conflation of the Greek terms “genea” (Strong’s 1074: γενεὰ; meaning a generation, or by implication, an age), and “genos” (Strong’s 1085: γένος; meaning a kind, race, family, offspring, nation, or kindred). In Matthew 24:34, the term  translated as “generation” is “genea” (Strong’s 1074: γενεὰ), so there should not be any issues in discerning the terms meaning—being the generation of individuals who Christ directly spoke to, not a generational lineage or race. Nonetheless, adherents to the Christian Identity movement harp on these mistranslations and appeal to Strong’s Concordance, which asserts that “genea”, denoting “a group of people born around the same time”, is “from genos”, which itself refers to a race or lineage. Accordingly, they argue that “if the etymological root is genos, then the context is still racial”. There are five major issues with this assertion:

1) Strong’s Concordance is somewhat outdated, so the supposed etymological root of certain terms may be wrong—this is the case with “genea”. Contrary to the claim that “genea” is derived from “genos”, these terms are not lineally related, but instead derive from a common source. With recent studies on the Proto-Indo-European language family, it is now believed that “genos” and “genea” stem from the Proto-Indo-European term “*ǵenh₁”, meaning to beget, to produce, or to come into being. This Proto-Indo-European etymon (*ǵenh₁) pertains to the act of birth itself, so there is no etymological indication that “genea” is applied in a racial context. Experts on Koine Greek have long asserted that “genea” denotes a generation of people born at the same time, not a race or a lineage. 

2) Even if “genea” did derive from “genos”, there are plenty of English terms that also diverge from their etymological root. For example: Liberty and Liberal (from Latin: liber, meaning Free), Capital and Capitol (from Latin: caput, meaning head), virtue and virile (from Latin: vir, meaning man), wit and witness (from Old English: witan, meaning to know), whole and heal (from Old English: hal, meaning uninjured or whole), warden and ward (from Old Norse: weard, meaning guardian or protector), etc. Thus, in the case that “genea” does derive from “genos”, which is almost certainly false, it still would not negate the fact that “genea” denotes a generation or age, and takes on a different meaning than its etymological root.

3) If Christ meant to say that “this race”, meaning Judeans, Judahites, or Israelites, will not pass away until all these prophecies are fulfilled, He could have worded this in a way that would more clearly convey what He meant. For example, “this generation” could have been swapped with “this people”, “this nation”, “Israel itself”, etc. Moreover, Christ could have utilized the term “ethnē” (Strong’s 1484: ἔθνη; meaning a race, or a tribe), and instead stated something such as: “this ethnē will not pass away until all these things take place.” 

4) The translation of “genea” as “race” or “lineage” requires YHWH to completely destroy the Israelites and wipe them out after these events, as it implicitly states that “this generation” will pass away after all these things unfold. This is contradicted by many statements throughout scripture, which emphasize YHWH’s promise to preserve Israel and humanity:

• Jeremiah 31:37 states: “Thus says the Lord: ‘If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord.’” 
• Revelation 21:12-14 states: “It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed—on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

If Israel is to pass away after all the events within the Olivet Discourse, why is it that New Jerusalem has a gate for each of the Tribes of Israel? Evidently, the race of Israel shall endure for eternity, as “They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 22:5)

5) Every single prophecy within the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled within a generation of their proclamation, as only 40 years after this sermon, the Romans invaded Judaea, destroyed Jerusalem, and burnt down the temple, thus slaughtering and enslaving millions of Judeans. While this was certainly a “great tribulation”, it did not result in the decimation of the Israelite bloodline or Adamic Race. Rather, Christ explicitly stated that the great tribulation would be shortened as a means to preserve a portion of those afflicted: “And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Matthew 24:22) Therefore, Matthew 24:34 cannot be interpreted to mean that “this race” or “this lineage”, being Israel, would pass away after the events of the Olivet Discourse unfold. 

Conclusively, the Christian Identity movement, though far more valid in their claims of Israelite descent than the “Black Hebrew” cults, have an equally atrocious theology as their afrocentric counterparts. 

