The Importance of the Song of Solomon to Biblical Anthropology

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20160826-SongSolomon.mp3 — Downloaded 5967 times


The Importance of the Song of Solomon to Biblical Anthropology

Tonight’s program is going to serve two purposes. Firstly, it is a defense of the Song of Solomon, which is also sometimes called Canticles or the Song of Songs, as a Biblical book which belongs in our Scripture. Secondly, it will serve as an exposition of a paper recently published by Clifton Emahiser, which was titled It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. Chapters 4 to 7. Clifton’s paper was published at his website in four installments from August 2014 through February 2015.

The word anthropology is defined in Collins’ English Dictionary as “the study of humans, their origins, physical characteristics, institutions, religious beliefs, social relationships, etc.” Here we shall concern ourselves with only one aspect of the term: the physical characteristics of certain people in the Bible. Once we determine these characteristics, there is little doubt we may determine the general race of the ancient Israelites of Scripture.

No book of the Bible is more important in that respect than the Song of Solomon, and that will be the purpose of our program this evening. We continually hear denominational pastors claim that “Jesus may have been a brown man”, or “people in the Middle East are brown, so Jesus must have been brown”, examples of a variety of claims whereby they fully exhibit their anthropological ignorance. The Song of Solomon is one place where it is very obvious that the ancient Israelites were White. So Jesus, being a full-blooded descendant of David and Solomon, must also have been White.

Now, from a Christian Identity point of view. Before we begin we must take Bertrand Comparet and Wesley Siwft to task on this issue. Comparet never wrote on the Song of Solomon, or as it is also called, Canticles, or the Canticle of Canticles, and that was probably because he did not think it belonged in Scripture. But here is what Comparet said at the end of his presentation on a book which really does not belong in Scripture, which is the book called Esther:

There is one other book in the Bible that, likewise, I don't believe belongs there either, but it is not harmful; at least it is not like the Book of Esther - and that is the Song of Songs of Solomon. Now that is a very nice little Hebrew play in the Hebrew language, of Hebrew poetry. You can compare it in a way to some of Shakespeare's plays, written in blank verse. As poetry I have no objection to it. On the other hand, I don't see why mere poetry, as such, is entitled to be put in the Bible.

You remember one of the noted English poets, Coleridge, wrote his poem “Kublai Khan”. Probably you studied it in school: “In Xanadu, did Kublai Khan, a wondrous pleasure dome decree, where Alph, the sacred river, ran through caverns measureless to man, down to a sunless sea.” As a matter of fact, he dreamed that poem in his sleep, and he woke up with the memory so vivid, he was able to write it down. And the last three or four verses of it begin to become a bit ridiculous, as you would expect of a dream. But up to that point it is thoroughly good poetry. But I still don't see why we should put that in our Bible, and I don't see why we should put the Song of Solomon in the Bible. It contains no message from God.

But I can understand how the Song of Solomon got into the Bible. You remember that during all those early centuries, the churchmen who were deciding these things lived in their monasteries, unmarried. They couldn't subscribe to Esquire or Playboy, but they did want something they could read that would cheer them up a bit when they considered the bitterness of their solitary lives, and I guess that would be perhaps an explanation of how they came to include the Song of Songs of Solomon. But it doesn't do any particular harm.

If you take out those two books from the Bible, what you have left is based soundly an inspiration, in all the prophetic parts of it, and an authentic history, in all the historical parts of it. All the rest of the Bible I stand back of, one-hundred percent. But those two books don't belong there.

Bertrand Comparet did a lot of excellent work in his assessments and explanations of other Scriptures, but here he has disappointed us greatly. If we could only have shown Comparet the allegories in the Song of Solomon which cannot pertain to any sitting queen, or to any wife of the king, perhaps we could have changed his mind.

