Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with Commentary

Christianity in the Old Testament, Part 2, a presentation of Bertrand Comparet's Sermon, with our own Commentary

In the first part of this series, we had a long introduction of our own which asked the question What is a Catholic? Doing that, first we gave a brief exhibition from history and the prophets in order to help explain why it matters. Then we endeavored to provide a definitive answer from both the Greek meaning of the word καθολικός and from the earliest Christian writers. From there, we provided much evidence that originally, the word was applied to the origination and the acceptance of the Christian faith, and not to its application. A true and original Catholic accepts both Old and New Testaments in relation to himself and his people, and understands that both testaments are Christian testaments. At the same time, we would assert that a true Catholic can only accept both testaments if he or she is one of those people with whom were made those “catholic covenants”, as Irenaeus called them. In order to substantiate our arguments, we mentioned the Book of Odes from the Codex Alexandrinus. We had provided a commentary on that book here three months ago. Then we cited the early Christian writers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Lactantius. And then, to establish what it was that the ancients saw as the world, we cited both Irenaeus and Martin Luther.

Lastly, we made a brief exhibition showing ancient attitudes towards the negro, citing two historical sources: the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus, and the first century AD Christian work titled The Shepherd of Hermas. There we quoted a passage from the 9th Similitude of the 3rd Book, which was subtitled “Building of the Militant and Triumphant Church”, and which explains that blacks are an unredeemable and lawless race. Therefore it should not be a stretch to imagine that a truly militant, and ultimately triumphant Christian is one who stands against race-mixing, the likes of which we see all around us this very day. In the first centuries of Christianity, blacks were excluded from the “world”, and they must continue to be excluded. However knowing the Scriptures we must also exclude all other races, which were not a part of the “world” from the time of Christ to the time of Luther. So, we said that: Christianity is only for White Europeans, and Niggers certainly are unredeemable. And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers. All blasphemers and traitors to our race and our God are already headed in that very direction.

Now, we stand by these words. However saying these things, some of our critics have accused us of diverging from our teaching of absolute salvation for the children of Israel, and have even accused us of embracing the so-called “works salvation” similar to that of the denominational churches. But our critics are fools, because nothing is further from the truth. We have not capitulated on anything which we have taught in the past concerning our Adamic race and salvation. Rather, our critics are simply too dull to realize that making that statement last week, we used the term Lake of Fire as an allegory to represent temporal destruction, which is what it is. Not temporary destruction, but temporal, meaning worldly as opposed to spiritual. The student of Scripture should understand that non-Adamic people do not have the spirit of God in them, and therefore they are “twice dead”, as the apostle Jude had called certain infiltrators among Christians of his time, where the apostle Peter called them “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed.”

But as for Adamic people, they too can suffer temporal punishment, even as Christ Himself warned His followers in Judaea that they should be obedient to Yahweh and keep the commandments in fear of suffering the fires of Gehenna, which, upon examining the meaning of the term Gehenna, we interpret to refer to earthly trials and punishments. The apostle Paul taught likewise, in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 where he said that if a man has no good works, if all of his works amounted only to wood, hay and stubble which are easily consumed in fire, that “15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” That fire is the trials and punishments of this world, as the apostle Peter also suggested in his first epistle. Peter knew that even the faithful would be tried in such trials, and warned his readers “7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ....”

In the Parable of the Ten Virgins found in Matthew chapter 25 we read the following: “1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. 13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.”

So where we said “And any of our White brethren who do not repent, and who have not yet been blasphemers or traitors, had certainly better repent soon or they are going to end up in the Lake of Fire along with the Niggers”, this was a warning, and not a threat. It is not our place to make such threats. This warning was made using language that the intended audience, which is not necessarily Identity Christian, would understand the warning. We liken the five foolish virgins to those who do not heed the call to come out of Babylon, where we read in Revelation chapter 18: “4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” And that you receive not of her plagues: those who refuse to heed the call to come out of Babylon shall indeed suffer temporal punishment along with all of the enemies of Yahweh our God. Those Whites who do not separate themselves and their understanding of their God from non-Whites certainly fit the description of the five foolish virgins in the parable. Being ostracized from the people of Yahweh God for associating themselves with His enemies, they shall certainly die along with the enemies of God.

