TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 31

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

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20210320-100Proofs-31.mp3 — Downloaded 1863 times


TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 31

We are finally reaching the end of our discussion of particular passages in Paul’s epistles where certain terms are either mistranslated or misunderstood, adversely affecting the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. As we have already explained, due to the nature and purpose of Paul’s writings there are more of these than there are in all of the other New Testament Scriptures. So here we will discuss a few passages from the epistle to the Hebrews, and from the pastoral epistles which Paul had written to Timothy and to Titus.

45 continued) Specific NT verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in the epistles of Paul

So now our discussion brings us to the epistle to the Hebrews. While even in the King James Version there are not many particularly errant mistranslations in Hebrews, at least which concern our purposes here, there is nevertheless much confusion over the epistle, regarding whether Paul was actually the author or when or for what purpose it was written. However it is clear to me that Paul was the author, that the epistle was left unsigned and that Paul did not mention his own name for a reason, and that the epistle was written shortly after his arrest in the temple in 58 AD, but before he was sent as a prisoner to Rome.

The Judaean Christians were already hostile to Paul, as we see in Acts chapter 21, and Judaeans in general had also despised him, which is evident in Acts chapter 22. We should read these two passages.

From Acts chapter 21: “18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.”

From Acts chapter 22, where Paul attempted a defense of his gospel addressing the Judaeans who attacked him in the temple, and he spoke of what Christ had instructed him: “21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. 22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. 23 And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, 24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.”

Knowing that the Judaeans were hostile to Paul, and that, as James attested, they had a bias against his teachings, it is fair to imagine that Paul left his name out of the epistle for that reason, hoping that they would read it and understand his arguments concerning the end of the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices and related aspects of the law. Historically, however, at least many of the Christians of Judaea continued to reject Paul of Tarsus for the reasons which these Scriptures from the Book of Acts explain. So, understanding this, we see that the purpose of the epistle to the Hebrews was as an in-depth defense of his evangelical teachings, addressing his positions on those aspects of the law which were done away with in Christ, and on the scope of the covenants, which he discussed by citing the promise of a new covenant found in Jeremiah, in Hebrews chapter 8.

So it is important to understand that Paul was the author of Hebrews, and once we do, it is important to see that in Hebrews chapter 8 he recognized, citing Jeremiah, that the New Covenant was made exclusively with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and it is in that sense that he had used terms such as οἰκονομία, the management of a house or family, and πατριά, a family with a common patriarch, in relation to his evangelical duties, because he was bringing the Gospel to that one family of people, the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

Now as for the timing of the epistle. As Paul went to Jerusalem, we see from the list of his companions given in Acts chapter 20 that Luke, Timothy and Aristarchus, among others, were all with him. From the book of Acts and all later epistles, it is evident that Luke remained with him, or at least as near to him as possible, for the rest of his recorded ministry. Then at Acts chapter 27, as Paul is being sent to Rome as a prisoner and Luke evidently accompanied him, we see that Aristarchus also accompanied him, as we read in verse 2: “And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.” So with this it becomes evident, that in the temple when Paul was arrested, while Paul was the focus of Luke’s writing some of his companions must have been arrested along with him, including this Aristarchus, who being a Macedonian was also, like Paul, a Roman citizen.

But in the epistle to the Hebrews, in chapter 13, we read “23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.” But Timothy was not sent to Rome with Paul, or certainly Luke would have mentioned the well-known apostle, whom he first met in Antioch a few years earlier, as being with Paul along with Aristarchus.

A protest may be raised where in verse 24 in the King James Version we read “They of Italy salute you.” Commentators assume this meant Paul was writing from Italy. However the translators ignored the preposition ἀπό which is from, away from, and the clause should have been rendered “They from Italy salute you”, and it is more likely that Paul had visitors from Italy while he was imprisoned in Caesareia, and Luke had written that he was permitted to have such visitors.

Later, while a prisoner in Rome, Paul never mentions Timothy in his epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome, and the prayer in the closing chapter of that epistle indicates that he had not yet defended himself before Caesar. But then Paul wrote 2 Timothy, asking him to come to him in Rome, and Timothy did come, so he is mentioned in the subsequent epistles to the Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, which must have been his last three of the surviving epistles.

So Paul was arrested and imprisoned in Caesareia, and after Timothy was released he wrote this epistle to the Hebrews to a friendly party in Judaea, as there were some, but with the hopes that it would be shared widely with Judaeans, being his defense of the Gospel written from their Hebrew perspective. Then Paul went to Rome with Aristarchus, where Timothy was later reunited with him before his death. There is additional evidence supporting this in a summary article at Christogenea titled Ordering and chronology of the epistles of Paul.