Now, while adherents to Christian Identity twist the word of YHWH in order to claim that He hates those of mixed-race unions, they ignore the fact that YHWH cursed an Israelite after slandering a mixed-race union. See, the Cushites descended from Noah’s son Ham, and were primarily situated throughout Arabia and Eastern Sub-Sahara. While some offshoots of the Cushites may have retained the Caucasian admixture that was disseminated by their patriarch Ham, most subsets of the Cushites were phenotypically Arab or Sub-Saharan—especially by the time of the Exodus. Hence, the term Cush or Kush was generally applied to those with a relatively swarthy complexion, regardless of whether or not they were patrilineally descended from Cush. This is significant, as when Moses married a “Cushite” woman and Miriam spoke against it (Numbers 12:1), YHWH cursed Miriam with leprosy (vitiligo), turning her skin “white as snow” (Numbers 12:10). The fact that Miriam was cursed with a condition that turned her skin pale, indicates that Moses’ Cushite wife was in fact of a darker complexion—otherwise, why did YHWH curse Miriam with leprosy? Furthermore, the fact that YHWH shielded her from the slander of Moses’ kin proves that YHWH’s statute was against marrying foreigners who did not worship YHWH—not foreigners who were simply of another genetic composition.

Also consider that Moses’ wife was only one figure among the “mixed multitude” that exited Egypt alongside the Israelites. Exodus 12:37-38 states: “And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.” If “YHWH hates admixture”, as the Christian Identity movement asserts, why did He bring an ethnically diverse group out of Egypt and into Israel, where they would inevitably be treated as native-born Israelites and be grafted into the nation? 

• Leviticus 19:34, “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

To add, why is it that in New Jerusalem, the same sentiment applies to the foreigners bound to the Body of Christ?

• Isaiah 14:1-2, “The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Foreigners will join them and unite with the descendants of Jacob. Nations will take them and bring them to their own place.”
• Isaiah 56:3-5, “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.”
• Ezekiel 47:21-23, “‘You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe a foreigner resides, there you are to give them their inheritance,’ declares the Sovereign Lord.”

In truth, Christ’s grace is not reserved for those of a specific ethnic stock, but those who fear Him and do what is right. Acts 10:34-35 states: “Then Peter began to speak: ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.’” In this passage, “nation” is translated from Strong’s 1484: ἔθνει (ethnei), denoting a race, a people, or a nation; from etho, denoting a race—specially, a foreign one.  It is thus evident that salvation is open to individuals of any race, as long as they are genuine in their faith and strive to emulate Christ to the best of their ability.

Of course, proponents of the Christian Identity cult dismiss the conclusion that Acts 10:34-35 supports the universality of Christ’s salvation, and instead assert that “ἔθνει” (ethnei) solely refers to Caucasian (or Adamic) ethnic groups. This is a fallacious assumption—for one, because it presupposes that there is continuity in the meaning and contextual application of the English term “ethnicity” and its Greek root “ἔθνει” (ethnei); secondly, because ancient Greek geographers applied the term “ἔθνος” (ethnos; singular form of ἔθνει/ethnei) to discernibly non-white populations:

• Strabo (64 BC-24 AD): “The Aethiopians, who form a great nation (ἔθνος, ethnos), live along the southern sea and extend to the regions beyond Egypt.” (Geography 17.2.1)
• Ptolemy (100-170 AD): “The Aethiopian nation (ἔθνος, ethnos) inhabits the regions south of Libya, extending toward the interior of the continent.” (Geography 4.8.3)
• Ptolemy (100-170 AD): “The Indian peoples (ἔθνος, ethnos), numerous and scattered, dwell beyond the Ganges and near the eastern sea.” (Geography 7.1.11)

Accordingly, ancient Greek speakers understood that the terms “ἔθνος” (ethnos; singular) and “ἔθνει” (ethnei; plural) could pertain to those of non-Caucasian descent, and if they did not want to extend hope for salvation to races besides Caucasians, they surely would have inserted a stipulation—yet, they did not. Moreover, they would not have applied the term “every” (παντὶ, panti; all, the whole, every kind of), and would have instead clarified which “ἔθνει” (ethnei) were included in the New Covenant. Thus, if the authors of the Gospels, who spoke and wrote in Greek, understood that a ubiquitous reference to “ἔθνει” (ethnei) must include non-Caucasian races, then the natural interpretation of Acts 10:34-35 would be to conclude that “God does not show favoritism but accepts from every race the one who fears him and does what is right.”

