TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 24: 44, Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions continued in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 24

In the last few presentations in this series we have been discussing particular passages in the New Testament where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. While we cannot discuss every error of interpretation, we have endeavored to address the passages which would change one’s view of Scripture, and potentially one’s entire worldview, once they are translated properly and understood correctly within the context of the entire Scripture. With these interpretations which we uphold to be correct, all of the seeming conflicts and inconsistencies within Scripture vanish, God is no longer the hypocrite which the denominational churches make Him out to be, and we can know that God is true. So now, continuing with Proof 44, we are in the midst of the Gospel of Luke, as we had left off with the parable of the unrighteous steward in chapter 16.

44) continued: Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in Matthew, Mark and Luke

In the parable of the unrighteous steward in Luke chapter 16 we saw that Yahshua Christ was actually contrasting men of different races, and He used the term for race, which is γενεά, in order to make that comparison. Those two races were descibed in an allegory as the “sons of light” and the “sons of this age”, or world. The wicked steward was praised by his master for his wickedness, because he acted as one may expect of a man of a wicked race. The parable is a lesson in human nature, that one’s nature and the resulting actions are inherent and cannot be changed for the better if one is a devil or a bastard in the first place. But now, in Luke chapter 17, we shall see that the Greeks viewed race even more narrowly than we are accustomed to perceive race today.

So we shall begin by reading from Luke chapter 17, from the Christogenea New Testament: “11 And it came to pass, while traveling to Jerusalem, that He [Yahshua Christ] had passed through the center of Samaria and Galilaia, 12 and upon His coming into a certain town they encountered ten leprous men who had stood afar off. 13 And they raised their voices saying ‘Yahshua, Master, have mercy on us!’ 14 And seeing them He said to them ‘Going, show yourselves to the priests!’ And it happened that with their going off they were cleansed. 15 Then one of them, seeing that he was healed, returned with a great voice extolling Yahweh, 16 and fell upon his face by His feet thanking Him, and he was a Samaritan. 17 And replying Yahshua said ‘Were not ten cleansed? Then where are the nine? 18 Are there none found returning to give honor to Yahweh, except he who is of another race?’ 19 And He said to him, ‘Arising go, your faith has preserved you.’”

The word ἀλλογενὴς (241) appears in verse 17 here, and it means “of another race, a stranger”, as it is defined by Liddell and Scott. It appears only here in the New Testament, where the King James Version translates is as stranger. That is unfortunate, once again, because it fails to distinguish this term from other Greek words which are also translated as stranger, as it explicitly refers to someone of a different race. At the time of Christ, the ancient Samaritans were comprised in part from remnants of Israelites whose ancestors had escaped Assyrian captivity, or from one of several Adamic nations of Mesopotamia which were brought into Samaria by the Assyrians. There were apparently also at least some Canaanites who had been slaves to Israel and who remained in the land after the deportations of Israel. However the Assyrians brought captives of other nations from in and around Mesopotamia to populate the land, as it was mostly vacant after the conquest and deportations of Israel.

So ostensibly, a Samaritan could be an Israelite, as distinguished from an Israelite of Judaea, or a Samaritan could be an Adamic individual from one of the other White Adamic Genesis 10 nations, as distinguished from a descendant of Arphaxad, or the Hebrews or Israelites. Here, universalists, those who assert that the body of Christ may be multiracial, abuse the appearance of this word ἀλλογενὴς and insist that it refers to someone who is not a Jew, and that therefore Jesus came for all races, and that is a lie.

While the word certainly may be used to signify someone of a race other than the race of Adam, and therefore someone who is not White, that interpretation here is not compulsory, and it is certainly not necessarily correct here. The word may also merely signify that the man is not a Judaean, or that he is not an Israelite at all. At the time of Christ, one Samaritan in a group of nine Judaeans would be distinguished by the custom of his dress. However within the historical context of ancient Samaria it is certain that he was of the race of Adam.