Hebrews 11:17: While it is not a mistranslation, Hebrews chapter 8 proves that the Israelites were White, and we should save that for another time, if we have not already included it. Therefore we shall move on to a misunderstood term in Hebrews chapter 11, where we read “17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son” . Paul wrote this in spite of the fact that at the time Abraham had another and older son, his first-born son Ishmael. Later, Abraham would have several more sons with Keturah.

While the Greek word μονογενής literally means “only-begotten”, the literal translation of the term creates the wrong impression that Yahshua Christ is the only son of God, which is clearly not true in light of other Scriptures. For example in Luke chapter 3 in the genealogy of Christ the apostle wrote of Adam that his son Seth “was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Again, in John chapter 11 the apostle described words uttered by the then-current high priest and said “ 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

Therefore, if μονογενής could be translated in another manner, then it should be, as Isaac was clearly not Abraham’s only son, and as Christ is clearly not the only son of Yahweh God. Paul himself said in Hebrews chapter 2, speaking of Christ: “16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Again, Paul wrote in Romans, speaking of God: “29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Those brethren, in both instances, are the “children of God spread abroad” which were mentioned by John.

So reading this passage from Hebrews again, we will include verse 18: “17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Those words were spoken in reference to Isaac in Genesis 21:12, where Isaac was distinguished from Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, and we read: “12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” So Abraham was even grieving for Ishmael, his oldest son, whereas Isaac could not have been his “only-begotten” son.

Therefore the use of the term μονογενής here, which is a Greek word that literally means only-begotten, but where there are clearly other sons, informs us that the term must represent a Hebrew idiom and therefore it should not necessarily be literally translated as only-begotten. The translators of the Septuagint, who translated the Greek from Hebrew at an even earlier time, must have understood this idiom. So where the Masoretic Text has a similar Hebrew term, when they rendered it in Greek in the Septuagint at Genesis 22:2 it reads “thy son, the beloved one” in reference to Isaac where in the King James Version the corresponding Hebrew phrase was translated literally as “thy son, thine only son”.

The historian Flavius Josephus also used this Hebrew idiom in the same manner, in his Antiquities Books 1 and 20 (1:13:1 [1:222] and 20:2:1 [20:17]). The translator of Josephus, William Whiston, makes note of the idiom at those points in his translation, and shows that the term was used metaphorically for “best beloved” or “most loved”, as we have written here in this passage of Hebrews, and as the Septuagint translators clearly understood when they translated Genesis 22:2 into Greek from Hebrew.

For these reasons, in the Christogenea New Testament Hebrews 11:17 reads: “By faith Abraham, being tried, had offered up Isaak, and the best-beloved being offered up took upon himself the promises” this is also the same way we interpret the word μονογενής as it appears in reference to Christ in John chapters 1 and 3 and in 1 John chapter 4. In that manner, this term where it appears does not conflict with other Scriptures which identify the children of Israel as children or sons and daughters of God. Rather, Christ is more accurately considered to be the first-born among many brethren, and therefore the most-beloved of the many sons and daughters of Yahweh who are descended from Isaac and Israel.

Hebrews 11:24-26, From the King James Version: “24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”

Here we once again see that word χριστός, as it always was in the King James Version, it is translated as Christ. But it was not Christ Himself who was being reproached in the captivity of Egypt. Rather it was the children of Israel who had been reproached, the anointed people of Yahweh serving as slaves to the Egyptians. So this is a rather clear instance where it may be perceived that Paul did indeed use the term ὁ χριστός collectively of the children of Israel as the Anointed people. Other such examples which we have mentioned here are found in 1 Corinthians 1:12 where Paul asked “Have the Anointed been divided?”, in 1 Corinthians 4:15 where he referred to “tutors among the Anointed”, and 1 Timothy 5:11 where he discussed lewd women who “behave wantonly towards the anointed”, which we shall mention again later.