Perhaps we may have changed Wesley Swift’s mind as well. Comparet may have actually copied this error from Swift. In his May, 1964 sermon on the fabulous Blue Tunic Army of Christ Swift said “The Song of Solomon and the Book of Esther are totally spurious, and the name of God isn't in them even once.” He went on to describe the Song of Solomon as “licentious” and said that it “stands for mongrelization”, however neither of those accusations are true. Actually, it is the “Blue Tunic Army of Christ” that is totally spurious, and with that we see that Wesley Swift also committed some grave errors. Even earlier, in his November, 1962 Snake Nest sermon, Swift had said that “The Song of Solomon and the book of Esther are fraudulent books and they should not be in your Bible.” Of course, we agree with him concerning the Book of Esther, but we certainly cannot agree concerning the Song of Solomon.

Swift made his worst assessment of the Song of Solomon in his April 29th, 1964 Bible Study Q&A session where he said “Then the Song of Solomon is another phoney book. It does not have the name of God in it even once, and deals with the love affairs supposedly of Solomon, and three or four others of different races, Negroes and everything else and is actually a phoney book.” Now all of this is not only a poor assessment, but actually an outright mischaracterization of the entire nature of the book, and for this we would censure Swift quite strongly. The man was a fast-and-loose storyteller, and he was not the scholar that he appeared to be. In fact, this last assessment of Swift’s is actually embarrassing.

But not all of the early Christian Identity teachers followed after this error by Comparet and Swift. In Volume 4, Number 3 of William Gale’s Christian Identity Magazine, dated for July, 1969, there is an unattributed article titled Children of God vs. Children of Satan, and there it says in part: “For instance in the Douay version 1950 edition, it says in Canticles, referring to Jesus Christ, that He is WHITE, ruddy and chosen out of thousands. Then in Wisdom it says that He is of THE RACE OF ADAM. So the race of Adam is white!” So the author of that article, who may or may not have been William Gale himself, certainly understood the importance of the Song of Solomon both as an allegory of Christ and Israel, and to the study of Biblical anthropology. The editor of Gale’s magazine even chose to reprint that same article three years later, in Volume 7 Number 2 of the magazine, which was dedicated to reprints.

The Song of Solomon is indeed about God, in the form of Solomon as a type for Yahshua Christ, and it also represents an inspired message from God. The allegories in the Song of Solomon reveal that Solomon is a type for Christ, and that the wife of the king is the collective body of the children of Israel. The queen in the Song of Solomon represents the Israelites as a people, and the Song of Songs merits its illustrious title because it represents the greatest love story ever told: that of Yahweh's love for Israel His bride.

I am going to give one striking example of such an allegory here. In the ancient world, women were closely guarded. Perhaps of women, only a whore would be found roaming the streets at night, and she would not even be safe. But the women of the king were even more closely guarded, and were kept under guard in the innermost quarters of the palaces. They certainly would not be allowed outside without an armed escort, and only under extraordinary circumstances at night. So in chapter 3 of the Song of Solomon we read in the opening verses: “1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not. 2 I will rise now, and go about the city in the streets, and in the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not. 3 The watchmen that go about the city found me: to whom I said, Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?” The situation would be impossible for a queen, but representing the wanderings of the children of Israel as a people, it becomes wholly plausible. All a queen would have to do is ask her guard for the whereabouts of her husband, who is probably not out at night roaming about the city himself. And if the watchmen found a queen roaming around the city streets at night, they would most likely have arrested her and brought her to the king’s guard.

Then in the very next verse of that same chapter we read: “4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.” Now, nothing would explain how a queen wandering the streets of a city at night could find her husband and lover, the king, doing the same, and how she would bring him to the bedroom of her mother’s house after she found him. But once it is understood that this represents the children of Israel and the anticipation of their Messiah, then we can understand that this entire poem is an allegory describing that very relationship. Even some of the commentaries of the denominational Christian sects understand this, so we cannot explain how Bertrand Comparet or Wesley Swift may have missed it. Solomon was indeed much wiser than either Comparet, Swift, or Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Here we are going to present an overview of the anthropological significance of the Song of Solomon. In order to do so, we shall enlist the assistance of a recent series of four papers by Clifton Emahiser on the topic. These are titled It is Biblical to be Caucasian, Song. Chapters 4 to 7. We are employing Clifton’s studies for this purpose because he has already done a lot of the groundwork for us, and also had some interesting and worthy assessments that we will repeat here. Of course, we cannot present all four papers in this one presentation, but we will present portions, and also offer some of our own comments.