Today we are accustomed to the idea that there are multiple nations created from one race, so we look at the word race differently and more generally than the ancient Greeks or Hebrews. The Greek view of race was much narrower than our own. From their perspective, a race could specify a tribe or family within a nation, and that is why γενεά can mean race, stock or family, as it is defined by Liddell & Scott – even though we today would perceive all the members of that nation to have been of the same general race, and the interpretation depends on the context.

However more importantly, with Luke’s use of this word we may also perceive that where he had elsewhere used the word ἔθνος, which most literally is a nation but which is more frequently translated as gentile in the King James Version, he cannot mean to describe people of other races – or perhaps we might expect him to have used this word ἀλλογενὴς instead. Most of the references by Luke and Paul to the gentiles, or properly nations, are references to the dispersed nations of Israel.

So this leads us to discuss Luke 18:32, where Christ is speaking of Himself, and we read in the King James Version: “32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: 33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.”

Here in verse 32 there is a phrase, τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (ἔθνος, 1484), which is in the Dative Plural and is literally “to the nations”, although in this context it may be rendered “to the heathens”. The word ἔθνος is usually, and properly nation, yet it in certain contexts it may be translated as people, and the use of this term in the plural is important when one wants to understand the true meaning of passages such as that found in Acts 13:46 and 18:6 where Paul used the word ἔθνος in the plural in a local scope, speaking of peoples of different nations gathered in one place.

When a group of people are described and they consist of one nationality, the term λαὸς (2992) is appropriate, which is properly a people of the same stock and language. Examples of this are most frequent where Paul of Tarsus was speaking of Israel as a people throughout his epistle to the Hebrews, but also in his other epistles when he was referring explicitly to the children of Israel as a people. The plural form of λαὸς appears in the Gospel only in Luke 2:31, and then in Acts 4:27, but in Acts 4:27 even though the form is plural, the context is still “of Israel”, and perhaps we will discuss that passage further when we discuss the mistranslated passages in Acts. The plural form of λαὸς appears again in a citation from the Septuagint which appears in Romans chapter 15, and three times in the Revelation. These passages led Joseph Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament to deduce that “the plural… seems to be used of the tribes of the people”, as the children of Israel had already been distinguished by tribes. But in that same manner, Liddell and Scott in their Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon have for their primary definition of λαὸς: “the people, both in singular or plural...” So if not even the plural form of λαὸς was used to describe groups containing diverse races of people, then what term was used for that purpose? This is important, and also illustrates why the context of references to the nations must be examined wherever the phrase appears, which we will further illustrate when we discuss Acts 13:46.

The word ἔθνος is properly “a number of people accustomed to live together, a company, body of men … after Homer, a nation, people … a special class of men, a caste, tribe ...” (Liddell & Scott). Where Christ said here in Luke chapter 18 that “he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles” to be mocked and abused, it is evident that subsequently He was mocked and abused in that manner by both Judaeans and by Romans. That is fully evident comparing Matthew 26:67 and Mark 14:65, where Judaeans had done these things, with Matthew 27:30 and Mark 15:19 where Romans had done these things. So in this context ἔθνος in the plural must have referred to both Judaeans and Romans, and if we see that Judaeans are also called by the term ἔθνος, then it cannot mean what denominational Christians think it means, which is “non-Jew”. If Judaeans, or Israelites, are identified with the term ἔθνος, then both Judaeans and Israelites are also gentiles.

What is important to note here is that while ἔθνος literally means nation, in the plural it was also used to describe groups consisting of people of more than one nation, which was common in Judaea at the time of Christ, as well as in diverse other places, where there were Israelites, Edomites, Syrians, Samaritans, Greeks and Romans all living in the same places. So it is in that same manner that Christ is recorded as having used the plural form of ἔθνος to describe those who would mock Him. Likewise, Paul used the term of the people attending the synagogues in Anatolia and Greece, as they were mixed crowds of both Judaeans and Greeks.

