Topical Discussions with Bertrand Comparet, January, 2025

Topical Discussions with Bertrand Comparet, January, 2025

Here I am going to present and critique a pair of rather short Bertrand Comparet sermons, the first titled The Kingdom of Heaven or in Heaven, and the second, The Miracle of the Origin of Our Race. I am taking this break from our Isaiah commentary mostly because I have still been sick from the cold which has encumbered me from last Thursday. Even with that, on Tuesday morning I recorded a session with a gentleman in South Africa who has a website and podcast titled Jerm Warfare, which is actually a play on his given name. Yesterday I was hoping that he would be able to publish that in time for me to play it this evening, but he has not yet had the chance to do so. Therefore I will post that at Christogenea when it is available, and I will not leave it for next Friday night, by which time I hope to return to Isaiah. Yahweh willing, I should be making more appearances on that program in the near future, to further discuss our Christian Identity profession. 

As with nearly all of our Bertrand Comparet sermons, this one was transcribed by Jeanne Snyder and later digitized for internet publication by Clifton Emahiser, where he included many of his own notes. Something I do not usually mention is that copies of Jeanne’s transcription had been sold for many years by Kingdom Identity Ministries in Harrison Arkansas, and Clifton had also obtained copies and resold them to prisoners and to others on his mailing list who wanted one. I long ago gave away my own copy to a prisoner, but I have one of Clifton’s copies here. Perhaps I will take a photograph and post it along with this presentation. Because we are working with Clifton’s digitized copies here, we will also include his notes. 
 

The Kingdom of Heaven or In Heaven? by Bertrand L. Comparet

There is some dispute, in ecclesiastical circles, whether the kingdom of Yahweh, so often mentioned by Yahshua, is to be on earth or only in heaven. This is based chiefly on the use, only by Matthew, of the phrase the Kingdom of heaven. Because of this verse, some have argued that the kingdom must only be in heaven, being heaven itself as ruled by Almighty Yahweh. Neither Mark, Luke nor John refer to the kingdom of heaven, but only to the kingdom of Yahweh. Even Matthew uses as an equivalent phrase, the kingdom of Yahweh, four times at Matthew 6:33; 12:28; 21:31 & 21:43. In Matthew 13:43 & 26:29 Yahshua speaks of the kingdom of their Father and My Father’s kingdom. Both of these phrases obviously being equivalent to the kingdom of Yahweh. There is clearly no distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of Yahweh. Then why were the two phrases used?

Of course Comparet is correct to point out this peculiar use found in Matthew, of the phrase “kingdom of heaven”. It appears only in his Gospel, in 31 verses from chapters 3 through 25. Often it appears in words attributed to Christ Himself, however it is also evident in other ways, that when the apostles had recorded His words, they recorded them from their own perspectives, using at least some of their own language. But Comparet had missed the phrase “kingdom of God” in Matthew 19:24, so that phrase actually occurs 5 times in Matthew. That phrase also occurs on 63 other occasions in the New Testament, 15 of them in Mark, 32 in Luke, 7 in Acts, 8 in Paul, and 2 in the Gospel of John.

It is also easy to verify that Comparet is correct to say that “There is clearly no distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of Yahweh.” Many of the words of Christ recorded by Luke were also recorded by Matthew. So in Luke’s record of the Sermon on the Mount, in Luke 6:20 we read “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.” But in Matthew’s record, where he also elaborated on how he had understood the word meaning poor, we read in Matthew 5:3 “3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Then in Luke 7:28, we read in words attributed to Christ “… there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” However in Matthew 11:11, where the same event is recorded, we read “… there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” So there is no doubt that the terms are interchangeable. 

But we do not necessarily have to accept Comparet’s explanation of why Matthew had used a different phrase, where he continues:

These different phrases happened because outwardly pious Jews had first taken the name of Yahweh out of the scriptures, substituting the word adonai, meaning lord. This happened in the seventh century B.C. At least as early as 200 B.C., they had begun to substitute heaven for Yahweh. Even today, many Jewish publications won’t use the word God, writing it G-d. Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Bible Dictionary says the following:

“‘Kingdom of God’, usage of terms: A New Testament phrase based upon and expressing in its final form the Old Testament idea of the spiritual rule of God over men. The phrase, kingdom of heaven, is used in the New Testament by Matthew only, and is an exact equivalent of the phrase kingdom of God. The substitution of heaven for God, is based on the popular superstitious feeling, in later Judaism, which led to the avoidance of the divine names in common speech.”