But we are going to start where Clifton had ended, and that is where he gave what he had called “a word of caution on Song 1:6” and he said:

This verse reads in part: “Look not upon me, because I am black ...” This verse is not speaking of being genetically “black”, but rather of having a sun tan, for it continues: “... because the sun hath looked upon me ...” I make a special effort to point this out, as there are those who would like to wrench this verse completely out-of-context to include nonwhites in the Kingdom of Yahweh! As a matter-of-fact, quite the opposite is true; or to exclude them!

Clifton then said that “Realistically, Proverbs 7:1-22 is the antithesis to the Song of Solomon”, but what he probably meant was that the Proverb is an anti-thesis to certain claims concerning Song 1:6. Then he quoted the Proverb because, if it is accepted – as it should be – that Solomon is the author of the Song, then Solomon should not be contradicting himself where in the Proverb where he strongly admonished against both race-mixing and harlotry. Clifton then quotes from various sources which explain the fornication in race-mixing which was prevalent amongst the pagan cults of Solomon’s own time, in order to put Solomon’s admonishments in Proverbs into a historical context. Then Clifton explained how Jeremiah chapter 2 also contains allegorical admonishments against race-mixing. One of those admonishments is found in verse 13 of the chapter where it says “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water….” In this regard, Clifton speaks of Proverbs chapter 5 and he says:

What we have here is a situation where neither the terms sour grapes” nor broken cisterns” can be taken literally. This is why [as] Brenton’s LXX translates Proverbs 5:15-20, [it reads] thusly:

15 Drink waters out of thine own vessels, and out of thine own springing wells. 16 Let not waters out of thy fountain be spilt by thee, but let thy waters go into thy streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and let no stranger partake with thee. 18 Let thy fountain of water be truly thine own; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let thy loving hart and thy graceful colt company with thee, and let her be considered thine own, and be with thee at all times; for ravished with her love thou shalt be greatly increased. 20 Be not intimate with a strange woman, neither fold thyself in the arms of a woman not thine own.

And while Clifton ended his series with a long digression regarding the meaning of the term “sour grapes”, the point is that the author of the Proverbs could not have meant to encourage race-mixing when he wrote the Song of Songs. Yet even Wesley Swift was fooled into thinking so, when he said in part, as we have quoted above, that “the Song of Solomon … deals with the love affairs supposedly of Solomon, and three or four others of different races, Negroes and everything else”. So it is apparent that Swift did not even understand Song 1:6, which is the only place in the Song that may be imagined to be speaking of Negroes.

But Song 1:6 actually says, in the King James Version and where the speaker is evidently the main character, Solomon himself, “6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.” As Brenton had translated the first two phrases of the verse, the Septuagint version reads “Look not upon me, because I am dark, because the sun has looked unfavourably upon me...”, and the New American Standard Bible translates the Masoretic Hebrew of the same phrases to read: “Do not stare at me because I am swarthy, For the sun has burned me.”

In any event, the speaker in Song 1:6 is black, or dark, or swarthy, only because the sun had burned, or tanned him. More importantly to note is the sense of shame expressed by the speaker because he is dark, black or swarthy. With that, we see that being black was considered badly, causing such a sense of shame that the man did not even want to be looked upon by women. So while in the previous statement, in verse 5, the speaker insists that “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,” here he nevertheless asks that they “Look not upon me, because I am black,” and the sense of shame is expressed in that.

It cannot really be proven with the information currently at hand, but there is a Hebrew word, balag, which Strong’s defines at entry # 1082 of his lexicon, in part in a negative sense as “to desist (from grief) or invade (with destruction)”. Then there is a related word, balah, which he defines at entry # 1086, in part, as “to wear out, decay (causative consume, spend)”. We suspect that these are the ultimate origins of the English words plague, pillage, plagiary, the Latin words plaga and plagium, and the English word black. Throughout history, black was equated with plague and destruction, and that is also true in Scripture. If the authors of Scripture were black, the values reflected in Scripture would be quite different. Throughout the language, however, it is perfectly clear that the authors of Scripture were White. So we see the proclamation of Job, in chapter 30, that “30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat. 31 My harp also is turned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep.” The depiction of blackness was used to describe his shame and his humbled condition, but not his natural skin color.