The children of Israel are promised eternal life in Yahshua Christ. They are promised redemption from hell and death. We have elucidated the certainty and the immutability of those promises here on many occasions. Temporal salvation is not guaranteed, but those who are obedient to God may be rewarded in that manner. So Paul wrote in Philippians chapter 2, as we read it in the Christogenea New Testament: “14 Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, 15 that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted - among whom you appear as luminaries in the Society, 16 upholding the Word of Life for a boast with me in the day of Christ...” The call of the Gospel is a call to obedience in Christ, as Paul had also explained in 2 Corinthians chapter 6, the objective of Christians should be towards: “5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.”

Our critics operate on imagination, rather than on the Word of Yahweh which is found in Scripture. Michael Brandenburg, Allen Rouse, Ryan Brennan, these are a collection of hypocrites, and they attempt to project their hypocrisy onto us. I have not contradicted myself, except in the minds of these corrupt fools. Men such as Steven B. Adams should be ashamed of themselves for following after such fools.

The entire narrative of the Bible is woven around a single thread: the disobedience of the children of Israel in the Old Testament, and their call to obedience in Christ in the New Testament. Eternal salvation is not based on works, because as it says in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon, “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” But temporal salvation is another matter entirely, and punishment is dispensed whenever the children of Israel fail to be obedient to Yahweh their God. While mercy in place of punishment is one of the gifts of Yahweh which is dispensed in Christ, mercy also requires repentance and submission. To understand the Bible, one must understand that the New Testament is made with the same Israelites as the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is just as Christian a book as the New Testament. So to explain all of that, here we shall present a text and criticism of the sermon:

Christianity in the Old Testament by Bertrand L. Comparet, digitized From Your Heritage and prepared with Critical Notes by Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries.

When you see some new machine with its shafts turning, gears spinning, motors humming, you can’t understand what it is or what it does, until somebody shows you a plan of it. Similarly, you can’t understand history and its climax, modern civilization, until you see a plan of it. The only such plan of history is in the Bible and it is amazingly complete. However, you can’t understand this plan in the Bible, until you know who you are. You must learn the Bible was lived and written by your ancestors, written about you and written to you. The identity of the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic people as the Israel of the Bible, is the only key to the whole book.

We assert our identity as ancient Israel in many of our papers, since it a premise which must be understood in order to truly comprehend most aspects of both history and Scripture. However that assertion requires much explanation, and because the proofs are lengthy and detailed, out of necessity the proofs must be provided in other places. So Comparet continues:

If somebody wrote a very exact history of the United States, but never used the name United States therein, always calling the nation in this history China, you couldn’t make much sense out of it. As a history of China, it would be demonstrably false, it could never make good sense until you put the name of the right nation into it, however all the major churches have falsified the Bible. They have taken our history, the various prophecies about us, and told us that all this was just about the [bad-fig, (Jer. 24)] Jews, which is an easily demonstrated falsehood. That is why any intelligent and well-educated atheist has always made a monkey out of any clergyman who has ever debated him on the Bible. The traditional church doctrines on the Bible are such easily exposed falsehoods.

And this is also true. We would claim that the early church developed a doctrine identifying Israel which is based on lies and an imperfect understanding of history. Much of that doctrine came out of Alexandria, through the writings of Clement, Origen and Eusebius. Much of it was an appeal to “tradition”, which was never actual Biblical tradition. It did not come from Paul of Tarsus, who clearly taught the Israelite identity of the tribes of Europe to whom he had brought the Gospel. Other early Christians, such as Justin Martyr, did not even have the benefit of the epistles of Paul, as the Christian churches of the east were Judaized at an early time. But even for those with the benefit of Paul's epistles, the identity message was lost by the end of the second century, and replacement theology, which is a false theology, became predominant. Justin Martyr, who did not know Paul's epistles, was one of the first teachers of replacement theology, evidently accepting the lies of the Judaeans at that early time. This is all in accord with the many prophecies that the children of Israel would be blind to their identity and to their inheritance. We would also assert, that now is the time for the Elijah ministry of prophecy, which is destined to remove that blindness. Now continuing with Comparet:

The churches have taught us another falsehood. They have taught [that] the Old Testament is a record of a different religion, the [bad-fig] Jewish religion, which Yahweh tried out and found that He couldn’t make it work. So, He had to abandon it and start a brand new religion, Christianity, in the New Testament. In this, they have greatly slandered Yahweh.