There are several problems here. First, it is unlikely that the name of Yahweh was taken out of the Scriptures as early as the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the good king Josiah who ruled and led a revival in Judah for much of the latter half of the seventh century BC. Secondly, the oldest manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint are no older than the same sources for some of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and others which date to no earlier than the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

The only Old Testament manuscripts which we have which are older than those are the manuscripts which have been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which can be shown to have been produced between 60 BC and 60 AD, at least for the most part. That is because the sectarian scrolls of the Dead Sea sect were clearly made at a time when Rome had ruled Judaea, and before the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. Rome ruled Judaea no earlier than 63 BC, and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but the Dead Sea Scrolls writers are oblivious to the rebellion against Rome which had begun in 65 AD. Having been virulently anti-Roman, it seems that they would have celebrated the day.

But the Dead Sea Scrolls did not remove the name of Yahweh. Rather, the Hebrew form of the name is found not only throughout the Hebrew scrolls, but also in Greek scrolls of Scripture which were found among them. In those Greek scrolls, where we are accustomed to seeing the word κύριος, or lord, the Dead Sea Scrolls has the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters. The name is also written in the Hebrew scrolls in paleo-Hebrew letters, whereas the rest of the text appears in the more recent Hebrew block script. 

This situation seems to support the words of Flavius Josephus, who had described the revelation of the name of God to Moses at the burning bush, the account of which is found in Exodus chapter 3, and he wrote in part, in Antiquities of the Judaeans, Book 2: “276 Whereupon God declared to him [Moses] his holy name, which had never been revealed to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more.” According to his own accounts, Josephus was born around 37 AD, perhaps 5 years after the Passion of the Christ, and he lived into the early 2nd century AD. In his early life, he spent several years as an Essene, before he left the sect and became a Pharisee, probably on account of his having had greater political ambitions. In another place, in his Wars of the Judaeans, Book 5 (5:235), describing the attire of the high priests and speaking of his headgear, Josephus attested that upon it “was engraved the sacred name [of God]: it consists of four vowels.” Having written those words in Greek, he certainly meant four Greek vowels. 

If Josephus was once permitted to utter the Name of Yahweh, but later in life he had written that “it is not lawful for me to say any more”, then there must have been a prohibition against the use of the name issued in his lifetime. Otherwise, his wording is peculiar, because he evidently wrote “for me to say any more”, and if it was an even earlier national prohibition, he may be expected to have worded that differently, at least using a word such as us rather than me. 

So while it is true that Jews typically won’t use the Name of God, or even the title, as Comparet has described, it seems to have been for reasons which run deeper than superstition. Then, as we have discussed in another context here recently, for three hundred years Jews had persecuted Christianity, and then, after Rome had accepted Christianity, Jews suddenly became the arbiters and authorities of the Christian faith, since Christians were turning to Jews for their understanding of the Old Testament. 

In the Mishnah Sanhedrin, 10:1, it is boldly stated that all Jews have a share in the “World-to-Come”, but then there is a list of exceptions among which we read “Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.” So in at least one rabbinical opinion in the Talmud, uttering the Name of Yahweh is expressly forbidden. But of course, the truth is that no Jew has a share in any world to come. 

So concerning the reasons for the term “kingdom of heaven” rather than “kingdom of God” in Matthew’s Gospel, there is no valid explanation which can be given because his true motive cannot be assessed. Comparet cited the “Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard Bible Dictionary” which stated that “The substitution of heaven for God, is based on the popular superstitious feeling, in later Judaism, which led to the avoidance of the divine names in common speech.” But neither is this true of Matthew, because in Matthew the word for God appears not only in the five passages where we read “kingdom of God”, but also on over fifty other occasions. The word for Lord, where it is used in reference to Yahweh, appears in Matthew on at least as many occasions. So the evaluation of that Bible dictionary is errant in this regard, because Jewish superstitions cannot be applicable in Matthew. 

All the usual sources claim that Jews do not use the name of God on account of superstition, but the truth is that Jews hate God, and see themselves as god. However we can agree with Comparet where he concludes:

So nothing can be based upon the use of the words “kingdom of heaven”. But what clues can we find in the Bible?