Throughout the Scriptures, to be black is a sign of something bad, or of the suffering of some evil. In Lamentations 4:7, Jeremiah had written of the holy men of Jerusalem that “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire”. Being “whiter than milk” cannot be disregarded as an allegory for ethical purity, as the line “they were more ruddy in body than rubies” is certainly an accompanying physical description. Then, with the pain and suffering they underwent in the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, the prophet writes that as a result, “8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.” So once again, to be black is shameful, it represents sickness, and it was seen negatively. One chapter later it says of the people of Judah that “10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.” Now, if they were naturally black, none of these metaphors would apply, and therefore the people of Judah must have been White, as white as milk and snow, and ruddy, which only describes authentically White, and not merely light-skinned people. This is where Clifton began his series of essays, and making a synopsis of Clifton’s papers, we will begin with some lengthy quotes from part 1:

We will start this essay by quoting Brenton’s Septuagint at Song of Solomon 5:9-12:

9 What is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, O thou beautiful among women? what is thy kinsman more than another kinsman, that thou hast so charged us? 10 My kinsman is white and ruddy, chosen out from myriads. 11 His head is as very fine gold, his locks are flowing, black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as doves, by the pools of [blue] waters, washed with [white] milk, sitting by the pools.” [brackets mine]

The KJV renders this same passage thusly:

9 What is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], O thou fairest3303 among women? what is thy beloved [kinsman] more than another beloved [kinsman], that thou dost so charge us? 10 My beloved [kinsman] is white and ruddy122, the chiefest among ten thousand. 11 His head is as the most fine [white] gold, his locks are bushy [the LXX has flowing], and black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the [blue] rivers of waters, washed with [white] milk, and fitly set.” [brackets mine]

The Hebrew word for “ruddy” here is Strong’s #122: 'adom {aw-dome'} Meaning: 1) red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils). Origin: from 119: ... to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy ....”

Here Clifton makes a digression, related to the use of the terms ruddy and rosy.

Benjamin Franklin must have been familiar with this passage, for he made a similar statement in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc., part 24:

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

While Clifton had a longer discussion and a somewhat different assessment of Franklin’s words here, we shall only note that he had a politicized and very narrow view of what and who constituted the “lovely White and Red” which was not quite fair to many of his kindred Europeans. So Clifton continues:

And when Franklin stated: “... in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red”, it is evident he was familiar with Song of Solomon 5:9-12. Here, by mentioning: “... the lovely White and Red ...”, Franklin simply meant beautiful White people with rosy cheeks, like the Song Of Solomon, chapters 4 & 5 describe! It should be pointed out here that Benjamin Franklin was one of the leading framers of our United States Constitution, so this sheds light on their intent!

Then after a digression on the intentions of the American founders for the destiny of the nation, Clifton continues with the Song of Solomon:

Song 7:3-4 further describes the complexion of the Adamic-Israelites at the time of Solomon:

3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins. 4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the [blue] fishpools in Heshbon ....” [brackets mine]

The significance of “two young roes” is interesting, as Webster’s Unified Encyclopedia and Dictionary gives the following definition, vol. 11, under the subject of “roe”: “roe (rō) n. 1 A small deer native to Europe and Asia; the female of the red deer ....” Here, again, we are faced with the idea of a White blushing female.

Next, as for “thy neck is as a tower of ivory”, it is alluding to the complexion of the neck as being similar to the color of her teeth. It should also be pointed out that the White Caucasian woman has a mark of beauty emanating from her neck. On the other hand, the male Caucasian does not have this mark of beauty because his Adam’s-apple interferes with its being revealed. This mark of beauty possessed by the Caucasian female is in conjunction with where the left and right collar bones intersect with the left and right Sterno Cleido Mastoideus muscles in the neck. It actually appears like two supporting bars holding up the head...

