Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[jacks]

If we judge it by racial mix, we see it's all over the board.
Note: Atheists and Agnostics are less diverse than many religious groups. It's also interesting that some of the most "liberal" churches are the least diverse. (Episcopal, UMC, etc.) Pew Research

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, I mean indirectly.

People have probably always had some kind of notion about race, but it was never a big deal. For example there is an ancient Egyptian painting that shows the various shades of skin colors men have. With white, black and other colors of men lined up with one another. The idea of race existed in a rudimentary sense.

What kept it from becoming important socially I argue was ironically largely slavery. For ancient civilizations, a large chunk and often the vast majority of the slaves looked like the dominate race. How could serious notions of racial hierarchies rise in such environments?

While not perfect, Christianity limited slavery in the Western world right before we started enslaving other races (mainly Africans).

It is interesting to imagine a world without Christianity. Especially the collapse of Rome. Without Christianity and it's spiritual traditions of practicing extreme empathy with other people the barbarians who rose up could have easily continued in the ancient's footsteps of enslaving one another and having no serious social chance of the concept of race catching on.

Chattel slavery in the US involved a hardening of racial categories.

This is in contrast to Latin America, where concepts of race are more fluid.

 

[MarkSB]

I thought the Africans were descendants of Canaan. I would be willing to hear the case that they were sons of other descendants of Ham and therefore their mistreatment over the years was completely and totally unjustified.

(I'm just responding over here to avoid contributing to more off-topic thread derailment.)

The sentence that I have underlined pretty much sums up what should be utterly unbelievable and reprehensible to a discerning Christian. (Or to a discerning human being, for that matter.)

You're proposing that hundreds of years of slavery for Africans is justified, as long as they are the descendants of Ham? Do you somehow know the will of God and the judgements that he has imposed in this matter, enough to make this (rather convenient) statement? To think that one "knows" such things is rather arrogant and prideful... not to mention, completely lacking in empathy for those who were impacted by the institution of slavery.

 

[linux.poet]

The sentence that I have underlined pretty much sums up what should be utterly unbelievable and reprehensible to a discerning Christian. (Or to a discerning human being, for that matter.)

You're proposing that hundreds of years of slavery for Africans is justified, as long as they are the descendants of Ham? Do you somehow know the will of God and the judgements that he has imposed in this matter, enough to make this (rather convenient) statement? To think that one "knows" such things is rather arrogant and prideful... not to mention, completely lacking in empathy for those who were impacted by the institution of slavery.

I don’t know anything. Previously I was under the (false?) impression that the slavery and colonization of Africans was a playing out of Genesis 9 and said curse. It seemed to make sense historically. But that is mere historical analysis, and would never reflect my actual actions.

I denounce how slavery was practiced in the Americas from the colonial period up until the 14th Amendment as man-stealing, which is denounced in the Mosaic Law. I denounce the horrific torture these people have suffered and the numerous cruelties, families separated, rape, whipping and isolation, being hunted like dogs, living in fear, with no access to education, working in inhuman conditions in the cane fields that frequently resulted in death. I could go on. This is violence between Christians in almost all cases - Black Christians on one side and White Christians on the other, Ephesians 6:9 violation, Ephesians 4:32 violation and every Scripture verse about slaves and masters in the epistles, not to mention Galatians 3:28. There is no Scriptural leg to stand on to defend such horrors. Even the boats that brought the slaves here are a crime against humanity and an affront to the dignity of man.

At no point would I ever engage in such cruelty myself, and if I saw someone else doing it I would put a stop to it immediately. I have no interest in defending such wrongdoing.

However, I also defend Scripture’s authority to predict the future. Daniel prophesied the Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, Macedonian (Alexander the Great), and Roman empires. Thousands of people died or were enslaved as these empires conquered each other. Were they right to greedily conquer land and people at the expense of other lands and kill numerous human beings out of lust for power? No. Did Daniel still predict their behavior? Yes. That doesn’t mean that God approved, or that Christians get the go ahead to engage in wars of conquest. *cough* Crusades *cough* Likewise, Noah, though his “curse” could have predicted the phenomenon of African slavery to the descendants of Japheth. That doesn’t give the license for other Christians to enslave other Christians and torture them, especially in America where slavery is illegal, so Romans 13 also has something to say because we are to be subject to the governing authorities.

There is no excuse for Galatians 3:28 violations, but I do interpret Romans 9 to mean that, in God’s sovereignty, some people get the shaft. That never justifies me giving them said shaft, but we do need to realize the fact that I was born in America with the exact skin color I have is part of God’s providence and grace. I could have been born on North Sentinel Island and have no chance of hearing the Gospel because all of my friends and family kill foreigners on sight. That doesn’t mean that those on North Sentinel Island are inferior human beings to those living in America or that I get a license to make fun of them, but we should be allowed to acknowledge that God allows tragedies to happen to certain groups of people without being accused of furthering said tragedy.

That is what I meant; sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t know anything. Previously I was under the (false?) impression that the slavery and colonization of Africans was a playing out of Genesis 9 and said curse. It seemed to make sense historically. But that is mere historical analysis, and would never reflect my actual actions.

I denounce how slavery was practiced in the Americas from the colonial period up until the 14th Amendment as man-stealing, which is denounced in the Mosaic Law. I denounce the horrific torture these people have suffered and the numerous cruelties, families separated, rape, whipping and isolation, being hunted like dogs, living in fear, with no access to education, working in inhuman conditions in the cane fields that frequently resulted in death. I could go on. This is violence between Christians in almost all cases - Black Christians on one side and White Christians on the other, Ephesians 6:9 violation, Ephesians 4:32 violation and every Scripture verse about slaves and masters in the epistles, not to mention Galatians 3:28. There is no Scriptural leg to stand on to defend such horrors. Even the boats that brought the slaves here are a crime against humanity and an affront to the dignity of man.

