On the Gospel of John, Part 3: The Sons of God

On the Gospel of John, Part 3: The Sons of God

In the opening portions of this commentary on the Gospel of John, we hope to have sufficiently illustrated from Old Testament Scriptures, as well as from the Revelation and other sources, the meanings of the assertions that Yahshua Christ is the Word made Flesh and the Light come into the World, assertions by which the apostle had poetically and confidently attested that Yahshua Christ was indeed Yahweh God Himself, the God of the Old Testament incarnate as a man, and that He was the true Messenger to man sweeping aside all of the false claims of antiquity. So we saw that John, attesting that Christ is the light come into the world, had also made an assertion in reference to Christ which had formerly been claimed by the great kings of antiquity, those of the Hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians and others, who had made that same claim for themselves, even imagining for themselves to be the incarnation of the Sun on earth. Later, in John chapter 12, Christ Himself is recorded as having originated the assertions which John has made for Him here, as the event actually preceded the record.

Then coming to verse 10 of this first chapter of John, we contended with the King James translation of the passage, which reads “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” The meaning of this passage clearly may have been different in the original understanding of the English of 1611, the word world now having a different meaning. Examining that word world, we came to the conclusion that the word would better be translated as society, since it does not refer to the entire planet and everything on it in the way that it is often interpreted today. There are passages in the classical Greek writings where the word appears in broad contexts and may be interpreted as universe, however that is not necessarily the manner in which it was used in the New Testament, and it was not always the manner in which the classical Greek writers had used the term.

It is of course true that in six days, days which we interpret to be ages, Yahweh God made the heaven and the earth and everything in them. In those same six days, or ages, He takes credit for having created the sun, moon and stars, things which are generally perceived as being outside of our planet. However it is also true that there are many things here on this planet, even people, whom Yahweh does not take credit for having created. This is evident in Matthew chapter 15 where Christ said “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” It is also apparent in Matthew chapter 13 in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares where He said “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world [or κόσμος]…. 38 The field is the world [or κόσμος]; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world [or αἰών, an age]; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world [again, αἰών, or age].” Since certain things were “kept secret from the foundation of the world” there must be a history of certain early events which were not revealed in the Genesis account.

But as we see in the revelations of the New Testament scriptures, there is a world which Yahweh created, and there is a world which “lieth in wickedness”, as the King James Version translates 1 John 5:19, in part. Among the elements of this wickedness are the plants which Yahweh did not plant, and the tares sown by the devil, who is also identified as that primeval serpent of Genesis. So if the world is the entire planet, and if He has promised to root up and destroy so much of it, which world is it that Yahshua seeks to save? If everything that Yahweh created is good, and if, as Christ attests, a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 7 and Luke chapter 6, how is that He can also say to His disciples, as it is recorded in John chapter 7, “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.” And how is it that He says to them later, in John chapter 15, “18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” For this reason James later said that “a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” If we choose to follow the world, it cannot hate us, but if we choose to obey our God, it certainly does hate us.

So there is a world which Christ created, which He seeks to save, and there is a world which is evil and which hates both Christ and those who follow Him. This later world is alien to Christ, and therefore it cannot be the world which He created. One world will be saved, and one world will be destroyed. Therefore we cannot imagine that the world in these cases is the universe, or the planet. To the ancient Greeks, κόσμος could refer to the entire universe, as a specific order, which is what the word really means: order. Or it could refer to the functioning order of a government or the order of some particular portion of the planet. But it never referred to the planet alone, and neither can it in the context of the New Testament. So we can only conclude that it must be translated as society, referring either to the lawful society instituted by God when He organized the children of Israel into a Kingdom, or to the corrupt society of the world which “lieth in wickedness” which is destined for destruction. With this understanding, the many passages containing the words αἰών, κόσμος, and οἰκουμένη, the words translated as world in the King James Version, all fall into perfect harmony with the many Messianic promises for Israel which are found in the prophets of the Old Testament.

Now we arrive at John 1:11, and in 2006, when I first translated the Gospel of John, I compiled my translation notes for the next three verses of this gospel into a paper which Clifton Emahiser then distributed to his mailing list, and had published at the Israel Elect website under the title, Translating John 1:11-13, although now the link redirects to Christogenea. I sent Clifton this essay because I believed, and I still do believe, that a proper translation of these verses is crucial to our Identity understanding of Scripture, and it is ground-breaking evidence of the truth of our Christian Identity assertions concerning the Gospel of Christ, and I was persuaded that this evidence should be made known as soon as possible among our Christian Identity community. I knew it would yet be several years before I could publish my translation and my notes, and I did not want to have to wait so long to share these. Now, 12 years later in June of 2018, I am finally beginning to publish my translation notes on John’s gospel in this commentary, and we must of course incorporate this essay into that endeavor. I am going to include the entire essay, although certain parts of it may be superfluous to our purposes here, but I will of course edit it where I think it requires editing, and elaborate where it requires elaboration.