The Sterno Cleido Mastoideus muscles attach just behind the ears, and each drops down to intersect with its corresponding collar bone. In moving the head back and forth, one of the two Sterno Cleido Mastoideus muscles will project outward while simultaneously increasing its vertical angle from about 11 to 0°. When choosing what clothing to wear, the Caucasian lady should pick out something which reveals this mark of beauty! The neck and head really do appear “... as a tower of ivory ...”

(Clifton is encouraging the plunging neckline in womens’ fashion, which is probably okay so long as they keep the young roes in their shirts.)

Excerpts from Song of Solomon, chapter 4, read:

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes within thy locks ... Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet8144, and thy speech comely ... Thy neck is like the tower of David ... Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies ... Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee ... Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse ... How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! ... Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue ....”

As for the word crimson above: “8144 ... shânîy ... shaw-nee’; ... crimson, properly the insect or its color, also stuff dyed with it ....” Again, we are confronted with a shade of red! In addition, Strong’s #H1818 [dam] is Hebrew for “blood”, and Strong states “compare #H119”, so “blood” is encapsulated in Adam’s name, and Yahshua Christ came in Adam’s flesh, so to race-mix is to blaspheme Christ!

Here Clifton is trying to explain that the Hebrew word adam, from which the proper name is derived, means ruddy because it is derived from the Hebrew word dam, which means blood. Not even James Strong made the connection in his original lexicon at the entries for the word adam.

There are many fools posing to be scholars, who claim that the word adam refers to something dark red, or even brown, because there is a noun adamah which refers to certain soil. But Strong even said that adamah was derived from adam, and not the other way around, and that the reason adamah was used to describe soil was “from its redness”. Even today we identify certain clay soils as having value for their reddish hue, especially in the construction of ball fields.

Here is something I had written in the Christogenea Forum earlier this year:

In language, so far as I have ever seen, the simple noun never gets its origin from the more complex noun. Rather, it is the simple noun which lends itself as a stem forming more complex words.

The Jews, making the assertion that adam (man, 120) comes from adamah (soil, 127), defy all language logic.

The word adam has several uses, so James Strong separated them with distinct entries in his lexicon.

119 adam, verb, to be ruddy, flush, show blood in the face
120 adam, noun, man
121 Adam, proper name
122 adam, adjective, rosy, ruddy
123 Edom, proper name, same word as Adam (another story entirely...)
124 odem, noun, redness

But all of these are the exact same original word, once we discard the rabbinical vowel pointing which was invented relatively recently.

The more complex words, adamah (soil, 127) and adamdam (reddish 125), must have come from these words, and not the other way around.

And there is only one other even more basic word that all of these words must have come from, which also explains why they all basically mean "red" but are also related to the ruddiness or rosy color of a man:

1818 dam, noun, blood.

Adam means ruddy or rosy because dam means blood. Then by extension, adamah refers to reddish-colored soil because adam means ruddy or red, like blood. Not even Strong made this connection correctly, as he too was probably influenced by the rabbis.

The Jews know this, but they are purposely lying to hide the true meaning of the word ADAM.

So adam means ruddy because dam means blood, and no negro or arab could ever be ruddy. A short time later, I added this thought: “I also believe that our English word, damn, comes from the Hebrew word for blood, dam, as it refers to judgement.”

Now we shall move on to Part 2 of Clifton’s series of papers, where he begins with the same passage from Lamentations which we have already discussed:

Her [Israelite] Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy119 in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire ...”

Question: What is there about the purity of “snow” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about a color “whiter than milk” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the phrase “more ruddy in body than rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: What is there about the color of “rubies” that we don’t seem to understand?

Question: Why does this Biblical verse exactly describe pure White, Caucasian Europeans or Americans, and their like kindred people around the world?

From Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary, vol. 4, p. 410, we read about the above passage:

Verse 7. Her Nazarites were purer than snow] ... nazir does not always signify a person separated under a religious vow; it sometimes denotes what is chief or eminent. It is applied to Joseph, Gen. xlix. 26. Blayney therefore translates here her nobles.

“‘Her nobles were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk;

They were ruddier on the bone than rubies; their veining was as the sapphires.’