Comparet wants to find support in the Old Testament for whether the kingdom is of heaven, or in heaven:

First, Yahweh’s throne and kingdom are eternal. The following Bible verses all confirm where the kingdom of Yahweh is, on earth.

Psalm 45:6: “Thy throne, O Yahweh, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.”

Psalm 145:13: “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.” An eternal kingdom on this earth was promised.

He has not yet established the location of the kingdom, but he does in the citations which he offers next:

2 Samuel 7:12-16: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but My mercy shall not depart away from him as I took away from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.”

1 Chronicles 28:5 & 29:23: “And of all my sons (for Yahweh hath given me many sons,) He hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel. ... Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king, instead of David his father, and prospered, and all Israel obeyeth him.”

Psalm 89:3-4, 28-29, 34-36: “I have made a covenant with My chosen. I have sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne for all generations. ... My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and My covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven.... My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness that I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me.”

All of these verses which Comparet has cited thus far are relevant to the Old Kingdom and the time of David and Solomon. In Scripture, both David and Solomon had acknowledged that they had sat on the throne of Yahweh. All of the later kings seem to have forgotten that concept, it’s significance and importance, at least so far as the records reflect. So of course, David and Solomon also recognized that the throne would endure forever, because it is Yahweh’s throne and not their own. Ultimately, the throne in Jerusalem had failed, but Yahweh’s sovereign rule over the earth continues to stand, and it has never failed. Now Comparet cites Daniel chapter 2, which is usually the first passage that comes into my own mind when I reflect on Matthew’s use of the phrase “kingdom of heaven”: 

Daniel 2:44: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it will break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.”

Yahweh’s throne is established when and where He so chooses, and Israel, during her time of punishment, would not have a proper king. So we read in Hosea chapter 3: “4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: 5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.” The children of Israel should never have sought a king in the first place, since Yahweh Himself is their King, and He shall be King forever, in the person of Yahshua Christ. So in the meantime, we also read in Hosea, in chapter 13: “11 I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.” So the kings of the Old Testament kingdom were given to Israel in Yahweh’s anger, because they had demanded an earthly king, and that includes even David and Solomon. So Comparet continues by making his own reference to that situation:

We know Solomon never sat on the throne of Yahweh in heaven. We are told in the Bible that “Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king”. Therefore Yahweh has an earthly throne, as well as a heavenly throne. It is prophesied that Yahshua shall sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh. It is quite definitely an earthly kingdom, and an eternal one.

Revelation 11:15: “And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.”

Often, the prophecies of Scripture state things which shall happen in the future as if they had already happened, because it is assured that they will happen. In Revelation chapter 11 “the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ”, and the opening of the little book along with the triumph of the two witnesses helped to assure that would happen, because a throne is useless without a people over whom a king may rule, and those events would cause the people of Yahweh God to accept the Gospel of Christ and turn to Him. Now Comparet cites another of the Psalms before moving on to Matthew:

Psalm 47:2-7: “For Yahweh the Most High is terrible: He is a great king over all the earth: For Yahweh is the king of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding. Yahweh reigneth over all the [nations].” This kingdom contains evil people, who must be rejected. Are there evil people in heaven?

This is a good question, and as Comparet continues his citations, it is clearly answered in the affirmative:

Matthew 11:12: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.”

Of course, the Jews are still trying to wrest the Kingdom of God from His hands, and in the end they shall fail.

Matthew 13:47-50: “Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind, which when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of this age: the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

That word kind is from the Greek word γένος, which means race. Notice that the bad races are not thrown back into the sea, but are instead cast away, into a furnace of fire. Clifton Emahiser had commented at this point at length in his own reproduction of Comparet’s sermon, but we shall hold that for the end. 

Matthew 21:43: “Therefore I say unto you (the Jews), The kingdom of Yahweh shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

This passage is often cross-referenced to passages such as Acts 13:46, where Paul told the leaders of a particular synagogue that “… you … judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” The word “Gentiles” is the Greek word ἔθνος which means nations, and Paul was only telling the synagogue leaders that he was bypassing them and turning directly to the people, the Greeks and Judaeans, who attended the synagogue. The scope of that statement was local to one synagogue, and throughout subsequent chapters Paul engages with Judaeans in other synagogues, so the denominational interpretation of the passage is errant. Rather, the passage should be cross-referenced to Micah 4:8 which prophecies “8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” Such a daughter in Scripture is a colony or settlement of the people from one place, in this case, Jerusalem, in another, often far-away place, which is the context of the wider passage in Micah.