Moses’ having had “respect unto the recompence of the reward”, it is arguable as to whether he had any cognizance of the way in which the promises made by Yahweh to the children of Israel on account of the patriarchs would be fulfilled. It is even arguable as to whether Moses was fully cognizant of the promises at all, as he was taken away from his Israelite family at a very young age, evidently sooner than he was weaned, where he was exposed in the river to die, and taken in by a princess of Egypt to be raised as her own. Rather, Paul may have been referring to the natural concern for the people of his own race which Moses had exhibited in Scripture, for example in Exodus chapters 2 and 4. In Exodus chapter 2 Moses killed an Egyptian on behalf of an Israelite, and in Exodus chapter 4 we read: “18 And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.” So even though Moses was raised as an Egyptian, he knew that he was a Hebrew, and favored his own people although they were slaves.

On that account, we read the same passage to say: “By faith Moses, becoming full-grown, refused to be called a son of the daughter of Pharaoh, rather preferring to be mistreated with the people of Yahweh than to have the temporary rewards of error, having esteemed the reproach of the Anointed greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, since he had regard for the reward.” Surely it was not Yahshua Christ suffering reproach as a slave in Egypt, but rather the Anointed people: the children of Israel, in whose reproach Moses chose to share as it is they who were being mistreated, while Moses instead had the choice of an easier life as an official in the house of Pharaoh.

These two Scriptures, and the way that the same words are translated in all of the popular Bible versions, actually help to obscure the facts that first, there are literal sons and daughters of God, while not everyone is a son or daughter of God, and that second, those sons and daughters are an anointed race of people, a genetic family, and not some disparate collection of mere believers. The Hebrew prophets did not prophesy a gathering of some disparate collection of believers, but rather, they prophesied the regathering of the chosen people of Israel in Christ. That is the gathering that Paul was also teaching.

Now we shall depart from Hebrews and discuss a few passages from Paul’s first epistle to Timothy.

1 Timothy 1:2: In Paul's salutation to Timothy in the first epistle of that name, we find in the King James Version: “2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” Yet the word my does not appear in any Greek manuscript, and the fact is admitted where it is printed in italics in the King James Version.

The King James translation renders another word, which is γνήσιος, simply as own, as in “of oneself”. But the word does not mean own. The word γνήσιος is an adjective formed from the noun γένος, which is primarily a race, stock or family. How could the translators ignore the primary meaning of such a significant word, and why would they do so? The Greek word γνήσιος, according to Liddell & Scott, means “of or belonging to the race, i.e. lawfully begotten, legitimate, opposed to νόθος”. The word νόθος appears in Paul’s writing in Hebrews 12:8 where it is opposed to υἱός, or son, and it is translated as “bastard”, even in the King James Version, which is as it should be. The same word νόθος also appears several times in the Septuagint in the same context, describing someone who is not of the pure race. It appears at Deuteronomy 23:2 where we read “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD…”

So Paul is telling Timothy that he is an authentic or purely bred son of the faith, as the faith is only meant for the children of Israel, and not for bastards. Since authentic is ambiguous and Paul is using an adjective which describes racial character to describe the state of a son, purely bred is a more precise and more accurate translation. As Paul wrote in Hebrews chapter 12, from the King James Version: “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” But chastisement is not merely a suffering of evil, rather it is a punishment for correction, as the children of Israel were prophesied to be punished. So the word γνήσιος in this verse should be translated as purely bred here.

Therefore we read in the Christogenea New Testament, at 1 Timothy 1:2: “to Timotheos, purely bred child in faith: favor, mercy, peace from Father Yahweh and Christ Yahshua our Prince.” The King James Version, ignoring the true meaning of the word γνήσιος, once again obscures the racial message of the gospel, that it is meant for only a particular race of people. Furthermore, Paul had professed that the purpose of his ministry was for the twelve tribes of Israel, in Acts chapters 26 and 28, and tribal identification in Scripture is always carried down through the father. But Luke explained in Acts chapter 16 that Timothy’s father was a Greek, while we learn from Paul in 2 Timothy chapter 1 that his mother was a Judaean. As we have often illustrated here, the Israelite Judaeans were of the same race as the Greeks, as Paul also attested in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 that their fathers were with Moses in the Exodus. For that reason, he also told them not to commit fornication, which is race-mixing, of which he then gave an example from the Book of Numbers and the race-mixing incident with the daughters of Moab at Baalpeor. Even though Timothy was half Greek and half Israelite, he was a purebred son of God. The same would not have been true of he were half non-White, or if he were an Edomite Judaean.