Translating John 1:11-13

Many of those who wisely reject the universalism of modern denominational churchianity unjustly blame the writings of Paul of Tarsus for the errant universalist positions being trumpeted by the mainstream theologians. However these critics of Paul fail to realize, or at least admit, that the errors of universalism are founded in like manner upon misinterpretations of statements found in the gospels and other New Testament scriptures, as well as in certain passages found in Paul’s letters. One passage in the gospels which has often been misinterpreted in such a fashion is John 1:11-13, which shall be discussed at length here. Once the New Testament is translated in a proper historical and scriptural context, while maintaining the integrity of scholarly Greek exegesis, it is certain that not only the gospels, but also the letters of Paul and other New Testament scriptures are not universalist, but rather they are exclusivist, separatist, containing a consistent message borne only to those nations which had in ancient times descended from the Old Testament Israelites. The gospel was for the twelve tribes, as attested by James and by Paul (Acts 26:6-7). Those nations are now found in the Aryan nations of Europe, a claim which is fully demonstrable from both history and scripture, and especially from Paul’s letters.

In the King James version, John 1:11-13 reads thusly: “11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Now in the Christogenea New Testament, we read this same passage to state the following:

11 He came into His own land, and the men of the country received Him not. 12 But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which the children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His Name: 13 not those from of mixed origin nor from of desire of the flesh nor from of the will of man, but they who have been born from Yahweh.

Among the many New Testament manuscripts and fragments in which all or part of these three verses have been preserved, there are only a couple of differences in the readings of the Greek in verse 13. First, the early 3rd century papyrus P66 and the Codices Sinaiticus (א) and Bezae (D) have “no one” rather than “not those”, which seems to be an irrelevant difference. Second, the Codex Vaticanus (B) is wanting the phrase “nor from the will of man”, which we see as a parallelism, the same meaning being conveyed in the phrase “nor from of desire of the flesh” which is found in all of the manuscripts.

Here the Greek of this passage shall be examined, one verse at a time, starting with verse 11:

John 1:11: εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν [He came into His own land], καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι [and the men of the country] αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον [received Him not].

Citing An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon Founded Upon The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, by itself ἴδιος is basically and primarily an adjective meaning “I. one’s own, pertaining to oneself ... 1. private, personal…”, but it has many related meanings in various contexts. This is also the primary definition for the word in the large 9th edition of the same lexicon. In this particular passage, there are two phrases which are derived from this word ἴδιος (Strong’s #2398). These we have translated as “His own land”, from the accusative neuter plural τὰ ἴδια, and “the men of the country”, from the nominative masculine plural οἱ ἴδιοι. The interpretation of this verse revolves around the way that those two phrases are understood.

Here the first occurrence of ἴδιος is the neuter plural, while the second is the masculine plural. It is not necessary that they both describe the same entity, or John may have constructed the passage in a way that explicitly indicates the connection. Both occurrences of the word appear with the definite article, where each phrase is therefore actually a Substantive, a group of words functioning as a noun. Only the second occurrence, being in the masculine, can properly refer to people. The first, being neuter, must refer to something material. While its rendering is poetic, the King James Version misses this important distinction entirely.

The large 9th Edition of A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott has for the phrase τὰ ἴδια “one’s own property”, citing examples from secular Greek writings. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has for this same phrase “one’s native land”. So we wrote “He came into His own land”.

For the second phrase derived from ἴδιος here, οἱ ἴδιοι, Liddell & Scott have in their 9th edition that is it used to refer to “members of one’s family, relatives”, but the 1996 Revised Supplement to this edition of the lexicon, illustrating an example where the word appeared in the singular, adds “fellow townsman” in addition to “relatives”, citing the appearance of the phrase τὸν ἴδιον συμβιωτήν described in a volume of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum [SEG 29.1185 (Lydia)]. The word συμβιωτής describes one who lives together with someone, but even τὸν ἴδιον συμβιωτήν is not necessarily one’s own relation by blood. Thayer says of οἱ ἴδιοι: “one’s fellow-countrymen, associates, Jn. i. 11…”, citing this very passage. Here it shall be asserted that οἱ ἴδιοι should be interpreted to be a reference to τὰ ἴδια, describing the people belonging to the land, rather than the people belonging to Yahshua Christ.