On which he remarks:– ‘In the first line the whiteness of their skin is described; and in the second, their flesh;’ and as ... gazar signifies to divide and intersect, as the blue veins do on the surface of the body, these are without doubt intended.” [So he rendered veining, rather than polishing. Clifton comments:]

This is quite interesting, for not only is the “whiteness” of our skin likened unto transparency with the red blood-tone showing through like rubies, but the blue veins of a Caucasian appear as sapphire! This is the same flesh-tone that a good photographer likes to attain in his finished pictures, and goes to great pains to achieve in perfection. This is amazing, for only the sunlight has a perfect balance between magenta (i.e., red) and blue. Therefore, all non-whites are totally out of balance with nature….

And Clifton takes a digression which we will omit here, where he explains that Whites alone are optimized to process Vitamin D from sunlight hitting their skin. So he continues:

Back to Adam Clarke: “Milk will most certainly well apply to the whiteness of the skin; the beautiful ruby to the ruddiness of the flesh; and the sapphire, in its clear transcendent purple, to the veins in a fine complexion ....”

And after repeating some of the things Benjamin Franklin had said, with a few new comments Clifton continues:

At 1st Sam. 16:12, David is described thusly:

And he sent, and brought him [David] in. Now he was ruddy132, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And Yahweh said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.”

From Adam Clarke’s 6-volume Commentary, vol. 2, p. 258, we read about this passage:

Verse 12. He was ruddy] – I believe the word here means red-haired, he had golden locks. Hair of this kind is ever associated with a delicate skin and florid (i.e., flowery) complexion.” The KJV center column has, “fair of eyes”. [Comparing the use of the same term in chapter 17, which Clifton is about to repeat, the KJV notes are absurd in that regard.]

1st Sam. 17:42 further states: “And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy122, and of a fair3303 countenance.”

Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary has the following on #’s 122 and 3303:

122 ... ad-mo-nee´; from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion:– [In the KJV as] red, ruddy.

3303 ... yaw-feh´; from 3302; beautiful (literally or figuratively):– [In the KJV as] + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.”

The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew & English Lexicon adds to #3303: “... adjective, fair, beautiful ... as attribute of women ... less often of boy, young man ... (of Joseph); of Jerusalem ... of a singer ... cedar ... of everything in its time ... with beauty of eyes ....”

Here we must note, that even in the Brown, Driver and Briggs lexicon which Clifton has just cited, the definition of the word for fair seems to be corrupted, as if the commentators are conducting an agenda to change the meaning of the term. We had seen it remarked that the King James Version center-column reference has “fair of eyes” for the word fair in 1 Samuel 16:12, but that doesn’t really fit the use of the term in 1 Samuel 17:42. But here Brown, Driver and Briggs added “fair of eyes” for their definition of the word, where it was used to describe Joseph.

Ostensibly, they are referring to Genesis 39:6. There the Hebrew word for fair appears twice in the same sentence, and the King James translators wrote: “Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.” In that clause, the word yapheh, 3303, is translated “well”, but also appears with another word, 8389, to’ar, which means form or outline, and the King James translators rendered the two words as “goodly”. It should say that “Joseph was of good form, and well favoured”, both good and well being from 3303, which is often by itself translated as fair where it describes people.

And here we must ask why yapheh, Strong’s # 3303, means fair, and what is meant by fair. Strong’s primary definition of 3303 is beautiful. He explained that it is derived from Hebrew # 3302, a word which is spelled the same way in the original Hebrew, and which is “a primitive root” meaning “properly, to be bright”, and also “(by implication) beautiful”. So something which is bright is beautiful, and that is another term which can only accurately describe White people of good countenance. Returning to Clifton:

From the 3-volume The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1493, we read concerning the word “Ruddy”:

RUDDY ... ad-mo-nee´, from ... aw-dam´, to be red), applied to David (1 Sam. xvi:12; xvii:42).

It is a term used to denote either the color of David’s hair or of his complexion. It seems rather to refer to the complexion. This view is confirmed by the application of kindred words, as ‘Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy than rubies’ (Lam. iv:7); and ‘My beloved is white and ruddy’ (Cant. v:10, who is immediately described as black-haired (v:11).” You will notice that this source uses the expression “the application of kindred wordswhich is a very important observation! To make it more complete, I would say “both kindred words and kindred phrases.” In the case of “kindred words”, the second word would reinforce the meaning of the first word. Likewise, in the case of “kindred phrases”, the second phrase would reinforce the meaning of the first phrase. Therefore, the true meaning of the “word” or “phrase” is locked solidly in place, and the meaning cannot be challenged! It would be foolhardy to try!