In these lessons we have proven the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic people are the Israel of the Bible. We have proven this by showing you that these people and no others, especially not the [bad-fig] Jews, fulfill the Bible prophecies about Israel. We have traced their migration through the writings of most of the recognized historians of those centuries.

For our part, we would expand the assertion of identity to include the original Romans, some of the major tribes of the original Greeks, some of the original Spaniards, the Irish and Britons who preceded the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, and other related people. But these tribes had predecessors in Europe, among whom they settled, which were of related Shemite and Japhethite stock, in the West especially in the Ionians, the original Aramaeans, and the Lydians. Among these there were certainly some Hamitic people as well, such as Egyptians and Philistines.

One striking passage in relation to this is found in Jeremiah chapter 18: “1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.” These words were spoken roughly a hundred and twenty years after most of the people of the ten tribes of the House of Israel were taken into captivity by the Assyrians, along with most of Judah. Only the inhabitants of Jerusalem were left behind, and they continued to be called Judah. They are addressed a little later in the chapter, from verse 11. The point is that long after the Assyrian deportations, the House of Israel continued to be the focal point of the purpose of Yahweh God. He continues to work His purpose in the children of Israel to this very day.

Returning to Comparet:

You have heard me prove the New Testament is just as much an Israel book as is the Old Testament. [We have not yet presented a critique of that sermon here, which is titled Israel in the New Testament.] We have reviewed the New Testament and showed that it was clearly speaking about and speaking to Israel. You have often heard me say that the Old Testament is just as much a Christian book as is the New Testament. Today, I shall begin the proof of the Christian content and character of the Old Testament. Yahweh our God was not mistaken when He inspired the prophets to write the Old Testament. It was not a failure which He had to abandon and start all over again with a new, different religion. Yahweh was right the first time and His religion and His plan of the ages has always been the same, from the very beginning until this moment.

It is Israel in transition from Old Testament to New which were the clay being reformed in the hands of Yahweh God the potter. As it says in Malachi chapter 3, “6 for i am the lord, i change not; therefore ye sons of jacob are not consumed.” Neither were they ever replaced in the promise of Yahweh to make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, or else God is a liar. But Yahweh God is certainly NOT a liar! Again continuing with Comparet, he adeptly gets into the basic reasons for Christianity in the first place:

So that we can recognize Christianity when we find it in the Old Testament, we must clarify our ideas about it. What is the essence of Christianity, expressed in a few words? Isn’t it this, that man is responsible for his own actions. If he disobeys Yahweh, this disobedience is sin and the penalty of sin is death. Man must personally pay this penalty by his own death, unless someone pays it for him. But no other ordinary person could do this for you, because the other person is already under the death sentence for his own sins, and therefore could not die in your place. [In the Old Covenant most sins were paid for with animal sacrifices. Capital offenses had to be paid with the life of the offender. But all Israel, when they committed idolatry, were guilty of capital offense. - WRF] Therefore, Yahweh provided the only possible sacrifice which could pay the penalty of your sins, [otherwise the entire race would have to be destroyed - WRF] Yahshua the son of Yahweh [being both the father and the son], being perfect and without sin, had no penalty of his own to pay. Therefore, when He gave His own life for us when He died on the cross, He paid all the penalty of our sins, so that we will not have to meet this penalty. [If He did not, He could not have kept His promises to the fathers. - WRF] If we accept this basis of our relationship to our God, openly confessing that Yahshua is our only Savior, then we have become acceptable to Yahweh, because sin no longer stands between Him and us. Instead of bearing the responsibility for our sins, we now have attributed to us the righteousness of Yahshua. This is Christianity, this is what we must now look for in the Old Testament.