It must be realized that not all of the inhabitants of Judaea at the time of Christ’s first coming were of His people Israel, as He Himself tells us at John 8:30-47 and 10:26, among other places. So we read, in part, in the parable of the ten servants found in Luke chapter 19: “… A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return…. 14 But his citizens [the inhabitants of the land] hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.” Ultimately, in verse 27 of the chapter, at the end of the parable, he commanded his servants to take them who rejected him and slay them. Likewise, in John chapter 8 Christ told those who rejected Him: “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me… 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” Then in John chapter 10 He told them: “26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” Finally, in Revelation chapter 2 He warned: “ I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judeaens], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” And in chapter 3: “ 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judeaens], and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

So if there were people in Judaea who rejected Christ, and Christ Himself said that the reason they rejected Him is because they were not His people in the first place, then we cannot force a translation of John 1:11 which leads us to imagine that they were His people. If there is another possible translation, we must accept that other translation rather than make Christ or even John contradict himself. We have a better rendering: those who rejected Him were the people of the land that He came into as the heir, but they were not His people. This is also consistent with the parable of the vineyard dresser found in Luke chapter 13.

Rather, besides some authentic Israelites, Judaea was also populated with the hated Edomites, as Ezekiel prophecies in chapters 35 and 36, as Paul explains in Romans 9:1-13, and as historians such as Strabo (Geography, 16.2.34) and Josephus (Antiquities 13:254-258, 395-397) explicitly attest. That these Edomites came to authority in Judaea from the time of Herod is also evident throughout Josephus’ Antiquities, along with other historical accounts such as those of Eusebius, and the letters of Paul (Romans 16:20; 2 Thessalonians 2), and this is the very theme of the parable found at Luke 19:11-27. Therefore οἱ ἴδιοι is here interpreted to refer to “the men of the country”, those people inhabiting Judaea in general, and not merely to the relatives of Christ, and this interpretation is certainly in agreement with the possible definitions of the phrase provided by the lexicons.

The phrase refers back not to Christ, but to the land: the land's own people, not Christ's own people. John 1:11 may properly be read: “He came into His own land, and the men of [that land, or of] the country received Him not”. Or alternatively, if οἱ ἴδιοι is understood to refer back not to Christ, but to τὰ ἴδια, the land itself, the verse may be rendered: “He came into His own land, and its inhabitants received Him not.” Either of these versions fully concurs with the Greek grammar, with the parable in Luke mentioned above, and also with the context of the entire Bible. Yet there is no distortion of the meaning of the original Greek, while the distinction in the use of the neuter and masculine genders of the two phrases is also maintained.

Now to proceed to John 1:12:

John 1:12: ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν [But as many who received Him], ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν [He gave to them the authority] τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι [which the children of Yahweh are to attain], τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ [to those believing in His Name];

The first and last clauses of this verse, which I translate “But as many who received Him” and “to those believing in His name”, are not matters of contention when they are compared to the way that the King James Version renders the verse. Where I must differ, however, is with the middle clause, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, which the King James Version renders as “to them gave he power to become the sons of God”.

The word τέκνα (τέκνον, Strong’s # 5043) in this plural form children is ambiguous since the form is the same for both the Nominative and Accusative cases and it is not accompanied by a definite article, which would have clarified the intention. So it is debatable whether the word is the subject or the object of the verb γενέσθαι, an aorist infinitive medium voice form of γίγνομαι (Strong’s # 1096), which in its most basic interpretation is “to come into being” (Liddell & Scott). Here, for reasons that shall become evident below, I must treat τέκνα as the subject of the verb, reading it in the Nominative case, and not as the object in the manner that the King James Version has it.

That this same form of the verb γίγνομαι may be understood in the active sense, here “to attain”, is evident in the Apocrypha at 2 Maccabees 13:13. There in his edition of the Septuagint, Brenton rendered the phrase καὶ γενέσθαι τῆς πόλεως ἐγκρατεῖς simply “and get the city”. The King James Apocrypha rendered this same passage in the very same manner, “and get the city”. This phrase I would render more literally, and more properly word for word, “and to attain control of the city”. Similarly, in my own translation of Acts 27:16, completed a year before I translated John, the phrase περικρατεῖς γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης is rendered “to attain full control of the skiff”. The King James renders that phrase rather strangely: “to come by the boat”. These examples clearly support a similar interpretation of the verb as I have translated it in this context here at John 1:12.