Now from these passages, Comparet reaches an appropriate conclusion:

We are told the children of Satan are in the kingdom of heaven, and must be expelled. This can’t be in heaven.

It cannot be in heaven namely because in Revelation chapter 12 we read: “7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” This is why bad people are found in the kingdom of God today. 

Then in Luke chapter 10, speaking of Christ, we learn that this event must have happened in the distant past where we read: “18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Then, where Comparet had spoken about the children of Satan being expelled, where Christ had continued in Luke chapter 10 He said to His disciples: “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.” Where He said “serpents and scorpions” He was clearly referring to Jews and the other mixed races in Judaea who were hostile to Christ.

Continuing with Comparet:

Matthew 13:37-43: “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world (order). The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of the kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity.” This kingdom is one where people are material enough to eat and drink.

It is true, that over the centuries many Judaized denominational Christians, and especially Roman Catholics, have envisioned a kingdom of heaven somewhere up in the clouds, where perhaps they shall be endowed with wings, and float around in the sky strumming harps for eternity. That rather childish view of the kingdom of God is what Comparet had sought to redress here, but it is frequently difficult to eradicate age-old misconceptions from the minds of people who are imbued with the general public consciousness. 

Matthew 26:29: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Luke 22:29-30: “And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me: that ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

So in light of all of these Scriptures, Comparet concludes:

The kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of Yahweh, and it is on earth. It contains both good and wicked people at present. Both good and bad people will be in the kingdom until the second coming of Yahshua, at this time the angels will cast out the wicked. The kingdom will be here forever and those in it won’t be merely spirits. They will be real and solid enough to eat and drink earthly meals. It is the kingdom of heaven, but it is not in heaven.

That assessment is of course quite appropriate, and absolutely correct. As it is in the parable of the tares of the field, there are many people in the Kingdom of God who do not belong, because He did not create them. In another parable, in Matthew chapter 25, all of the nations which remain in His kingdom are sheep. But the goat nations are all cast into the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels”, because as we read from the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, they were originally sown among the Wheat by that same devil. So since their origin is of the devil, that is also their destiny. 

So while we have been somewhat critical of Comparet, in relation to his motives for why Matthew used the phrase “kingdom of heaven”, our dear friend Clifton Emahiser had a glowing review of this sermon in the critical note which he had included with this transcription: 

This has to be one of the better presentations Bertrand L. Comparet ever gave! Off hand, I would place it among his TOP TEN. I find little with which to disagree, but much to concur! Therefore, I will add some of my own observations. In this lesson, Comparet cited Daniel 2:44 thusly: “Daniel 2:44: ‘And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it will break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever’.” If ever Comparet turned out a masterpiece it was his Daniel’s Fifth Kingdom which would also rate among his TOP TEN. For the first four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-vision the futurists use an historical view. Then, without any good reason, they suddenly switch to a futurist view which is hardly consistent. At that point they skip ahead nearly 2000 years and declare that Christ will set up His kingdom then. It was to be Christ’s Kingdom all right, but it was the Germanic (Scythian Israelite) tribes that crushed the ten toes (provinces) of the Roman empire. Therefore, the German tribes represented the “kingdom” which Daniel prophesied would “stand for ever”. That kingdom is already here, and has been for centuries, and when Yahshua Christ returns at his Second Advent, He will be crowned King!

Here we must note that the people of Judaea sought to crown Christ as King and He refused to allow it, because it was not His time. After feeding a multitude in the wilderness, as it is recorded in John chapter 6, we read in part: “14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.”