This leads us to move on to the book of Acts, and we will discuss these same words for nation and race in several passages from Acts.

44) continued: Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in the Book of Acts

Acts 2:37-40 “37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

If a generation is all of the people living at the same time, how does a man save himself from his own generation? How can he escape from the time in which he lives? But once again, the word translated as generation is γενεὰ here, which is race. We have already discussed Luke 11:45-52 where the word γενεὰ must be translated as race, where it was used to refer to people, sons and fathers, and events from times both near and remote, or it makes no sense whatsoever. That is also the case here, as a man cannot save himself from the time in which he lives, and neither should a period of time be a threat from which a man should have to save himself.

But as we have already described at length, Judaea was a mixed-race society of Israelites and Edomites, and it was the Edomites who had been in control of the government and the temple since the days the first Herod, the Edomite who was made king by the Romans. Many of the people of Judaea, being Edomites themselves or being under the influence of the Edomite government, had rejected Christ, and as it was written in the books of the prophets, and as Christ had also warned, destruction was going to come upon them. Peter was warning his fellow Israelites to turn to Christ, and thereby to abandon Judaism, by which they would save themselves from the destruction which was sure to come upon the Judaeans. Therefore we read in the Christogenea New Testament translation of Acts 2:40: “And with many other words he affirmed and exhorted them saying ‘You must be saved from this crooked race!’”

So we contend with the translation of a similar word as it is found in Acts chapter 4, where the high priests were persecuting the apostles of Christ and we read: “5 And there was on the next day a gathering of them, the leaders and the elders and the scribes in Jerusalem, 6 and Hannas the high priest and Kaïaphas and Iohannes and Alexandros and as many as were of the race of the high priest, 7 and standing them in the midst they inquired, ‘By what power or by what name have you done this?’”

There at the end of verse 6, the King James Version has “kindred of the high priest”, yet the word for kindred is γένος, a word which is cognate with γενεὰ and which is virtually identical in meaning. Liddell & Scott define γένος as race, stock, kin, and secondly as clan, house, family. So while it may be interpreted as kindred by itself, the context is determined further on, in verse 23, where we see an opposing phrase that relates to the apostles and it says “And being released they went to their own countrymen and reported as much as the high priests and the elders said to them.”

While τοὺς ἰδίους is “their own company” in the King James Version, in his Greek-English lexicon Joseph Thayer has at ἴδιος (2398), “for the Nominative plural οἱ ἴδιοι, one’s own people...one’s fellow-countrymen, associates...one’s household, persons belonging to the house, family, or company...”, and the 9th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon agrees, having at the same phrase under ἴδιος “[a] member of one’s family, relatives”. In the context here, it must be asserted that the word is opposed to the phrase above at Acts 4:6 which reads “and as many as were of the race of the high priest”, knowing from sources such as Strabo and Josephus, as well as Paul of Tarsus, that at least many of the leaders and high priests of the time were Edomites, but the people of Christ were true Israelites. Luke must have purposely meant to make this particular distinction, thereby choosing the words τοὺς ἰδίους to refer to the people of the apostles in contrast to using γένος, or race, to describe those on the side of the high priests. This distinction is lost where these passages are translated in the King James Version, yet Acts Chapter 4 shows that the apostles were not of the same race as the high priests, and that the high priests were not the countrymen of the apostles. If all of these people were Jews, as the denominational Christian churches claim, then we would not see such phrases as these employed at all, contrasting one group of Judaeans to another group of Judaeans.

Another passage in Acts, in chapter 7, clearly shows that the word γένος describes a race, where the martyr Stephen is describing the ancient captivity in Egypt, and the King James Version, where it is speaking of pharoah, says: “The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” Yet there the word for kindred is γένος, and in that context it is more appropriately race.