Christ came only for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, as He professes in Matthew chapter 15. His purpose was to “confirm the promises made to the fathers”, as Paul professed in Romans chapter 15 and as Luke explained in the first chapter of his gospel. The children of Israel cannot “become” children of Yahweh. Being children of Adam, they already are children of Yahweh (Luke 3:38), and are told as much explicitly in the Old Testament (i.e. Deuteronomy 14; Isaiah 43 and 45) as well as in the New (Romans 8; Hebrews 2), Here in chapter 11 of his Gospel the apostle John makes a reference to the children of God spread abroad, meaning those who were already children.

In Luke chapter 3 the apostle concludes his genealogy of Christ with the mention of “Adam, which was the son of God.”

In Deuteronomy 14:1 the children of Israel are told: “Ye are the children of the LORD your God...”

In Isaiah chapter 43, the children of Israel are described in their captivity: “1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. 2 When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. 3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life. [Other nations were given up for the sake of the children of Israel, so they themselves were certainly not being replaced with other nations.] 5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; 6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; 7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.”

In Isaiah chapter 45, the children of Israel are further spoken of in their captivity: “11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.” The answer to those things which Yahweh wanted His people to ask concerning His children is found in the Gospel. The Gospel is the answer to the fate of His people, that they are reconciled to Him through Christ.

In Romans chapter 8, Paul tells his readers, whom he had already demonstrated are some of the “lost” Israelites: “16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

In Hebrews chapter 2 Paul explains the relationship of Christ to the children of Israel: “13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood [those who are already children], he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil...” In Hebrews chapter 8 Paul explains, citing Jeremiah, that the New Covenant is for the House of Israel and the House of Judah. These are the children of Yahweh. In the ultimate chapters of the Revelation, the City of God has their names on its gates, and ostensibly, nobody else shall enter therein.

In John chapter 11, the apostle records a statement made by the high priest in reference to Christ, which the apostle interpreted as a prophecy, saying: “51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” Those children of God scattered abroad are the same children which Yahweh had promised to gather in Isaiah, the ancient children of Israel.

Abraham was never told that gentiles, or any alien people or foreign nations, would somehow become his offspring – as the universalist denominational churches teach. And the other races, who are not of Adam, are never addressed in the Bible but for a few exceptions where certain tribes are mentioned which evidently did not descend from Noah, such as the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Perizzites and Rephaim of Genesis 15:19-21, or where aliens are pejoratively called “beasts”, for example in Exodus 19:12-13; Isaiah 56:9; Jeremiah 31:27; or Hebrews 12:20. But there are certainly no indications that any of the aliens or the beasts could ever become children of Yahweh! These tribes were explicitly accursed and excluded. Rather, Abraham was told that his offspring would become many nations, which we may see in the promises of Genesis chapters 17 and 35, and which the children of Israel did become, and which Paul explains fully in Romans chapter 4, a fact which can be ascertained in ancient history.

Speaking of those same ancient scattered Israelites, Yahweh said in Amos chapter 3: “1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. 3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? ” That agreement was to be found in Christ, and these are the sons and daughters which Christ promised to gather, as we have seen in Isaiah, and as we have seen in John chapter 11.

With all of this, and without violating any of the rules of Greek grammar, it is certainly more proper to render John 1:12: “But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His name.” We do not have this authority now, even if we believe, so therefore the understanding of John’s words reflected in the King James Verrsion cannot be correct. Therefore, to see what John was referring to, we shall cite gospel passages from Matthew chapters 16 and 18 and from Luke chapter 10. Our translation is consistent with both Old and New Testament scriptures, but the reading of the King James Version for this passage produces serious conflicts which cannot be resolved in Scripture.

The authority given to those who received Christ is described in Matthew chapter 16, where Peter had professed that Yahshua was the Christ, so we read: “17 And replying Yahshua said to him: ‘Blessed you are, Simon son of Ionas, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but My Father who is in the heavens! 18 And I say to you that you are a stone [petros], yet upon this bedrock [petra] shall I build My assembly and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it! 19 I shall give to you the little keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and he whom you should bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens, and he whom you should release upon the earth shall be released in the heavens!’”

So we read in John 1:12: “But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His name.” John is writing this account retrospectively.

Then we read in Matthew chapter 18, where Christ is speaking to other disciples besides Peter, we see that they were promised that same authority: “18 Truly I say to you, whoever you shall bind upon the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whoever you shall loose upon the earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I say to you that if two from among you upon the earth should agree concerning any matter of which they should ask, it shall be brought to pass for them by My Father who is in the heavens. 20 For where there are two or three gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them!”