What Clifton means is that where it says “purer than snow … whiter than milk … more ruddy than rubies”, we have a Hebrew parallelism where each of the three phrases clarifies what is described by each of the others, all of them describing the same people in different ways for that very reason. Clifton continues:

I will now cite the 14-volume Webster’s Unified Encyclopedia and Dictionary on the word “ruddy”, vol. 11:

ruddy (rud´i) adjective [compare ruddier, superlative ruddiest] Approaching redness; tinged with red; florid, as a ruddy countenance.”

Next, I will cite a dictionary which I recommend that every serious Bible student should have, as it contains all of the Indo-European root words. I also recommend along with this a KJV with a good center reference, like found in the Zondervan Classic Reference Bible (mainly because the KJV words are keyed to the Strong’s numbers). Third, I also recommend the Strong’s Concordance with the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. The English dictionary which I advise is The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language, published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

ruddy (rud´e) adjective -dier, -diest. 1. Having a healthy, reddish color. 2. Reddish; rosy. 3. Slang. Confounded; darned. [Middle English rudie, Old English rudig, from rudu, red color. See reudh- in Appendix*] –rud´di-ly adjective –rud´di-ness noun.”

At this point Clifton supplies the derivatives of all of the Indo-European words supposed to have come from a common original root for the word ruddy. We will omit the list here, and more. At this point in his paper, Clifton proceeds by citing Song 4:7 where it says “Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.” Doing this, he continues with a long discussion of spots and blemishes as they are seen in Scripture, the consequence of having such spots and blemishes, and then he gives a discussion of the infamous Mongolian Spot found on many non-White and mixed race babies.

Then in Part 3 of his paper, Clifton discussed Acts 17:26 at great length, particularly in relation to the “one blood” statement found in the King James Version (but not in the oldest Greek manuscripts), and used that as an occasion to discuss blood types and other differences of blood and genetics among the races.

While these topics may certainly be worth expounding upon at some point in the future, they are beyond the scope of our purpose here this evening, and we will leave them for another time. Later, in Part 4 of his paper, Clifton returns to the Song of Solomon, and we will skip his brief introduction, picking up from where he once again quotes from chapter 5 of the Song of Solomon:

10 My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. 11 His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. 12 His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. 13 His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. 14 His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. 15 His legs are as pillars of marble8836, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. 16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

The word in this passage we are interested in is “marble”, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary #8336:

8336. ... shêsh, shaysh ... sheshiy, shaysh; for 7893: bleached stuff, i.e. white linen or (by analogy) marble:– KJV rendering: X blue, fine [(twined]) linen, marble, silk.”

7893 ... shayish, shah´-yish; from an unused root meaning, to bleach, i.e. whiten; white, i.e. marble:– KJV rendering marble. See 8336.”

What is interesting about Strong’s #8336 is that Strong’s #8337 is derived from the same Hebrew word as #8336, and #8337 generally means:

I. [the numeral numbers six or sixty in several languages].”

Gesenius in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the OT has this to say in part concerning #8336:

II. 8336 ... masculine something white ...

(1) white marble, Esther 1:6; Canticles 5:15 ...

(2) byssus, so called from its whiteness, both that of the Egyptians, Gen. 41:42; Prov. 31:22 and of the Hebrew priests, Exod. 26:1; 27:9, 18; 28:39 ... (This word as we have seen, may be referred to a Hebrew origin; it nearly approximates however to the Egyptian ... and perhaps the Hebrew may have so imitated the Egyptian word, that it might also seem to have an etymology in their own language.) ...” In the Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, on Strong’s #7893 it has: “... noun [masculine] alabaster (foreign word? ....)”