The Nations and Kings of Israel

In Acts chapter 9 we have the conversion of Paul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. Then, having suffered damage to his eyes, Christ had sent to Paul a Christian man in Damascus named Ananias. Christ appeared to Ananias in a vision and sent him to Paul, but Ananias was reluctant as he knew that Paul had been persecuting Christians. Christ sent him anyway, as we read in Acts chapter 9: “15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.” Here we have the mission of Paul of Tarsus summarized in Acts chapter 9, but the translation of the King James Version is insufficient, as it leaves the reader with the impression that the nations and kings are “Gentiles”, and that they are parties distinct from the children of Israel.

In the Christogenea New Testament, Acts 9:15 reads: “15 But the Prince said to him “’Go! For he is a vessel chosen by Me who is to bear My Name before both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.’” The phrase τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων υἱῶν τε ἰσραήλ: is here “both the Nations and kings of the sons of Israel.” The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, following the codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and the Majority Text, wants the first definite article, τῶν or the, while the codices Vaticanus and Ephraemi Syri have the article. With the article, the phrase is a form of hendiatrisin (also called a hendiatris, which is a grammatical term meaning “one by means of three”). A hediatris is a longer form of what is called a hendiadys (“one by means of two”), where the items joined by the conjunctions coalesce, or represent the same entity. (for which see MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion, p. 117).

But even without the article, the grammar reveals that there is an intrinsic connection between the nouns here. Notice that there are two consecutive conjunctions between the words for nations and kings. While the Greek particle τε may be written simply “and”, followed by καί it is “both...and” which the lexicons of both Liddell & Scott and Thayer explain at their respective entries for τε (5037). Thayer gives examples for τε...καί and τε καί: “not only...but also”, “as well...as”, and “both...and”. The final τε is not rendered here, and it certainly shouldn’t be “and” because “of the sons of Israel” is not an addition, but is the same entity as “the Nations and kings”, all three items being of one and the same entity. The repetition of the τε only strengthens the connection of Israel to the nations and kings, especially as it is positioned between the words for sons and Israel.

Thayer states that τε differs from the particle καί, where καί is conjunctive, but τε is adjunctive and that “καί introduces something new under the same aspect yet as an external addition, whereas τε marks it as having an inner connection with what precedes” (Thayer, τε, p. 616, column B.). So, if the second occurrence of the word τε is translated, the phrase may well have been rendered “both the Nations and kings both of the sons of Israel”, and therefore while it is not exactly literal, it would not do any damage to the meaning of the phrase to interpret it as: “both the Nations of the sons of Israel, and the kings of the sons of Israel”, which is in fulfillment with the purpose of the Gospel as it was described by Luke in his opening chapters.

As the Book of Acts progresses, the truth of this interpretation is ascertained first where Paul describes the agreement which he and Barnabas had with the other apostles, and we read in Galatians chapter 2, from the King James Version: “9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” Of course, heathen there is the plural of ἔθνος and it means nations, the nations to which Paul was told he would go in Acts chapter 9. If Paul was commissioned to go to the nations of Israel, as it says here, and they were not circumcised, then we see that the nations to which Paul was sent were the nations of the captivities of Israel, and the tribes of Israelites who were in the Assyrian captivity had already migrated north and west into Europe, so that is where Paul and Barnabas had went, beginning in Acts chapter 13.

Even later, while addressing the Judaeans in Acts chapter 22 after he had been arrested in Jerusalem, Paul had once again recounted the commission which Christ had given to him and he told them in part: “21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” So Paul was told by Christ to go to far off nations, and the nations of Europe are the nations of Israel to which he was sent. Then Luke recorded the reaction of the Jews: “22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” So the only thing Paul said for which the Jews wanted to kill him was that he was commissioned to take the gospel to the twelve tribes of Israel scattered abroad.