So we read in John 1:12: “But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His name.” We are purposely repeating ourselves to stress the importance of understanding this connection.

Then we read in Luke chapter 10 where Yahshua promised His disciples similar authority: “1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. 3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. 5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. 6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. 7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. 15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. 16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.”

So we read in John 1:12: “But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His name.”

These accounts from the gospels are exactly what John was referring to many years later when he recorded these words in reflection upon the things that had transpired during the ministry of Christ. These words do not give Christians license today to take squat-monsters out of the jungles of the netherworld and attempt to somehow make them into “children of God”! Rather, upon the restoration of the children of Israel, they, the children of God, will have that same power which the apostles were given. That is the deposit of the Spirit later spoken of by Paul, that is a Christian promise, and it was that, which we have seen here in the other gospel accounts, to which John had referred.

Before proceeding, it may be appropriate to discuss the word translated as adoption in the King James Version, where it appears in Paul’s letters at Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5. This word is υἱοθεσία (5206), and it is literally the placing of a son or the position of a son, son being υἱός (5207). While the word may be used to describe the placing of a son for the purposes of adoption, or for any other purpose, the actual act of adoption is described by the Greek words εἰσποιήσις, which is a noun, and εἰσποιέω, which is a verb and literally means to make into, which in the context of people is to make someone into a son. A general theme of the Bible, as reported by the prophets, the gospels, the letters of Paul, and the Revelation, is that Yahweh had put the children of Israel off in punishment, and that the children of Israel would be reconciled to Yahweh through Yahshua Christ. That reconciliation includes the restoration of each Israelite, upon the acceptance of Christ, to his or her status as a child of Yahweh, upon a return to obedience, which is a conformance with Christ. That is the meaning of υἱοθεσία, a placing of a son into a particular position, which in this case is a position of reconciliation with God.

But whether one wants to translate υἱοθεσία correctly as the position of a son, the placing of one who is already a son, or a daughter, or incorrectly as adoption is even immaterial in the Scriptural context, since in any case Paul tells us explicitly that it pertains to Israelites (Romans 9:4), who are “them that were under the law” whom Christ came to redeem (Galatians 4:5), and it pertains to no one else! Paul specifically states in Romans chapter 9 that “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” are for Israelites “whose are the fathers”, and there are no other Israelites who could be of the fathers but genetic Israelites. So how could Christians apply any of it to anyone else? There is no room for universalism in the New Testament, except in the minds of those who would pervert the intentions of the Word made Flesh. People would rather take one word out of context, and build their entire world-view upon that one misunderstood word, than actually take the time to read the whole of the Scriptures and consider the context of each word as it appears. People who do such things are those who are described by Paul at Ephesians 4:14 where he described “children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

With this we shall proceed to John 1:13:

John 1:13: οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων [not those from of mixed origin] οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς [nor from of desire of the flesh,] οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς [nor from of the will of man,] ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν [but they who have been born from Yahweh].

We have already discussed the differences in this passage which are found in some of the manuscripts, which really do not change anything significant. But in any event, the text which we employ here, from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition (NA27), is sufficiently attested by several other codices and papyri of equal or greater antiquity than those which differ.

The only point of contention here is the first portion of the verse, specifically with the interpretation of the words ἐξ αἱμάτων, where the King James Version has “of blood”, a rendering which I must protest. The King James Version’s reading of the other words is acceptable. So here we will focus on this one short phrase, where the King James Version has rendered ἐξ αἱμάτων simply “of blood”. I cannot find this to be acceptable.

Employing the Fifth Edition of A Concordance To The Greek Testament by W.F. Moulton and A.S. Geden as a guide, out of as many as 99 occurrences of the word αἷμα (Strong’s # 129), or blood, in the New Testament, this is the only time that the word appears in the plural, and with all certainty, for that reason alone the phrase merits deeper investigation. I shall begin that investigation by turning to the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint.