Clifton spent much of his writing career addressing various heresies which have crept into Christian Identity circles, and among them are Preterism and Futurism, so criticisms of those heresies often leaked over into unrelated works, such as this one. Perhaps I do the same thing in some of my own writings. We will not take such a digression here. So continuing with Clifton:

The other passage Comparet cited for which I would like to comment is Matthew 13:47-50. The following is part of what I wrote in a brochure entitled Was Christ Politically Correct? Matt. 13:47-50:

WE’LL NOW DETERMINE JUST WHAT’S BIBLICAL AND WHAT’S NOT: For this we’ll go to Matthew 13:47-50 which reads: “47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

It should be noted that the word “kind” is from the Greek “genos” (γένος) which W. E. Vine in his An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words defined as, “a family ... stock ... offspring ... kindred ... race ... nation.”  (#1085 in Strongs.) Under “Kind” Vine states for the most part: “KIND (Noun) 1. genos (1085), akin to ginomai, ‘to become,’ denotes (a) ‘a family,’ Acts 4:6, ‘kindred;’ 7:13, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘kindred’); 13:26, ‘stock’; (b) ‘an offspring,’ Acts 17:28; Rev. 22:16; (c) ‘a nation, a race,’ Mark 7:26, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Acts 4:36, rv ‘(a man of Cyprus) by race,’ kjv, ‘of the country (of Cyprus);’ genos does not mean ‘a country;’ the word here signifies ‘parentage’; ...  ‘race’ (kjv, ‘kindred’); 18:2, 24, rv, ‘by race’ (kjv, ‘born’); 2 Cor. 11:26, ‘countrymen’; Gal. 1:14, rv, ‘countrymen’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Phil. 3:5, ‘stock’; 1 Pet. 2:9, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘generation’); (d) ‘a kind, sort, class,’ Matt. 13:47, ‘kind’; in some mss. in 17:21, kjv, ‘kind;’ Mark 9:29, ‘kind’ …”

Now Clifton, forever the opportunist, points his sword at another heretic, recounting the actions of one of our good friends:

Tony Gonyer in his July 29th, 2005 letter to Ted R. Weiland included a photocopy of this passage from Vine, but evidently Weiland regarded it as of no value. Weiland wants rather to thrust his own personal opinions on race, yet refuse the basic definition of the language of the text as it is written. The following rendition of Matt. 13:47-50 does absolutely no violence to this passage:

“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea [of people], and gathered of every race: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good [racial kind] into vessels, but cast the bad [racial kind] away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked [races] from among the just [race], 50 And shall cast them [the bad racial kind] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

That is actually the only honest way in which the passage can be read, and is most relevant to what had preceded in that same chapter, which is Christ’s explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. In fact, the Parable of the Fish in the Net was provided as a part of that explanation. So when Christ had finished that parable we read: “ 51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.” Speaking Greek, they certainly would have understood that γένος means race.

Now, in order to fill out our evening, we are going to present and critique a second Bertrand Comparet sermon, and Clifton also has a short note which he made in reference to that, which we shall elaborate on at the appropriate point:

The Miracle of the Origin of Our Race by Bertrand L. Comparet

Those who hate to believe our Israel Identity doctrine like to snarl at us, “What’s so special about the white race anyway?”. These people like to close their eyes to the fact that all civilization, existing in the world today, is the product of this race. What the dark races have, was taught and brought to them by us. I want to take up this challenge, and show that there is something very special about our race, altogether aside from our ability and accomplishments. The very origin of the true Israel of Yahweh, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic and related people, was in itself a miracle from the hand of Yahweh.

Today we hear an awful lot about Negro achievements, Negro inventions, and for other reasons, Chinese achievements and inventions. In truth, nobody heard any of those things fifty years ago, because such things never actually existed. When a society becomes ethnically pluralistic, the lords of the empire often seek ways to make all of its diverse races feel included. So when they are faced with a dearth of examples, they invent their own examples.

Several years ago, I wrote an article titled Who Painted the Wise Man Black? Who made the Magus a Negro? There I demonstrated through an examination of Medieval art that it was not until the middle of the 15th century AD that any artist had painted any of the Magi as a negro. But now it is popularly accepted. Conveniently, that was also at the beginning of the Colonial period, where Europeans were expanding into Africa, and at the same time, the Roman Catholic Church had also sought to expand into Africa. So one of the Magi was portrayed as a nigger, in order to make it look as if niggers were acceptable, because the lords of the empire wanted to exploit niggers.