Inasmuch as alabaster is a form of marble, let’s ascertain what “marble” is all about. We will do that by referring to the 1951 World Scope Encyclopedia, vol. VII as follows:

Marble (mar´bl), a name applied to any limestone that is sufficiently hard to take a fine polish. The species which are of value for building or ornament are composed mainly of calcium carbonate or of calcium and magnesium carbonate. The colors of marble range from pure white through all shades of gray to black, while violet, red, drab, yellow, pink, and green are likewise abundant. Gray and black colors are due to carbonaceous matter, and the others mainly to iron oxide. Excellent marbles are secured from some of the fossiliferous limestones, such as are taken from the carboniferous formations, and these are colored various shades of gray. Good marbles are also secured from non-fossiliferous crystalline formations, these consisting mainly of sedimentary calcareous strata, which are altered by metamorphism. The purest classes of marble are used for statues and monuments, while others are of value for building material.

A fine grade of marble of various colors is obtained from the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, but there are quarries of more or less value in many portions of Canada and the U.S. The marble used by ancient artists in sculpturing came largely from the Parian and Carrara quarries, located respectively in the island of Paros and in Italy, which still produce species of very excellent quality. Both the Carrara and the Parian marbles are white. The Numidian marble of Africa is either white or yellow, but usually white with yellowish markings. Extensive marble quarries are worked at Glens Falls, N.Y., in Vermont ....”

Ibid. vol. I, “Alabaster ..., the name applied to a very fine variety of gypsum, or hydrated sulfate of lime. The harder variety is used in the manufacture of statuettes, clock frames, and other ornamental commodities, while the softer serves in the manufacture of an inferior cement, known in the markets as plaster of paris. Deposits of white granular gypsum are found in various portions of the U.S., which occurs in pure and sound blocks, and from which the merchantable article is manufactured. However, the largest quarries are in Tuscany, Italy, where a fine grade is obtained. There are also deposits in Egypt and various regions of Asia.”

From The American Heritage Dictionary, with Indo-European roots we read in part concerning the definition of “alabaster”:

alabaster ... noun, 1. A dense translucent white or tinted fine-grained gypsum, 2. A variety of hard calcite, translucent and sometimes banded ....” [emphasis mine]

This definition is very important, as only the White, Caucasian fits this description. So not only are “His legs as pillars of marble” but they are translucent, allowing the red blood-tone as well as the blue of the veins to radiate through! And “... his belly is as bright ivory ...” (v. 14), in the Hebrew means the skin area of his entire body.

From the 6-volume The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 4, pp. 71-72, we read in part on “marble”: “Marble is limestone (calcium carbonate) or dolomite (calcium-magnesium carbonate) which has been recrystallized under metamorphic conditions, either by heat and pressure in the earth’s crust, particularly in mountain belts. However, the term marble often is applied to some special types of non-metamorphic limestone. The same is capable of high polish (Latin marmor, ‘shining stone’) and was much used in architecture, as in the building of Solomon’s Temple (1 Chron. 29:2), with pillars of marble being used as a representation of strength (Song of Solomon 5:15) ....”

Here Clifton closes the main theme of his paper by remarking upon the described whiteness and translucence of Solomon’s skin, as it is described in the Song of Songs.

We can examine the definition of the word adam, and the definitions and the use of the words for fair and ruddy in the several places that they appear in Scripture and deduce that the ancient Israelites were White people. We can also look at ancient history, and all of the Genesis 10 nations, and it is quite clear to even a novice of history that most of them were White, while those who do deeper research must be convinced that all of them were originally White.

But the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon as it is more frequently called, is a smoking gun. Any honest examination of its language proves beyond all reasonable doubt that King Solomon and his unnamed lover, or wife, were indeed White, and in the dialogue they also referred to one another as kinsmen meaning that they were of the same nation. There should be no doubt that they were White with blue, gray, or perhaps green eyes, and ivory-colored, translucent and ruddy-featured skin through which the veins could be seen.

This book also portrays the love which Yahweh Himself has for His people Israel, and therefore it exhibits His ideal, which is the ideal for the likeness of the Adamic man of His Creation. And by no means can any of these things describes negros, arabs, or jews.

CHR20160826-SongSolomon.odt — Downloaded 509 times