According to the Second Edition of A Concordance to the Septuagint And the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) by Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, the word αἷμα appears in the plural in the Septuagint manuscripts on as many as 53 occasions, counting all listed variations among those manuscripts as they are supplied by Hatch & Redpath. Examining the Septuagint, one must also consider also the Hebrew form from which the word was apparently translated. The Hebrew Dictionary in Strong’s Concordance says of the Hebrew word for blood, dam (Strong’s # 1818), that it was used: “figuratively (especially in the plural) [to describe] bloodshed”, and this is the obvious meaning in the context of 50 of 53 occasions where αἷμα is found in the plural in the Septuagint. Here we shall provide the list of passages: Judges 9:24; 2 Kings 3:28; 16:7, 8 (bis); 21:1; 3 Kings 2:5, 33; 4 Kings 9:7 (bis), 26 (bis); 1 Chronicles 22:8; 28:3; 2 Chronicles 30:16; Esther 8:13; Psalms 5:6; 9:12; 15:4; 25:9; 50:14; 54:23; 58:2; 105:39; 138:19; Proverbs 29:10; Jeremiah 2:34; 19:4; Ezekiel 16:36; 22:2, 3 (bis), 13; 23:45; 24:6, 7, 9, 14; Micah 3:10; 7:2; Nahum 3:1; Habakkuk 2:8, 12, 17; Sirach 22:24; 31 (34):21; 1 Maccabees 7:17 and 2 Maccabees 8:3; 14:18 and 45. In all fifty of these places it is apparent, and significantly important to notice, that the translators maintained the Hebraism, writing αἷμα in the plural in the Septuagint, where bloodshed is implicated, wherever the Hebrew word for blood had apparently been in the plural in the original. Twice Brenton’s translation recognizes this idiom, where he rendered the word as “blood-guiltiness” at Psalm 50:14, and “bloodshed” at Ezekiel 24:14. However if one reads all of these passages, it will be apparent that they all may have been, and should have been, rendered in this same manner.

Of the other 3 occasions where αἷμα is plural in the Septuagint manuscripts, one is at Amos 2:4 where only the Codex Alexandrinus has αἷματα, “bloods”, in place of μάταια, or “vanities”, which is the reading in all other manuscripts, and examining the context αἷματα is an obvious gloss. The final two occurrences of αἷμα in the plural are found at Hosea 4:2, where the word appears twice, and the Greek καὶ μοιχειά κέχυται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς , καὶ αἷματα ἐφ̉’ αἷμασι μίγουσι is translated by Brenton to read: “and adultery abound in the land, and they mingle blood with blood”, even though “blood” here is plural on both occasions. This statement by Hosea is an obvious reference to race-mixing, since it is in the context of adultery. Although the King James Version is somewhat different, Brenton’s translation is faithful to the Greek of the Septuagint text, which obviously differs somewhat from the Masoretic Text here. However we may translate the last part of Hosea 4:2 from the Hebrew to read: “… and committing adultery they break away and with bloods they touch bloods.” If bloods should be rendered idiomatically as bloodshed here, it is because mixing one’s blood in adultery is essentially murder, it is bloodshed because it is the destruction of one’s seed.

As a digression, since I wrote this in 2006, I have found through the help of a native Greek-reading friend that one use of the word for adultery by the ancient Greeks is indeed to refer to race-mixing. The following is from the first part of our recent commentary on Paul’s epistle to Titus, subtitled Purity Spiraling in Apostolic Christianity:

Anyway, our friend recently brought to our attention a passage in Aristotle’s Animalia, or The History of Animals, which reads τα γαρ αλλα γενη [since the other races, or species] μεμικται [are mixed] και μεμοιχευται [and diluted] υπ ' αλληλων [by one another, or by each other]. This passage is found 5 lines from the bottom of page 442 of Book 10 of Aristotle’s History of Animals in Greek and Latin (Aristotelis de Animalibus historiae libri X, graece et latine), evidently compiled by French naturalist Georges Cuvier, edited by Iohannes Schneider, and published in 1811 in Lyon, France.

An 1878 translation of this book of Aristotle by Richard Creswell at St John’s College at Oxford has this same passage to read: “for the other kinds are mixed and crossed with each other”, and even there we see that μοιχευω, the common word [a verb] in the Greek Scriptures for adultery, refers to the cross-breeding of species. So that we can show the context, we will read the entire paragraph from Creswell’s translation:

“3. There is another kind of eagle called sea eagle, which has a long and thick neck, curved wings, and a wide rump. It inhabits the sea and the coast. When they have seized their prey, and cannot carry it away, they are borne down into the sea. There is, again, another kind of eagle, called true eagle. They say that these alone of all other birds are true, for the other kinds are mixed and crossed with each other, both eagles, hawks, and other smaller kinds. This is the largest of all the eagles, greater than the phene; one and a half times as large as other eagles, and of a red colour: it is seldom seen, like that called cymindis.”