With the aforementioned information, it is evident that salvation is not only open to different races, but to non-Israelites in general. This sentiment is in stark contrast to the exclusionary-salvation asserted by the Christian Identity movement, as they claim that only Israelites can be saved. In order to corroborate this belief, they primarily appeal to Matthew 15:24, which states: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…” What proponents of the Christian Identity movement fail to account for is the contextual application of this statement, in that Christ is sending His apostles to preach among the nations. It is therefore evident that Christ’s statement is solely applicable to ministry and preaching; “sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” does not equate to “only Israelites obtain my grace”—it means that He was sent to preach and give the gospel to Israel alone, though it was Israel who was to be “a light for the Gentiles, that (they) may bring salvation to the ends of the earth… The word of the Lord spread through the whole region” (Acts 13:47-49). See, when Christ came He solely preached to the Lost sheep of Israel, but this was because He intended for Israel to be saved first, and for Israel to then spread His light to the rest of the world. Consider how the sentiment of ‘Israel first’ is echoed in Romans 1:15: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

More importantly, consider how the Lost Sheep of Israel are not the only sheep-fold Christ will save, as in John 10:16, He states: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” Through this verse, it is evident that Christ’s statement in Matthew 15:24 is not one of salvific-exclusion, but one of ministerial-priority; Christ came to preach to the Lost Sheep of Israel alone, but will not exclude the gentiles who call upon His name. 

In fact, Paul explicitly states that Israel’s rejection was by no means their final destiny—but rather the means by which salvation was extended to the non-Israelite Gentiles: “Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened… So I ask, did they (Israel) stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.” (Romans 11:7/11)

While the Christian Identity movement will refute this by stating that all mentions of “Gentiles” are pertinent to the Gentile nations to which Israelites were exiled and later rose in prominence within, Paul explicitly distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles. If Paul meant to insinuate that the Gentiles in reference were scattered Sheep of Israel, while the Israelites in reference were Judahites in specific, he surely would have stated something akin to: “Judah failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened… So I ask, did they (Judahites) stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the rest of Israel, so as to make Judah jealous.” Even then, this would be a nonsensical statement, as the Northern Kingdom was exiled for equally detestable conduct, and would not have been grafted into the New Covenant for the sole purpose of making their Judahite kin jealous. Paul’s statement is clear and concise: the whole of Israel was rejected, but through their rejection, which stripped them of a “chosen” status, salvation was made attainable for the rest of humanity. 

Furthermore, in Romans 11:15, Paul also states: “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” In this passage, the term translated as “world” is Strong’s 2889: κόσμου (kosmou); meaning ‘orderly arrangement’—from which the English term ‘cosmos’ is derived. Of course, the definition of ‘cosmos’ is “the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.” Thus, the final rejection of Israel as a bloodline (via the conquest of Judaea and scattering of Judah by Rome) means the reconciliation of the universe, not just the reconciliation of previously scattered Israelites. 

This mirrors John 3:16, which states: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” In this verse, the Greek term translated as “world” is Strong’s 2889: κόσμον (kosmon); which again, means ‘orderly arrangement’, and is the etymological root for the English term ‘cosmos’. And to reiterate, the definition of ‘cosmos’ is “the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.” Thus, YHWH so loved the universe, that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. If only White Israelites could be saved, John would not have mentioned Christ’s salvation being granted to whoever believes due to His love for the “κόσμον” (kosmon). Instead, John would state: “for God so loved Israel”, or “for God so loved Abraham’s offspring”, “that whoever of Israel believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Ultimately, John 3:16 explains why in Mark 16:15, Christ instructs His disciples to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” Key words, “all the world” and “whole creation”—not “all regions in which Israelites preside” and “a specific portion of creation.”

Moreover, Romans 11:17-21 states: “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.” In this passage, the natural branches represent the genetic offspring of Israel. The fact that there are “natural branches” implies that there must also be unnatural branches, and this is evident through Paul’s emphasis on how these unnatural branches were grafted onto the tree, which itself represents the Church. Thus, the unnatural branches are the gentiles to whom salvation has been granted. 

If only one tribal, ethnic and racial stock were granted salvation, there would not be verses such as Revelation 5:9-10 and Revelation 7:9:

• “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe (φυλῆς, phylēs: race, clan) and language and people and nation (ἔθνους, ethnous: race, people, nation), and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’” (Revelation 5:9-10)
• “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation (ἔθνους, ethnous: race, people, nation), tribe (φυλῶν, phylōn: race, clan), people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9)

Evidently, salvation is open to anybody who fears the LORD and does what is right (Acts 10:34-35). This is why in Matthew 13:47-48, Christ states: “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad.” In this passage, the fish represent Christians, and Christ emphasizes how there are Christians “of every kind”. Furthermore, He highlights how there are good and bad individuals within each of these types, and that righteousness is an individualistic attribute, not uniform across entire demographics. 