And as Comparet will also ultimately demonstrate here, all of this only relates to a single group of people, the Israelites of the Old Testament, and to nobody else. Nobody else has this relationship with Yahweh, and nobody else has any share in the promises which were made within this relationship. The same God who made these promises also provided laws which govern them, and while He may forgive sin, He will certainly not accept the results of the sin, so Yahweh God will not accept bastards or anything else which violates those laws. If you repent from stealing a car, you cannot keep the car, you must return the car in order to be forgiven, and so it is with anything else.

Now however, returning to Comparet, he goes back even further, to the earliest promises which were made to the greater Adamic race, long before Israel ever existed. But the Adamic race is the White race only, which can be established by examining the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10 and tracing what is said of those nations in ancient history. There were other people outside of the garden that are not related to Adam, which is evident in Genesis chapter 4 where Cain built a city, and in Genesis chapter 15 where a list of tribes are named that are not all descended from Noah, and which are even related to Cain. These promises made to the wider Adamic race also stand, although they are not as specific as the many promises made to Israel:

The first promise of the coming of Yahshua our Redeemer, is found in Genesis 3:15. Yahweh has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him, to give account of their misdeeds. Yahweh says to Satan, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: He shall crush thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” One who is of the seed, or a descendant of Eve, shall crush the power of Satan, but in doing so, He shall suffer from Satan’s malice. However, the wound to Satan is far greater than the wound received by the Redeemer. We have seen this fulfilled in the crucifixion of Yahshua, a most terrible thing for Him to endure. By this and His resurrection, Yahshua totally and permanently broke the power of Satan to hold all men in his power through fear of death. The prophecy in Genesis 3:15 unmistakably applies to Yahshua, and is the first instance of Christianity in the Old Testament.

We would disagree here, that all of Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled, as the head of the serpent is not yet completely destroyed. Rather, the serpent is still with us today. The Revelation provides the plan of Yahweh for the complete fulfillment, when the devil, his angels, and all of the goat nations are cast into the Lake of Fire. Paul, in Romans chapter 16, uses Genesis 3:15 allegorically in order to help us determine who that Satan is which must be completely eradicated. What was fulfilled in the Crucifixion was only the bruising of the heel. Think about why a heel would be bruised. A bruised heel may be indicative of someone escaping somebody, who only manages to strike the heel of the person fleeing. We see this as an allegory, that Christ being immortal, He and the entire Adamic race along with Him escape their enemies into eternal life, where the enemy cannot pursue.

Furthermore, there is another passage in Genesis chapter 3 which many see as a condemnation, but which we see as a promise. That is found in verse 22: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. There we interpret the reference to the Tree of Life to represent both the man's own race, and Christ Himself as the Head of that race. The cherubs were then placed to ensure that the path to the Tree of Life would always be opened for man, because they guarded the way to the Tree of Life. The next place where the cherubs appear is atop the ark of the covenant, where the tablets of the law were kept. We believe that this signifies the importance of obedience to Yahweh as the way to the Tree of Life. Back to Comparet, where he continues to speak of Genesis 3:15:

Note [that] this records [that] Satan was to have as literal children as Eve. The same Hebrew word for seed, zerah, is used in the case of both Satan and Eve. One of Eve’s descendants, which we know to be Yahshua, was to defeat Satan although suffering terribly in the process. Carefully note another thing, it is Yahweh who puts enmity between Satan’s children and Eve’s children. You know how Satan’s children love to parrot the official Communist party line and call us “hate mongers”. The Bible itself tell us that Yahweh commanded and created that enmity or hatred. As a matter of fact, it only appears as hatred among Satan’s children. We don’t hate them, we just detest the evil character shown by the wicked things they are constantly doing. Satan’s children are today known as [bad-fig] Jews, formerly they were known as Canaanites, Hittites, etc.