Now we must discuss that word χριστός once again, at least briefly, as it appears in 1 Timothy 5:11. We will read it in a wider context so that we can determine the precise meaning of Paul’s words. In that passage we read in the King James Version: “9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

Here Paul is informing Timothy that the Christian community should enlist and support widows who had been faithful wives and had raised families, and who have helped others throughout their lives. Women who lived their lives as whores or runarounds deserve no such Christian support in their old age. These women who are taken in by the community would be expected to serve the community in some capacity in return for that support. Thus we read verses 11 and 12, from the Christogenea New Testament: “11 But younger widows you must excuse, for when they behave wantonly towards the anointed, they desire to marry 12 with judgment because they have set aside that former assurance.”

For younger women who are widows, either actual widows or who are merely claiming to be widows, Paul is instructing Timothy that such younger women should not be accepted in that capacity. Rather, they must support themselves, or remarry. That is because since they are still capable of being sexually active and having children, rather than dedicating themselves to the assembly they may very likely break their commitment later on through infidelity. Surely Paul is not implying that young, unattached women could behave wantonly towards Yahshua Christ, but rather they may tend to seduce the men of the community, the anointed which in this case are the men of the children of Israel turned to Christianity. Paul is not even necessarily implying that these women are lascivious, but only that they would yield to their natural desires which would cause them to behave wantonly and to desert the community which was supporting them while possibly even luring men of the community into sin.

Therefore, rather than taking younger widows into the care of the community, Paul wrote in verse 14: “14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” The entire context demonstrates that in this instance the word χριστός refers to the body of Christians and not to Christ Himself.

Now we shall return to a brief discussion of the adjective γνήσιος, as it also appears in Paul’s epistle to Titus.

In Titus 1:4, in the King James Version we read: “To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Once again, in this context, only a phrase such as purely bred can capture the full meaning and the intention of the writer, as the adjective γνήσιος modifies the noun for son. It does not mean own, and another Greek word, ἴδιος, appears throughout the New Testament in contexts where it refers to things which are one’s own. Rendering it as own here in in 1 Timothy, the King James translators ignored the true meaning, and created lies.

In other contexts, the word γνήσιος is legitimacy or sincerity in 2 Corinthians 8:8 where the adjective modifies a noun meaning love, and genuine or true at Philippians 4:3, where it modifies a noun for yoke-fellow. The adverb form of the same word, γνησίως, is genuinely in Philippians 2:20, where the King James Version has naturally, as it describes the degree of concern or care which Paul had for his readers. So in contexts other than those referring to the nature of people, the word γνήσιος does have some metaphorical uses. However describing the quality of a son or child, it must be understood in its primary sense, of a pure or purely bred son or child.

As Paul had explained in Galatians chapter 2, Titus was a Greek, and as we have mentioned, Timothy was an Israelite on his mother's side but had a Greek father. He especially may have been considered a bastard by both the Judaeans and by the Greeks. Titus may have been held suspect by the Judaeans, since Greek was a general term denoting the language and culture of a collection of diverse Adamic tribes, both Israelite and Japhethite, and the Greeks as a people had lost the genealogies which the ancient Israelites had maintained. But Paul, throughout his ministry, correctly taught that many of the Greeks actually descended from the ancient Israelites of Scripture. Paul, knowing as much, was surely assuring both Titus and Timothy of their legitimacy as Israelites, and therefore of their respective shares in the covenants which were made exclusively with Israel.

So Titus 1:4 must be read likewise: “to Titos, a purely bred child according to common belief, favor and peace from Father Yahweh, even Yahshua Christ our Savior.” Here the word κοινός is common and πίστις is belief, both which are perfectly literal meanings, and these are perfectly literal renderings of the Greek are quite harmonious with the purpose of Scripture. Here these words do not refer to the Christian faith or belief in Jesus. Rather, Paul was telling Titus that as he himself had taught, he also descended from the ancient Israelites in fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the twelve tribes, which is the common belief that Paul had spread with his ministry in the Gospel, and which all White European Christians should have.

Here we have offered many examples from the epistles of Paul of blatant mistranslations, and also of poor translations based on misunderstandings or purposeful ignorance of Paul’s own stated objectives. So misunderstanding is a kind word, because there is really no excuse for ignoring Paul’s stated objectives, since they are the same objectives which Yahweh God had frequently announced for the children of Israel throughout the books of the prophets. Examining the words of the prophets, the fact that the promises of a Savior, a Redeemer, a Deliverer and a Messiah are made exclusively to one particular race of people is without question. Then examining the actual Greek meanings of the epistles of Paul, and translating them properly, we see that same message throughout his writing, that he was also speaking of one race only which is in Christ, and not of any other races.

ChrSat20210320-100Proofs-31.odt — Downloaded 33 times