Matter of fact, there are instances in scripture where non-Israelite foreigners show greater faith than the Israelites themselves. Two examples include: 

1. Luke 17:11-19, “On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.’ When he saw them he said to them, ‘Go and show yourselves to the priests.’ And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, ‘Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?’ And he said to him, ‘Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.’”

– In this passage, the foreign Samaritan is the only one to give praise to Christ after being healed. This is significant, as the Samaritans would certainly be deemed “mongrels” or “mamzers” by the Christian Identity movement—being that the Samaritans were admixed between Northern Kingdom Israelites and foreign non-Israelites from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim who were planted in Israel by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:24-41), and Persia, Erech, Babylon, Susa, and Elam who were planted by the Persians (Ezra 4:1-10). 

2. Matthew 8:5-12, “When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, ‘Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.’ And he said to him, ‘I will come and heal him.’ But the centurion replied, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, “Go,” and he goes, and to another, “Come,” and he comes, and to my servant “Do this,” and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

– Here, Jesus proclaims that the foreign Roman Centurion displayed more faith than anybody in Israel—at least up to that point. While members of the Christian Identity movement may attempt to refute this by claiming that Trojan Zerah-Judahite migrants founded Rome (a claim I believe to be true), not all Romans were patrilineal Israelites, and thus, not all Romans were Tribal Israelites. The fact that Christ follows this praise by emphasizing how people will come from across the Earth, “while the sons of the kingdom (Israel) will be thrown into the outer darkness”, indicates that this Centurion was not a patrilineal Israelite, but an admixed gentile. 

As evident, Christ healed both the Samaritan and the Centurion’s servant, and expressed that both men showcased immense faith and gratitude, despite being distinguished from “Israel”. This proves that His grace is not reserved for Israel or exclusive to a specific bloodline—it is for all who call upon His name. 

As for the next argument posited by adherents to Christian Identity, they appeal to 1 Peter 2:9 as a means to prove that the Europeans whom the Apostles preached to belonged to the “royal race” of Israel. 1 Peter 2:9 states: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

For one, the Greek term translated as “race” is Strong’s 1085: γένος (genos); meaning offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or kin. Being that Israel is no longer chosen, but that the Church of Jesus Christ is, a more applicable translation of γένος (genos) in 1 Peter 2:9 would be “family” or “kin”. Reason being, we are one family in Jesus Christ, not bound by blood or common ancestry, but by faith in the Lord and Savior. In Galatians 3:25-29, Paul emphasizes how the Church is comprised of a diverse set of individuals, yet constitutes one family with one Heavenly Father: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Moreover, in Luke 21, Christ is preaching to a crowd and is informed, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you” (Luke 21:20). He responds, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (Luke 21:21). With this statement, Christ made it clear that His family is one determined by faith, not by blood or immediate-relation. 

Thus, Peter’s claim that the Church is a “chosen race” is more accurately interpreted as a statement of the Church comprising a chosen family. Insofar as Christians being chosen, consider John 6:37/44: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out… No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Evidently, it is our Father in Heaven, YHWH, who has chosen us to be part of the body of His Son, Jesus Christ. 

The notion that Israel comprised a “chosen race” is not only contrary to the New Covenant, but harps on the Old Covenantal concept of who is “chosen”. See, in the Old Covenant, Israel was a genetic family with common descent, and nothing could break this ancestral linkage. Conversely, not all tribal-Israelites are considered True Israelites in the New Covenant, as Israel is now the Church, and those who are not in communion with it are excluded from the family. In Matthew 3:9-10, Christ states: “And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” This sentiment is echoed by Paul in Romans 9:6-8, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” These passages further counter the Christian Identity conception of a chosen race or lineage. Being a White descendant of Jacob will not grant you salvation or deem you a member of Israel, and being a non-Israelite gentile will not exclude you from being a member of Israel. 

Now, in regard to Old Testament passages containing the term “race”, Ezra 9:1-2 states: “When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, ‘The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their (foreigners daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.’”