The Bible only records a very limited account of this conversation between Yahweh and Adam and Eve. However, it very clearly implies that at this time Yahweh clearly explained to them the entire plan of redemption, including the fact that He, Yahweh, would be the Redeemer coming in the form of a descendant of Eve.

The one who crushes the head of the serpent is of the seed of Eve, so in that sense Yahshua Christ is prophesied in Genesis 3:15, as He will indeed eradicate Satan from the earth on the Day of His Wrath, at His return, and nobody else will be able to do it sooner. Here we must also add that while Yahweh God has chosen to operate through a national relationship with the children of Israel since the time of Abraham and Jacob, and that while the children of Israel are chosen for a special relationship with Him, there is nevertheless a plan for the entire Adamic race in the scheme of that operation. The first promises of salvation were made to the entire race, something which was recognized by Paul of Tarsus in Acts chapter 17, Romans chapter 5 and 1 Corinthians chapter 15. That plan was revealed by Christ in the Gospel, and in the original promise to Abraham that “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”, which refers to the Genesis 10 Adamic nations, which were originally the White race that descended from Noah. Returning to Comparet, he continues to discuss Adam and Eve:

Naturally Adam and Eve didn’t like being under the curse, which came as a consequence of their disobedience of Yahweh, and they hoped that the curse would soon be ended. Since Yahweh had not explained to them how many generations it would be until He came as the promised Redeemer, Eve hoped that her first child Cain, would be the Redeemer. This is concealed from you by the mistranslation in the King James Bible which says this in Genesis 4:1. “She conceived and bore Cain and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” In the Hebrew it reads, “She conceived and bore Cain and said, I have gotten a man even Yahweh.” Eve thought that this, her first child, was Yahweh, God Himself come in the flesh as one of her descendants, to be the Redeemer of His children. This also is Christianity in the Old Testament. You will remember that in my lesson on “Who Is Your Savior?”, I gave the Biblical proof that Yahshua is Yahweh, come in the flesh to be our Savior and Redeemer.

Of course Comparet is correct about Yahshua being Yahweh God in the flesh, however he is wrong about Genesis 4:1. Clifton Emahiser took issue with this, and here is the first of his two critical notes for this sermon:

I would like to cite Comparet where he said: “Naturally Adam and Eve didn’t like being under the curse, which came as a consequence of their disobedience of Yahweh, and they hoped that the curse would soon be ended. Since Yahweh had not explained to them how many generations it would be until He came as the promised Redeemer, Eve hoped that her first child Cain, would be the Redeemer. This is concealed from you by the mistranslation in the King James Bible which says this in Genesis 4:1. ‘She conceived and bore Cain and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.’ In the Hebrew it reads, ‘She conceived and bore Cain and said, I have gotten a man even Yahweh.’ Eve thought that this, her first child, was Yahweh, God Himself come in the flesh as one of her descendants, to be the Redeemer of His children.”

This is not at all the problem! In my essay entitled The Problem With Genesis 4:1, I found the following evidence that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt passage:

The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘consulting editors’, plus 124 other ‘contributors’, makes the following observation on this verse, vol. 1, page 517: “Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulgate, of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss ...” [This last statement is only a guess as to the nature of the gloss. -WRF]

Secondly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: “... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word for breath.”

Therefore, if Genesis 4:1 is “unintelligible” and “can scarcely be translated, still less understood”, how can one prove anything by quoting it? Additionally, if the words are a gloss, where is the foundation for such a premise?

Now that first portion of Clifton Emahiser's critical note we can certainly agree with. However this next portion is problematical. So Clifton continues and says:

Comparet also made the statement: “Although Cain had herds and flocks of his own, he brought no blood sacrifice, just fruits and vegetables. He made no confession of sin, no prayer for pardon. He merely told Yahweh, ‘Landlord, here’s your crop-rent’ and then he wondered why Yahweh was not pleased by this!”