We are not going to argue with Aristotle regarding his view on birds, or whether they really interbreed. Rather we only care for the words which he used here and the manner in which he used them. This passage contains a perfect form of the verbs μίγνυμι (μεμικται) and μοιχευω (μεμοιχευται), which we must translate as “since the other species are mixed and diluted by one another”, and our Greek friend agreed that in this instance, μοιχευω in a passive tense here in this context would have to mean "to be adulterated" because of the mixing. If it bears that sense in the Passive Voice, then in the Active it must mean to adulterate in the sense of race-mixing. So we see that the Greek word μοιχεία can refer to adultery as in having sexual relations with the spouse of another, but it can also refer to the sort of adultery which results from race-mixing.

That is the end of our explanation that race-mixing is indeed a form of adultery, which is prohibited by God, although fornication was also used to describe race-mixing. This example serves to see that where Hosea mentioned “bloods touching bloods” in the context of adultery, he was certainly referring to the adultery of race-mixing.

Now returning to the New Testament, apart from the passage at John 1:13, αἷμα appears on 98 other occasions, including a spurious interpolation found at Luke 22:43-44, and where the word is also found in some manuscripts at Acts 17:26, and where at the end of Matthew 27:49 some manuscripts contain a line which is similar to the text of John 19:34 but which is not found in the King James Version. Of all these 98 other occurrences, αἷμα only appears in the plural twice, and that only in a couple of manuscripts. The first is at Revelation 16:6, in the Codex Sinaiticus, where it appears in that manuscript to be a gloss for the Hebraism since the context is bloodshed. All other codices and papyri have αἷμα in the singular at Revelation 16:6. The second is at Revelation 18:24, where the text upon which the King James Version is based, the Majority Text which is actually a large collection of late Medieval manuscripts, has αἷμα in the plural, as do a couple of 10th century manuscripts designated 046 and 051 in the Nestle-Aland system. All of the older manuscripts, some which date from the 4th and 5th centuries, have αἷμα in the singular here also. So it is relatively safe to say that αἷμα appears in the plural in the New Testament only at this one passage, John 1:13, which all of the extant manuscripts of John attest, and that even the Hebraistic use of the word, where it is rendered in the plural where bloodshed is meant, carried over into the Greek of the Septuagint, but it did not carry over into the Greek of the New Testament scriptures. Therefore this plural occurrence of αἷμα in John 1:13 is unique in the New Testament.

Thayer has at αἷμα, in part: “Since the first germs of animal life are thought to be in the blood… the word serves to denote generation and origin (in the classics also): Jn. i. 13”, citing this very passage. So as we read here, citing John 1:13 Thayer admits that the reference to blood is a reference to generation and origin, which is precisely our assertion. In the Intermediate edition of their Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott have at αἷμα, in part: “blood ... III. like Latin sanguis, blood-relationship, kin ... ὁ πρὸς αἷματος one of the blood or race ...”. Likewise in the large 9th edition: “blood ... III. blood-relationship, kin ... blood or origin….” And here in John 1:13 where αἷμα appears in the plural, Thayer and the other lexicographers admitting that even here it refers to origin, we would certainly agree.

However we would assert that since it is also in the plural it must mean to refer to multiple origins, i.e. mixed blood, bloods, as Thayer himself nearly suggests, but where he failed to address the plural form and chose instead to ignore it. Furthermore, we are supported by the usage of the plural at Hosea 4:2 in the Septuagint, where it is speaking of adultery in the context of adulterous race-mixing.

Since the Hebraism concerning bloodshed certainly does not fit the context for the plural use of αἷμα at John 1:13, and that Hebraism appears nowhere else in the Gospels, even though bloodshed is often referred to (for example, in Luke 11:47-51), this explanation that the word here denotes mixed origins is the only valid alternative. Otherwise, why else should the word appear in the plural here only, of all places? And why does the word appear here at all, when in so many places in the New Testament the Greek words γενεά (Strong’s # 1074) and γένος (Strong’s # 1085) are used to describe race and birth, rather than αἷμα? The plural of αἷμα here was used to convey a specific meaning, which other words and phrases could not do in so simple and eloquent a manner, especially in conjunction with the phrases which follow, concerning carnal desires and the will of man in opposition to the will of Yahweh. For it is unchecked carnal desire which had gotten the Adamic man into trouble from the beginning, which is evident in Genesis chapter 3.

While all of the children of Adam were created from one (and the appearance of the word blood at Acts 17:26 is refuted by the older and better manuscripts), Adam was not merely the first man, but the first White man, as attested to by the Biblical and historical records, since from them only the White race can be traced, as well as the anthropological and archaeological records, and the very meaning of the word adam in Hebrew. The White race as it exists today, these alone are the children of God. [Refer to our essay, The Race of Genesis 10.]