With this passage, adherents to Christian Identity assert that YHWH forbade the Israelites, who belonged to the Holy Race (the white race), from mixing with those who did not belong to the Holy Race (non-whites). What they fail to acknowledge is that the term “race” is a rather poor translation. The original Hebrew term from which “race” is translated is “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera), which in an agricultural context denoted a seed, fruit, plant, or sowing-time, and in a biological context denoted posterity, progeny, offspring, or descendants. This is why there is a lack of uniformity among different translations of this passage: the Berean Standard Bible, King James Bible, New King James Bible, Legacy Standard Bible, Christian Standard Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, American Standard Version, English Revised version, New Heart English Bible, Webster’s Bible Translation, Majority Standard Bible, Literal Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation, Smith’s Literal Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Aramaic Lamsa Bible, Aramaic Peshitta Holy Bible, JPS Tanakh, and Brenton Septuagint Translation all render this phrase as “holy seed”, whereas the New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible, God’s Word Translation, and NET Bible render this phrase as “holy race”. 

Moreover, there are several translations which contain neither “seed” or “race”:

• World English Bible: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy offspring have mixed themselves with the peoples of the lands.”
• International Standard Version: “Because they and their sons have married foreign women. As a result, the holy people have mingled themselves among the peoples of these lands.“
• Good News Translation: “Jewish men were marrying foreign women, and so God’s holy people had become contaminated.”
• Catholic Public Domain Version: “For they have taken from their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and they have mixed a holy lineage with the peoples of the lands.”

Ultimately, “race” is not a uniformly agreed-upon translation of “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera), and the majority of translations render this term as “seed”. In the context of Ezra 9:2, “seed” would in-fact be the proper translation, as there is not one passage in the Bible where this term discernibly pertains to a “race”. This is evident through the exegesis of other passages containing the term “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera): 

• Genesis 4:25: Eve declares, “God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel.” Here, “seed” refers to her son Seth—not a new race.
• Genesis 15:3-5: Abram laments, “You have given me no seed,” referring to a child—not a race of his own. YHWH responds, ”Look toward heaven, and number the stars… so shall your seed be,” indicating innumerable descendants—not a countless number of races.  
• Genesis 17:7: YHWH promises, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you,” referring to Abraham’s descendants—not racial kinfolk who did not descend from Abraham. Moreover, the fact that “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9) proves that this passage cannot possibly pertain to race. 
• Genesis 38:8-9: Onan is instructed to “raise up seed to your brother,” meaning produce offspring on his brother’s behalf—not to produce a new race for the sake of his brother. This passage continues, “Onan knew that the seed should not be his.” If “seed” denoted race, how could Onan’s race “not be his”? This is evidently about His biological son, whom he had to produce for his brother—not about race. 
• Psalm 89:4: YHWH promises, “Your seed will I establish forever,” referring to both David’s lineage and His heir, Jesus Christ, who rules from the Throne of David for eternity—this is not about the race of David being established forever. 
• Isaiah 53:10: YHWH speaks of the suffering servant, Jesus Christ, and states that “He shall see his seed,” indicating He will have offspring—this neither pertains to a race or physical progeny, but spiritual offspring, as Christ did not marry or have children. 
• Isaiah 61:9: YHWH declares, “Their seed shall be known among the Gentiles,” referring to the descendants of the righteous—not the race of the righteous. If this pertained to race, the Gentiles would already know about the race Israel belonged to—especially by Christian Identity standards, as they posit that the entire ecumene was inhabited by Caucasians. 
• Jeremiah 31:36: YHWH warns, “If those ordinances depart… then the seed of Israel also shall cease,” denoting the nation’s descendants—not the entire race they belonged to. 

Accordingly, the term “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera) in Ezra 9:2 is pertinent to the holy (set-apart) lineage of Israel, the descendants of Jacob—this term does not denote a race. And now, since  “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera) is properly translated as “seed” and pertains to the descendants of Israel, this begs the question: Why was Israel a “holy” lineage? It was not due to genetic superiority or racial purity, but because of the promise to their forefather Abraham, who himself was chosen on the basis of righteousness and belief:  

• Genesis 15:6: “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”
• Romans 4:1–3: “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’”
• Deuteronomy 7:6–8: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors…”

Moreover, a glaring issue with Christian Identity’s misinterpretation of Ezra 9:1-2 is that this passage pertains to the Israelites marrying women from Adamic tribes descended from Noah. There is zero proof, or even evidence, that these tribes were of a different racial composition than the Israelites—rather the opposite. This eisegetical interpretation also showcases the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Christian Identity proponents, as when it serves them, they will state that the tribes listed in Ezra 9 (especially the Egyptians) were White—but when it serves as a stumbling block for them, they state that these lineages were comprised of race-mixed mongrels.