From a new 1999 translation published by Kregel entitled The New Complete Works Of Josephus by Paul L. Maier, at Antiquities book 1, chap. 2, we read: “But Cain was not only wicked in other respects, but was wholly intent on getting; and he first contrived to plough the ground. He killed his brother on the occasion following: They had resolved to sacrifice to God. Now Cain brought the fruits of the earth, and of his husbandry; but Abel brought milk, and the firstfruit of his flocks. But God was more delighted with the latter sacrifice, when he was honored with what grew naturally of its own accord, than He was with what was the invention of a covetous man, and gotten by forcing the ground.”

If this translation of Josephus is correct, Cain may have been hybridizing the plants that he grew. If such is the case, we have in Cain a hybridized person growing hybridized crops! Again, if such is true, no wonder Yahweh was displeased with both Cain and his sacrifice! What could have been more wicked on Cain’s part? This could conceivably be why the bad-fig-jews of today (the lineal descendants of Cain), have an agenda to hybridize the entire White Israel race with the non-whites. If so, no wonder Jude, at verse 11, puts Cain in the same category with Balaam!

The translation is correct, but Josephus did not have an ancient source for what ae essentially his own opinions. Rather, Josephus was a Pharisee, born only a few years after the ministry of Christ, and his interpretation reflects their teachings. This is only an interpretation of the events which, in part, represents some of the leaven of the Pharisees. But it is easy to accept because it does fit the nature of the line of Cain, which certainly is content to hybridize, or corrupt, the entire Creation of God. However it is not supported by Scripture, that Caon had forced the ground.

What can be supported by Scripture is the fact that Cain could not be the family priest, since he is not truly a son of Adam, and for that reason was his sacrifice rejected. Cain had no real business making a sacrifice to Yahweh in the first place. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because Abel was the true first-born son of Adam, and first-born sons assumed the role of the family priest, something which we see later in Scripture in the Book of Numbers.

Returning to Comparet, he continues to discuss the sacrifices of Cain and Abel:

We find further confirmation of this in Genesis 4:3-7 which tells us, “Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Yahweh. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Yahweh had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell. And Yahweh said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, the sin offering lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him.” Yes, I know the King James Bible says that sin lieth at the door, but the same Hebrew word means both the sin itself and the sin offering, the blood sacrifice. The two ideas were closely identified, the sin and the offering, which cleansed the sinner of his guilt.

Although Cain had herds and flocks of his own, he brought no blood sacrifice, just fruits and vegetables. He made no confession of sin, no prayer for pardon. He merely told Yahweh, “Landlord, here’s your crop-rent” and then he wondered why Yahweh was not pleased by this! Abel knew sin would separate any man from Yahweh, and he could not become acceptable to Yahweh until cleansed of his sins. This was only by making the blood offering, to proclaim his faith in Yahweh’s revelation that some day the Savior would die to pay the penalty of Abel’s sins and he could become free from sin. Abel showed an understanding of the basic principles of Christianity nearly 4,000 years before the birth of Yahshua. Hebrews 11:4 reminds us that Abel understood the need of the blood sacrifice, symbolic of his faith that the Savior would give His life to pay for Abel’s sins.

The first sacrifice made by Abel does indeed seem to be symbolic of the ultimate sacrifice of Christ as the Lamb of God, but that is a matter of the circumstances and was not necessarily a conscious decision on the part of Abel. Rather, we must contest Comparet's interpretation here, since “sin is the transgression of the law”, as we are informed in 1 John chapter 3, and since sin was not accounted before the law was given, as we read in Romans chapter 5 where Paul wrote that “13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

So the sacrifices of Abel and Cain were not sin offerings, because while sin existed sin was not imputed, meaning that the guilty were not held accountable by God, and there are sacrifices which are made for other reasons in Scripture. One of those sacrifices for other reasons is a sacrifice of first fruits, and we see Abel and Cain each making a sacrifice of the first fruits of their own profession, for Abel was a shepherd, and Cain was a farmer. We read in Genesis 4:2 that “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