That is not a leap in our interpretation. Not only do we know from Acts chapter 9 that Paul was taking the gospel to the scattered nations and kings of Israel, but also from Acts chapter 26, where he was still under arrest and was being sent to Rome, and after having been questioned by the Edomite king Herod Agrippa II, Paul said “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” Right there, comparing what Paul said to the Jews in Acts 22 for which they wanted to kill him, we see that the far off nations to which he was sent were indeed the nations of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Paul’s epistles prove that same thing over and over again.

But the denominational churches again sow confusion, where they translate the word as Gentiles in Acts 13:46. We had just mentioned this passage earlier in relation to our discussion of the word λαός. In the King James Version it reads: “46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

The denominational Christians claim that this is where Paul gave up on the Jews, and that from this point he only went to Gentiles, as if Paul would, or even could, abandon the original commission given him by Christ. But they are lying, because that is certainly not true. This event in Acts chapter 13 happened in Pisidian Antioch, and if Paul gave up on the Jews and said that from this time he would go to gentiles, why is it that he is found in a synagogue in Iconium, speaking to Judaeans, in the very next chapter in Acts 14:1? And he was in a synagogue again in Thessalonica in Acts 17:1, and in Berea in Acts 17:10, and in Athens in Acts 17:17, and in Corinth in Acts 18:1, and in Ephesus in a synagogue for three months in Acts 19:8? The denominational interpretation of this passage is clearly wrong, and therefore the words must have some other meaning by which they can be translated, because Luke is not a liar.

In the Christogenea New Testament, Acts 13:46 reads: “Then Paul and Barnabas speaking openly said: “To you it was necessary to speak the Word of Yahweh first. Since you have rejected Him and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the people!” The scope is local. The local rulers of this synagogue rejected Paul and Barnabas, and Paul told them that he would bypass them and speak directly to the people. The proof of our interpretation is in the fact that Paul went to so many other synagogues soon thereafter.

The King James Version has Gentiles here at Acts 13:46, where we have people. The phrase is τὰ ἔθνη, the Accusative plural of ἔθνος (1484), and with the Article here it is the people. There are several other places in the New Testament where context dictates that ἔθνος be rendered people and not nation or even heathen, and among them are Mark 11:17, Acts 8:9 and 18:6, and 1 Corinthians 12:2. The King James Version even has people for ἔθνος at Acts 8:9, and at Isaiah 56:7, which is quoted at Mark 11:17, the King James Version has “mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people” in Isaiah but “My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer” in Mark. In the Septuagint, Brenton has people for ἔθνος in Leviticus 20:2, and I haven’t checked elsewhere in that volume. In any event, we see that in some contexts, people is a valid interpretation of the Greek word ἔθνος.

But we have already asserted the fact that the word λαός was not used to describe people of various races or nations together in the same context. In those cases, which is also the case here, the plural form of ἔθνος, which with the Definite Article is τὰ ἔθνη, was used instead. In the context of Acts 13:46 here, Paul had addressed the assembly hall leaders and he rejected them – those who had opposed him in this one local synagogue – and he turned to the people themselves who made up the assembly, which consisted of both Judaeans and Greeks, and, because this is Pisidian Antioch, there also may have been some Kelts, Romans, and maybe even Phrygians, all of whom were Adamites, and most of whom were descended from the ancient Israelites. So the mixed group cannot properly be termed a λαός (2992), which is the general word for a people in Greek. A λαός is a people as a collective unit, but the group which consists of various ethnic backgrounds is not properly considered a λαός, and so it is termed τὰ ἔθνη, the different nations of people in a particular place or context.

It is an absolute fallacy committed by many theologians that here Paul invents a new religion, rejecting the Judaeans and bringing Christianity instead to some “gentiles”, but this is the usual interpretation. Many Bible editions cross-reference Matthew 21:43 to this passage in Acts 13:46 to somehow support this fallacy. Instead, Matthew 21:43, where Christ says to the Pharisees that “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”, should be cross-referenced to Daniel 2:44 and Micah 4:7-8, which are both prophecies of the everlasting kingdom of the Israelite people of Yahweh.