That reading mixed origins for the plural of αἷμα makes sense in the Biblical context here in John 1:13, as we have just explained, is fully realized once it is understood that the Judaean nation consisted of both Edomites and Israelites, and Esau, father of the Edomites, took his wives of the Canaanite races (Genesis chapter 36), who in turn were mixed with the Kenites (descendants of Cain), the Rephaim (the so-called “giants” of Genesis chapter 6) and other races such as the Kenizzites, Kadmonites and Perizzites who did not descend from Adam (Genesis 15:19-20). So they were apparently aboriginal, non-Adamic peoples of unrecorded origin, along with the Rephaim who were descendants of the fallen angels and the race-mixing described in Genesis chapter 6.

Seeing that the Edomites of Judaea were, in part, descendants of Cain and the Rephaim, one can understand how Herod, an Edomite (as Josephus often attests in his histories), could be representative of Satan, the serpent which had attempted to destroy the Christ child (Revelation 12:4), and only Herod the Edomite fulfilled such a description, as the opening chapters of Matthew’s Gospel attest. Once this is understood, one can also understand how the serpent’s seed had bruised the heel of the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), and many other aspects of the Old and New Testaments. In Matthew chapter 23 and Luke chapter 11 Christ Himself attested that His opponents descended from Cain, since only Cain could be responsible for the blood of Abel. The descendants of Seth could never be held responsible for the blood of Abel. As we shall see, in John chapter 8 Christ also attests that His opponents descended from Cain, since only Cain was “a murderer from the beginning”.

With all of this, I must read John 1:11-13 in this manner, and this reading is fully within the constructs and meanings of the Greek words as we saw described here from the lexicons of Thayer and Liddell & Scott, and also from the use of the same terms in other passages of both the Old and New Testaments: “11 He came into His own land, and the men of the country received Him not. 12 But as many who received Him, He gave to them the authority which children of Yahweh are to attain, to those believing in His name: 13 not those from of mixed origin, nor those from of the desire of the flesh, nor from of the will of man, but they who have been born from Yahweh”.

Those born from Yahweh can only be those descendants of Adam endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh (Genesis 2:7), those who are “born from above”, those who are born in accordance with His law of “kind after kind” (i.e. Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; Leviticus 19:19 et al.), rather than in fornication which is the pursuit of strange (ἕτερος, #2087, other or different) flesh (Jude 7). Rather, Adam and Eve are our example as they were of the same flesh and the same bone (Genesis 2:23). For this reason Paul warned the Corinthians not to commit fornication, as their ancestors had at one time done with the Moabite women, and twenty-three thousand of them were slain (1 Corinthians 10). By this Paul had referred back to Numbers chapter 25 and the events recorded there. The Israelites were not punished so severely for mere idolatry, but for fornicating with Moabite women: for the Baal religions were nothing but fertility rituals which were culminated in sexual unions. In this chapter Phineas slew a man, not upon some foreign altar, but a man who was coupled with a foreign woman in his tent. For his action, Phineas was greatly rewarded.

The day is coming, praise Yahweh, when there shall be many more like Phineas. Soon we shall hear the call, Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion.

The phrase “of mixed blood” is commonly used of people with multi-racial backgrounds. Had the King James Version rendered the plural word αἱμάτων at John 1:13 literally, as “of bloods” rather than “of blood”, surely many of our people might have recognized the meaning of such language, and they might have asked these newfangled liberal pastors of recent times some hard questions, rather than being led astray by their erroneous premises. At the very least, the King James Version and other modern versions may have rendered John 1:13: “Which were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Yet there always seems to be a soapbox somewhere, from atop which some liberal humanist – usually a jew or someone of some other mixed race – is found preaching the “brotherhood of man” or “Jesus changed that” or “Paul changed that” and other universalist punch-lines, and they are really only deceiving the sheep. Yet clearly John tells us that it is not the will of the flesh – which is lust – which shall prevail, nor the will of man – which is humanism – but rather the will of Yahweh shall prevail. On which end of Phineas’ spear should one be found? One's world-view, based upon what one has perceived to be true, but which is not necessarily so, is a good indication of the answer to that question.

This concludes our edited and somewhat expanded version of this essay which I had originally written in 2006, and our commentary on John 1:11-13. The essay had been presented in the past at Christogenea, on March 3rd, 2012. Here I did not repeat everything I said in addition to the original essay during that presentation.