Paul says in Hebrews 11:4 that “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,” and that does not necessarily indicate that Abel knew that a blood sacrifice was necessary for sin. Paul had explained in Romans that sin was not accounted at that time, because the law was not yet given. We can more easily assert that Abel, who was not the first-born of Eve, nevertheless asserted his right to sacrifice because he was first-born of Adam, and therefore the family priesthood belonged to him, and not to Cain. Later we see in Scripture that Yahweh required the first-born of men to be dedicated to Him, becoming the priests of their respective families, as well as the first-born of animals and the first fruits of the crops. (Exodus 13:12,15; 34:19; Numbers 3:12; 18:15.) Abel asserting his right to be priest as the true firstborn son of Adam, while Cain was a bastard to be rejected, certainly did make a better sacrifice by his faith. Abel must have understood that Cain was not qualified, and asserted his own right to function as family priest.

In Genesis 4:7, after rejecting his sacrifice Yahweh challenged Cain to do well, but sin was at the door, meaning that Cain could not help himself but to sin because of the nature of his existence as a bastard, Cain could not possibly do well. If Cain failed, it was because “sin lieth at the door.” The words are usually read as a result of Cain's failure, when they actually explain the reason for Cain's failure. So Cain, challenged to do well, immediately went and killed his brother. The real reason why Cain's sacrifice was rejected also lies in that very fact, that Yahweh our God is not the God of bastards.

Comparet continues and offers a chronology based on the corrupted Masoretic Text, as well as a mistaken view of the Book of Job:

These incidents in the third and fourth chapters of Genesis occurred close to 4000 B.C. The book of Genesis which tells of this, was written by Moses about 1446 B.C., and it is not the earliest book in the Bible. Although the book of Job was later assigned its place as the 18th book in the Bible, it was written about nine centuries before Moses lived. Its great age appears from the fact that it never mentions the law which Yahweh gave to Moses, and nothing as important as the law would be omitted if the Book of Job had been written later. Job complains of his undeserved suffering and his friends assure him that suffering comes only as a just punishment, so Job must have done something very wicked to deserve such punishment. But, they never mention any law which they think Job has broken. Also Job, who wrote the book, is mentioned in Genesis 10:29 as Jobab, Father Job, a great, great grandson of Shem and a grandson of Eber, from whom the people got the name Hebrews.

The more accurate chronology found in the Septuagint, which much better accords with the inscriptions and narratives which we know from archaeology and the early history of the Genesis 10 nations, places the events of Genesis chapters 3 and 4 to around 5400 BC. But Moses did indeed write around 1450 BC, four thousand years after Adam. As for Job, at one time I thought Comparet was correct in his assessment of the antiquity of the book, even as recently as 2013, but upon further study I can no longer agree.

First, the Tetragrammaton appears throughout Job, representing the name Yahweh. But Moses had written in Exodus chapter 6: “2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh was I not known to them.” Therefore the Book of Job could not have been extent in Israel before the time of Moses or the period of the Judges.

Additionally, the names of the friends of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, while obscure, can be related to the area in the south of Judah. Temanite can simply mean Southerner. In Job chapter 42, Yahweh commands that the friends of Job repent for their wicked advice which they gave to him, and He commands them to “8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.” If these men were not of Israel, they would not have been expected to speak what is right by Yahweh, as the law was given only to Israel, and before Sinai, sin was not imputed – as we have already explained.

Then more significantly, in Job chapter 32 we read: “1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.” This reference to a man “of the kindred of Ram” is significant, as we read in 1 Chronicles chapter 2 “10 And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; 11 And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, 12 And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse...” and, of course, this Jesse was the father of David. So circumstantially, these things and others lead us to believe that Job was a figure of the late Judges period, living in a time not long before David had become king.

However as Comparet continues, the Christian references in the Book of Job are no less valid:

In all his suffering, Job never loses sight of the promise of the coming Redeemer. Even while he is wishing for death to put him out of his misery, in Job 19: 25-27, he says, “For I know that my Redeemer liveth and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself and mine eyes shall behold, and not another.”

The witness of Job in this passage certainly is a Christian testimony.

The next part of Bertrand Comparet's sermon discusses the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham his father, and how that also foreshadows Christianity. We will return at that point when we resume our commentary on this sermon.