As evident, Ezra 9:2 does not prove that YHWH condemns miscegenation. This passage simply emphasizes how the “holy seed” or holy lineage, being Israel, mixed with other Noahite nations who relished in their paganistic ways. Moreover, “race” is a poor translation for the term “זֶ֣רַע” (Strong’s 2233: Zera), which more accurately denotes posterity, progeny, offspring, or descendants. 

Now, the final Christian Identity claim that I’d like to address is that Deuteronomy 23:2 proves “mongrels” (mixed-race individuals) are barred from Heaven and cannot attain salvation. This verse states: “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.” As with all other passages they appeal to, the Christian Identity movement utterly fails to comprehend what this verse is about. 

For one, the Hebrew term translated as “born of a forbidden union” is Strong’s 4464: מַמְזֵ֖ר (mamzer); denoting a racial mongrel, the offspring of an inter-religious union, the offspring of incest, the offspring of rape, the offspring of adultery, the offspring of fornication, etc. The issue for adherents to Christian Identity is that this verse is not about Heaven or New Jerusalem, nor is it about those who are permitted into them—it is about the congregation and assembly of ancient Israel, and who was permitted to partake in Old Covenantal worship. Accordingly, mamzers and their descendants (up to the 10th generation) were restricted from full participation in public worship and leadership within Israel’s religious community—and this is not exclusive to racial mongrels, but the offspring of an inter-religious union, the offspring of incest, the offspring of rape, the offspring of adultery, the offspring of fornication, etc. 

Most importantly, the fact that Israelites left Egypt with a “mixed multitude” and were to treat these Israelites as their own kin (Leviticus 19:34) indicates that the statute in Deuteronomy 23:2 is more likely pertinent to the offspring of an inter-religious union, the offspring of incest, the offspring of rape, the offspring of adultery, the offspring of fornication, etc—not a racial mongrel. Otherwise, YHWH would not have brought a “mixed multitude” out of Egypt and into Israel.

Furthermore, there is no longer a tabernacle, there is no longer a brick-and-mortar temple, and there are no longer sinless Israelites, so Deuteronomy 23:2 is obsolete, especially with the “Covenant of Peace” in which “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26)—“all Israel”, not “pure blooded Israelites only”. Matter of fact, Isaiah 56:3-5 proves that Deuteronomy 23:2 is obsolete, as Deuteronomy 23:2 not only claims that no mamzer can enter the congregation, but also states that “No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.” Isaiah 56:3-5 states: “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” Thus, if both non-Israelites and Eunuchs (“one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting”) are permitted entry into the Kingdom, then Deuteronomy 23:2 is no longer applicable. 

That both non-whites and eunuchs were permitted into the Body of Christ is attested to by Acts 8:26-39: 

“Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’ This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: ‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.’ And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.”

In this passage, Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven chosen to care for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, converted an Ethiopian eunuch to Christianity after being instructed by an Angel to travel southwards. If the early Church understood that miscegenation and the conversion of non-whites to Christianity were forbidden, the Judahite evangelist Philip would not have converted this Ethiopian Eunuch, and this event would certainly not have been immortalized in the Book of Acts. 

Of course, the Christian Identity movement attempts to refute this with two primary arguments—the latter being far more nonsensical than the former: 

1. Pliny the Elder (23/24–79 AD) recorded the presence of “Λευκαιθίοπες” (Leucæthiopes; White Aethiopians) in the first-century AD, who themselves contrasted the genuine Aethiopians, being black. Accordingly, “the Ethiopian Eunuch must have been one of these ‘White Ethiopians’”. 

While it is an assumption that the Ethiopian Eunuch converted by Philip would have been one of these obscure Leucæthiopes, there is no way to prove he was not. For this reason, the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 does not definitively debunk the notion that salvation and Christianhood is extended to non-whites; nonetheless, he does prove that Eunuchs could attain salvation and Christianhood, thus debunking the Christian Identity Movement’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:2.