Now recently, I was confronted with further evidence of this, but it is from an even earlier time. In certain European Cathedrals and towns, there are actually statues of negros erected, who are so-called “saints” of the Roman Catholic Church. The first South American saint was not canonized until 1671, But the Roman Catholic Church was cranking out nigger saints in the 1200’s! Not that the historical so-called “Saint Maurice” was a nigger, although he may have been. Allegedly, he was an Egyptian born in Thebes in 250 AD, so he may have been an Egyptian, a mixed-race Egyptian, or even a Judaean, or a Macedonian Greek, since there were many different races in Roman Egypt. But the Church wanted to promote the acceptance of Africans, and therefore they promoted Maurice as a nigger. There are statues and paintings depicting him as a negro in several places in Europe, including a famous statue at the cathedral at Magdeburg in Germany. Another example is the so-called “Saint Benedict” of Palermo, who supposedly lived in the 16th century and was said to have been an Ethiopian negro. Seeing the way this trend has reached a crescendo today, we would expect the next pope to also be a negro.

As for Chinese inventions, the inventions are themselves mostly inventions, tales contrived by the revisionist history of the Chinese Communist Party, in order to manufacture a glorious past for China which it does not otherwise have. In the 19th century, the British managed to subdue China and force access to its ports with no more than just a few warships. All of the technology which China now has, has been introduced from the West, and the same may be said for Africa and every other non-White nation. Now to continue with Comparet:

You will remember that Yahweh first made His promises, of a marvelous future, to Abraham. These promises to Abraham by Yahweh, are recorded in Genesis 13:16. “... I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” Genesis 17:4,7 continues, “... my covenant it is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. ... And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant ...” Yahweh also told how these nations would be a blessing to all the earth.

Abraham had a total of eight sons. Yahweh told Abraham that only his son Isaac, whose mother was Sarah, was to be the ancestor of the promised line, called by Yahweh to become His people Israel. In Genesis 21:12 Yahweh promises Abraham, “... in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Not only was Isaac, our ancestor, specially selected by Yahweh, but his very existence was a miracle. Two parties are necessary for the birth of all other children. But, the birth of Isaac required three parties, his father Abraham, his mother Sarah, and Yahweh.

A year before the birth of Isaac, Yahweh gave him his name, recorded in Genesis 17:21. When Yahweh spoke of a child being born to Sarah, both Abraham and Sarah laughed at the obvious impossibility. Sarah was then 90 years old, and feeble with great age. She was 45 years past the time when she could bear a child and she had been barren all her life. Abraham was 99 years old. Yahweh performed the miracle He had promised. A year later at the age of 91, Sarah bore her first and only child, Isaac.

This was only the first of several miracles. Like his descendant Yahshua, Isaac was named by Yahweh before his birth. Yahshua brought the reality of resurrection from the dead. Isaac was used to furnish a symbolic prophesy of our loved ones given back from the dead. Naturally, all of Abraham’s hopes were now centered upon this miracle son, through whom all of Yahweh’s great promises were to be fulfilled.

Paul of Tarsus had also greatly emphasized the importance of the birth of Isaac and the role of Yahweh God in his birth. First, in Romans chapter 4 where he wrote: “13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Then a little further on Paul defined that faith: “16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”

Then Paul illustrated the miracle of God of which Comparet speaks here, as well as the great magnitude of the faith which Abraham had in that miracle, where he continued and wrote: “19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.”

Then even later, in Romans chapter 9, Paul had focused once again on the promises to Abraham, where he spoke of the scope of the promise which is in Christ and he wrote: “7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” So as Comparet had noted here, “Abraham had a total of eight sons.” But only one of them represents the children of the promise, as Comparet also noted where Yahweh had told Abraham that “In Genesis 21:12 Yahweh promises Abraham, ‘... in Isaac shall thy seed be called.’”

Therefore where Paul continues he elaborates on that same promise and wrote: “9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Therefore although both Jacob and Esau were born of Isaac, Yahweh God had distinguished between them from the womb, and decided that He hated Esau. Later in the chapter, Paul described the progeny of Esau as “vessels of destruction” but that of Jacob as “vessels of mercy”.

Comparet had explained that the birth of Isaac was only one miracle, and that others would follow, so he continues by discussing the sacrifice of Isaac:

Then came the stunning command from Yahweh. “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering.” Did Yahweh now mean to take away all that He had promised? No, Abraham knew better than that. Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac, not in the awful grief of a father about to witness, even to cause, the death of his beloved son, but in serene faith Abraham obeyed Yahweh.