Even then, there is a prominent ancient Ethiopian Christian who was explicitly referred to as “black”. He was not only accepted by the Body of Christ, but played a prominent role in the Early Church—this is Moses the Black, a 4th century ascetic hieromonk in Egypt. Born into slavery, Moses later turned to a life of crime upon being released, then leading a gang of robbers and living recklessly in the Nile Valley. In an attempt to escape justice for his crimes, he sought refuge among the desert monks of Scetis, Egypt. Deeply moved by their example, he repented, was baptized, and embraced the rigorous life of a monk, eventually becoming a priest and a revered spiritual leader. Known for his humility, wisdom, and extreme forgiveness, Moses taught many about overcoming passions through prayer and discipline. He was eventually martyred around 405 AD during a raid on the monastery, choosing nonviolence, even when facing certain death, to fulfill Christ’s command of peace. His life remains a powerful witness to the possibility of radical conversion and redemption.

Just 70 years after his martyrdom, Moses the Black was praised as a gleaming example of Christ’s transformative power. In Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter XXIX, Hermias Sozomen states: “So sudden a conversion from vice to virtue was never before witnessed, nor such rapid attainments in monastical philosophy. Hence God rendered him an object of dread to the demons and he was ordained presbyter over the monks at Scetis. After a life spent in this manner, he died at the age of seventy-five, leaving behind him numerous eminent disciples.” 

Again, if it was understood by the Early Church that Christianity was exclusive to those of pure Caucasian descent, Moses the Black would not only have been ostracized and condemned by the Church, but would not have been canonized as a Saint in the midst of Christ’s Millennial Reign. 

2. The most prominent individual in the Christian Identity movement today, William Finck, has stated: “This ‘Aethiopian eunuch’ surely must have been a Judaean man living in Gaza, and in the employ of the Aethiopians, since he was found returning from Jerusalem where he worshiped, and reading from the Book of Isaiah when Philip met him. At this time, only Judaeans were admitted into the temple in Jerusalem to worship, and there were signs posted around the temple threatening death to foreigners who entered. One of the charges levelled against Paul by the Judaeans in Acts chapter 24 was that he intended to profane the temple by admitting into it an uncircumcised man. The eunuch sitting in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah, on his way back to Gaza from the temple, where all men of Israel were told three times a year to appear at the feasts, must have been a Judaean.”

This statement is utterly false. For one, this Ethiopian Eunuch is not referred to as a Judean employed by Queen Candace of Ethiopia—he is referred to as an Ethiopian. We shall thus conclude that he was exactly what he was said to be, and not assume that he was something else in order to push our own eisegetical interpretations. 

Moreover, according to Mosaic Law, eunuchs were forbidden from entering the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:1)—so why would a YHWH-worshipping Judahite be willingly castrated in order to work for a foreign monarch? Heretics like William Finck would have you believe that in spite of Deuteronomy 23:1, which would bar the eunuch from entering the assembly of the Lord, he allowed for himself to be emasculated as a means to prove his allegiance to a foreign, pagan, African Queen.

Thirdly, Gentiles were in-fact permitted to come to Jerusalem to worship, but had to remain in the Court of the Gentiles—the outermost area of the temple. This is in conformity with the statute in 1 Kings 8:41–43, which states: “Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name’s sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name.”

In truth, non-Israelite foreigners were only prohibited from entering the inner-courts of the Temple under penalty of death (Acts 21:28-29), but William Finck fails to acknowledge this, either intentionally or due to sheer ignorance. Accordingly, this eunuch was evidently a “God-fearer”—a Gentile who worshiped YHWH and respected Judean laws and customs, similarly to Cornelius in Acts 10—and the claim that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a White Israelite employed by Queen Candace of Ethiopia is an erroneous cope rooted in the desire to propagate a blatant heresy.  

Now, another point regarding the Ethiopians: Christian Identity adherents often assert that the Ethiopians referred to in scripture are not those of Sub-Saharan descent, but rather the “Λευκαιθίοπες” (Leucæthiopes; White Aethiopians) recorded by Pliny the Elder (23/24–79 AD). They attempt to prove this by pointing out that the term “Aethiopia” etymologically derives from the Greek term “Αἰθιοπία”, meaning “burnt-face”. With this, they posit something along the lines of:

“The descriptor of a ‘burnt-face’ denotes the sun-burned faces of these white-skinned Caucasians dwelling in Ethiopia (the Λευκαιθίοπες/Leucæthiopes). Essentially, their faces burned, as they were exposed to the sun, but the rest of their body was covered by clothing, and so, did not burn—hence, ‘burnt-face’ rather than burnt-body. If the genuine Ethiopians were those of Sub-Saharan ancestry, rather than the ‘Λευκαιθίοπες’ (Leucæthiopes), the term ‘Αἰθιοπία’ (Aethiopia) would not be applicable to them, as their entire bodies would have been ‘burnt’, not just their faces.”