The birth of Isaac was not the only miracle which Abraham had experienced since he had followed Yahweh and gone to Canaan. Among others, the highly unlikely victory over the kings of Mesopotamia stands out. So Abraham had full confidence in Yahweh his God, that He would deliver on whatever was promised, one way or another, and therefore he remained unwaveringly loyal to Him. So as Comparet continues:

Abraham took his son Isaac and went to Mount Moriah, prepared the wood fire for the burnt offering, never doubting that Yahweh would keep His promise. Either Yahweh would intervene beforehand, or Yahweh would give him back his son from the dead. It is recorded in Revelation 13:8 Abraham told Isaac, “My son, Yahweh will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering”. Abraham knew and relied upon the assurance that Yahshua was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.

I do not know how Comparet could possibly support the statement that “Abraham knew and relied upon the assurance that Yahshua was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.” While he lived, there is no indication that Abraham knew of such a promise.

Here there is an error, for which I must at least take partial blame. I think it was 1997 when I first received my copy of Jeanne Snyder’s book of Comparet’s sermons from Kingdom Identity Ministries, but it may have been early 1998. When I read it, I made a list of about a hundred corrections, and most of them were errant verse locations. Later, when I began communicating with Clifton Emahiser, this book had eventually come up in conversation and I told him about the list, so he sent me Jeanne Snyder’s address, since she put the book together. Once I received it, I sent the list to Jeanne. From that time, we became friends and corresponded regularly, since I was in prison. So the copy of the book I now have is from Clifton, and it is the corrected version, yet it still contains this error. Therefore either I missed this error, or Jeanne failed to correct it, but at this point it does not matter much, and we will never know. In any event, it is not in Revelation 13:8 that Abraham had told Isaac “My son, Yahweh will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering”. Rather, it is in Genesis 22:8, and as Comparet continues, that is where he is going:

As always, Yahweh honored His word. Genesis chapter 22 tells how Yahweh did provide the burnt offering with a ram that was trapped by his horns, in the thicket. So Abraham made the sacrifice with the offering provided by Yahweh. Here is Christianity in the Old Testament, we have nothing of our own to offer in atonement for our sins. It is Yahweh who provides the lamb as the sin offering.

The offering of the beloved son prefigures the sacrifice of Yahshua as the Lamb of Yahweh. The fact that this promised career was not interrupted by death, symbolizes the swift resurrection of Yahshua from the dead. This was so He could continue His promised work on our behalf. For us, the threat of death is not real. Yahweh not only promised us continued life, but has strengthened our faith by clear demonstration of the power and will to resurrect us.

This is an excellent observation on the part of Comparet, that Isaac on the altar served as a prophetic type for Christ. However in our own observation of the sacrifice of Isaac, we saw a greater symbolism in the fact that Isaac was being sacrificed as the lamb of God by Abraham, which parallels the sacrifice that Yahweh Himself had made by giving up His Son as the Lamb of God in order to save His people. So in our recent Genesis commentary, in Part 33: The Dedication of Isaac, we wrote the following:

When, without any dispute or any promise of anything in return, Abraham had placed his son Isaac on the altar at the commandment of Yahweh his God, Abraham was surrendering his authority over his son, and dedicating him to Yahweh whereby Isaac became the only man ever dedicated to God, and accepted by God by the explicit command of God. So unlike any other human sacrifice of the historical records until the sacrifice of Christ Himself, Abraham’s sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice which a man could make, as he was willing to risk everything which he had been promised in order to please his God, but he himself had been promised nothing additional in return for that sacrifice. So his willingness to comply with the sacrifice of Isaac was entirely selfless, and it was also a type, a foreshadow, of the later sacrifice of Christ.

But there are other significant aspects of the sacrifice of Isaac which have real-world implications.