At face value, this argument appears adequate. However, it is utterly invalidated by Pliny the Elder himself, as in Natural History 6.35, he states: “The Ethiopians, a people (gens; Latin cognate of γένος/genos) of burnt faces, inhabit the regions near the Nile and are known for their black skin.” Here, Pliny the Elder explicitly states that the Ethiopians are referred to as “burnt-faces” due to their black skin, not because they acquired a sun-burn while living in Sub-Saharan Africa. Accordingly, the genuine Ethiopians were dark-skinned, and all mentions of “Ethiopians” in the Biblical and extra-Biblical sources are pertinent to them, unless otherwise clarified to pertain to the “Λευκαιθίοπες” (Leucæthiopes). Of course, there is not one mention of these “White Ethiopians” in the New Testament, so the passages pertaining to Ethiopians, including that of the Ethiopian Eunuch, denote dark-skinned individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. 

But, to now circle back to Deuteronomy 23:2, every single time YHWH commands Israel not to mix with the nations, they are nations directly related to Israel and descended from Noah. There is zero indication that these passages pertain to race, but rather that they regard spiritual-monogamy and loyalty to YHWH. In regard to the nations listed in Deuteronomy 23, the only non-Israelites mentioned by name are the Ammonites and Moabites, both offspring of Lot, the Nephew of Abraham. Deuteronomy 23 does not state that they are barred from marriage because they aren’t “white”, or even because they are the product of incest (both of which constituting a mamzer)—it says it is because “they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.” (Deuteronomy 23:3)

It is also worth mentioning that the statute in Deuteronomy 23 was given prior to the conquest of Canaan, which was prior to the Israelites mixing with foreign lineages: 

• Judges 3:5-6, “So the people of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods.”
• Psalm 106:34-35, “They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did.”
• Hosea 5:5-7, “The pride of Israel testifies to his face; Israel and Ephraim shall stumble in his guilt; Judah also shall stumble with them. With their flocks and herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they will not find him; he has withdrawn from them. They have dealt faithlessly with the Lord; for they have borne alien children. Now the new moon shall devour them with their fields.”
• Hosea 7:8-10, “Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Strangers devour his strength, and he knows it not; gray hairs are sprinkled upon him, and he knows it not. The pride of Israel testifies to his face; yet they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him, for all this.”
• Ezra 9:1-2, “After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, ‘The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.’”
• Ezra 10:10, “And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, ‘You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel.’”
• Nehemiah 13:25-27, “And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, ‘You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?’”

Well, if you’re a descendant of the Israelites who were exiled in-part for mixing with pagan non-Israelites, how would you not have mixed ancestry? The Christian Identity worldview requires the Israelites to migrate abroad and dilute their autosomal admixture after extensive breeding with “mamzer bloodlines”—in this way, they have supposedly “purified” their seed. Yet, according to Biblical standards, they would still be the offspring of bloodlines such as Canaan and Edom, and would continue to bear a trace of this admixture—which they do. 

There is genetic proof that Europeans continue to carry genes associated with the Canaanites and Edomites. For example, in Scandinavia the paternal haplogroup E1b ranges from 0-3%, while the paternal haplogroup J ranges from 0-2%. These are the dominant haplogroups among ancient Canaanites and their Natufian forebears. Since these lineages are mixed into the Scandinavian gene-pool and have been present for thousands of years, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians will have Natufian and Canaanite ancestry. Insofar as physical attributes, the Natufians were phenotypically Arab, and would certainly not be regarded as “white” by the Christian Identity movement. In regard to autosomal DNA, the Natufians carried Eastern African atDNA at a rate of 0-7% (depending on the sample), and comprise roughly 1-10% of the Scandinavian genome (depending on the region).

Furthermore, Europeans descend from three distinct ancestral groups with different autosomal makeups: 1) Western Hunter Gatherers, who had a tanned complexion, blue eyes, and Caucasoid facial features, 2) Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, who were mixed with Natufians and resembled modern Mediterranean populations, and 3) Western Steppe Herders, who resembled Northern Europeans and were mixed between Eastern Hunter-Gatherers, Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, and Ancient North Eurasians (who were phenotypically Siberian). In addition, this admixture is not just racial, because Europeans also have admixed ancestry from numerous hominid species: Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and to a lesser degree, Denisovan.