In the ancient world, a father had property rights over his children, regardless of their age. This was carried throughout history into the time of the Roman empire and the laws of Patria Potestas or “the power of the father”. So when Abraham set Isaac on the altar specified by Yahweh, Isaac became the property of Yahweh, and Abraham surrendered his authority over his son to his God. So Isaac is the only man in history who was demanded by God, and surrendered by his father. Isaac becoming the property of Yahweh, Yahweh has done with him as He pleased, and all those in the loins of Isaac are also property of Yahweh. Now continuing with Comparet:

It is very fitting that Isaac was specially chosen and called by Yahweh to be our ancestor, as we are specially chosen and called by Yahweh to be His people, and to do His will on earth. We are all the children of Isaac, only by a miracle from the hand of Yahweh did Isaac ever come into existence at all. Remember this miracle is our miracle too, for without it we also would not exist today. Only by another miracle from Yahweh did Isaac grow to maturity and become the earthly father of us all. We are the product of that miracle.

Yahweh told Isaac, recorded in Genesis 26:4, “I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

Here we would have a few things to say, but we shall wait to the end, as Clifton had made his only note on this sermon in reference to this same point. Comparet concludes this short sermon, and doing so he gives us cause for some objections:

With all our human imperfections, we have fulfilled this prophecy. We have brought the other races the first sanitation they ever knew. We stopped the pestilence which had previously ravaged their lands. We stopped their murderous tribal wars and brought them peace. As long as we remained in command of their lands, we brought them the only public education they have ever known. We taught them improved methods of agriculture, and when they still weren’t able to feed themselves, on many occasions we sent them shipments of food, which saved millions from death by famine.

By a miracle, Yahweh created Isaac for a purpose, to be the ancestor of our race. By miracles, Yahweh brought us to the great numbers and power He had promised to us. Yahweh said of us, “They shall show forth My praise”. Despite our human faults, we have done so.

That concludes Comparet’s sermon. Now to hear from Clifton Emahiser:

In these last three paragraphs Comparet makes it appear that when it says: “... in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” that it somehow means the non-white races. While I have a lot of respect for most of Comparet’s teachings, I have to draw the line on his comments here. It was not the other races that were to be blessed, but the many nations formed by the children of Israel as the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob proclaim! It’s amazing to me that our people can’t understand this!

Clifton is right, when Comparet opened the sermon he had said that everything the other races have, they had gotten from the White nations. Now here he is referring back to that and imagining that is the fulfillment of the words which say “in they seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” But that is certainly not what was intended in those words.

The apostle Peter spoke of the damage which men do to themselves when they fail to understand the words of the apostle Paul, in 2 Peter chapter 3: “15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Here the common misunderstandings of passages such as Genesis 26:4 certainly have caused our race much destruction. But Comparet is making that same error here, where he seems to be following the British Israel concept of Dominion Theology, wherein it is believed that our race should act as stewards for God and serve the non-White races by civilizing them. Clifton knew better, as he had expressed in his critical note.

In Galatians chapter 3, Paul is often wrongly interpreted as having taught some sort of replacement theology, but the precise opposite is true. Paul had taught that the promises to Abraham are certain even apart from the law, and that the covenant with Abraham cannot be changed to suit the whims of men. Then he taught that the Galatians were indeed Israelites, and of the seed of Abraham, for which reason they were in Christ. So he told them that the law was their schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, something which can only be true of Israelites, and that Christ had come to redeem them that were under the law.

In the course of that, Paul of Tarsus had written, in Galatians chapter 3, that “6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Abraham had believed that his seed, his own children, would become many nations, and in Romans chapter 4 Paul attested that promise would be fulfilled “as it is written”, so here he is informing the Galatians that they are literal, genetic children of Abraham, because that is the only faith which Abraham had: a faith that Yahweh would fulfill His promise “as it is written”.

Then where Paul continued, he wrote: “8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the [nations] through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

There, the King James Version has “heathen” rather than nations, which is their own interpretation. Paul used a plural form of the word ἔθνος, which is literally and primarily a nation, and the literal meaning should always be the valid option unless context demands otherwise. There is no compulsion here to understand ἔθνος in any other sense but its literal meaning.

Paul is teaching that the nations which had come of Abraham would be blessed along with Abraham. Saying that, he is reading the passage at Genesis 26:4 in a prophetic manner, and asserting that it is speaking of the future nations of the children of Israel where it says “and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” As Christians, we should agree with Paul. It was never the explicit intention of Yahweh to have the children of Israel, who are the sheep, serve the goats and bless the goats, although Yahweh does use the goats to punish the sheep when the sheep are disobedient. 

This concludes our evening with Bertrand Comparet. 

Image