At no point would I ever engage in such cruelty myself, and if I saw someone else doing it I would put a stop to it immediately. I have no interest in defending such wrongdoing.

However, I also defend Scripture’s authority to predict the future. Daniel prophesied the Babylonian, Medeo-Persian, Macedonian (Alexander the Great), and Roman empires. Thousands of people died or were enslaved as these empires conquered each other. Were they right to greedily conquer land and people at the expense of other lands and kill numerous human beings out of lust for power? No. Did Daniel still predict their behavior? Yes. That doesn’t mean that God approved, or that Christians get the go ahead to engage in wars of conquest. *cough* Crusades *cough* Likewise, Noah, though his “curse” could have predicted the phenomenon of African slavery to the descendants of Japheth. That doesn’t give the license for other Christians to enslave other Christians and torture them, especially in America where slavery is illegal, so Romans 13 also has something to say because we are to be subject to the governing authorities.

There is no excuse for Galatians 3:28 violations, but I do interpret Romans 9 to mean that, in God’s sovereignty, some people get the shaft. That never justifies me giving them said shaft, but we do need to realize the fact that I was born in America with the exact skin color I have is part of God’s providence and grace. I could have been born on North Sentinel Island and have no chance of hearing the Gospel because all of my friends and family kill foreigners on sight. That doesn’t mean that those on North Sentinel Island are inferior human beings to those living in America or that I get a license to make fun of them, but we should be allowed to acknowledge that God allows tragedies to happen to certain groups of people without being accused of furthering said tragedy.

That is what I meant; sorry for the misunderstanding.

At least we all know now that the Bible (and Genesis 9) never allocated Black Africans to subservience or slavery under other people groups by the will of God.

No, that unfortunate turn in history came about because people decided to contort and/or misuse the Bible (as well as portions of ancient Greek philosophy such as those found in Plato and Aristotle) for their economic advantage in the Middle East, Europe and the U.S.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I thought the Africans were descendants of Canaan. I would be willing to hear the case that they were sons of other descendants of Ham and therefore their mistreatment over the years was completely and totally unjustified.

(I'm just responding over here to avoid contributing to more off-topic thread derailment.)

I should start off by saying that I tend to take a less literal approach to the pre-Abrahamic narratives in Genesis. I don't think they are meant to be taken strictly literally, but that's an entirely different discussion.

But more to the point. The idea of attributing racial groups to Noah's children (or grandchildren) is a fairly modern--and often highly racist--method of interpretation. In the biblical story the point of the Table of Nations is really only to offer the information that, after the flood, Noah's family was responsible for repopulating the land. If anything it is an example (so is the story of Adam and Eve) of the universal kinship of the entire human family.

God made human beings in His Image, to reflect His own loving goodness in the world. The way the Jewish people were to act, rooted in the Torah, was to regard the sanctity of one's neighbor. Not only a fellow Israelite, but also the foreigner. The foreigner may not be part of the Covenant people, but the foreigner is a human being who bears the Divine Image, and just and good treatment of the foreigner, just as good and just treatment of a fellow Israelite, was essential to God's definition of justice and righteousness.

So important was justice to God that failure in this is what led to the rebuke from the Prophets time and time again. It's why Isaiah rebukes the people and their leaders and says that their sacrifices, their worship, was detestable to God. It's why Isaiah would also say that "They honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me", to have a heart that is near to God is not about feeling, it's about doing. This is why Jesus quotes this statement in Isaiah when He rebukes those Pharisees who believed that they could take money that was supposed to be used to care for the elderly and use it instead "for God". If we neglect the widow, the orphan, the poor, the hungry, the immigrant it doesn't matter what our "worship" looks like. God doesn't need sacrifice, God doesn't need money--people need food, people need clothes. The sacrifices weren't for God's benefit, but to teach the people about the need for true repentance and justice; the whole system of tithing in the Old Testament was to provide support for the least of these. And these same principles carry over for us in the New Testament. Though we don't offer sacrifices, except for the "sacrifice of praise" and while there is no command for "tithing" for us, we are still called to be "cheerful givers"--to be generous with our gifts out of love and service toward others who are in need.

So when we see that all people share common parentage in the Bible, the point is--in spite of all our superficial differences--we still share and partake in the one common humanity. And that humanity we share in is a gift from God.

When we racialize this, we aren't just missing the point, we are undermining and rejecting the point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[linux.poet]

I’ll take my well-deserved beating for my badly worded post. It’s pretty clear to me at this point the curse of Ham idea is markedly inconsistent with the rest of the Bible’s anti-racist themes.

But more to the point. The idea of attributing racial groups to Noah's children (or grandchildren) is a fairly modern--and often highly racist--method of interpretation.

The problem is that the Bible does use Noah’s sons as a way to refer to people groups, though, and apparently those people groups would have been recognizable:

Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “Behold, I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. So I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them magnificently dressed, a great contingent with shield and buckler, all of them wielding swords; Persia, Cush, and Put with them, all of them with buckler and helmet; Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you.

Part of the modern day analysis to interpret this prophecy requires going back to Noah’s sons and the dispersion narrative (which I believe to be literal BTW) to identify who these people are who are coming to attack Israel. Including these markers to Noah’s family is supposed to identify who these people were.

Then there is this story, which is actually anti-racist when you think about it:

Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); and they said, “Is it a fact that the Lord has spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard this. (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any person who was on the face of the earth.) And the Lord suddenly said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, “You three go out to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went out. Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent; and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, He said,
“Now hear My words:If there is a prophet among you,I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him in a vision.
I will speak with him in a dream. It is not this way for My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth,That is, openly, and not using mysterious language,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
So why were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”
And the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from above the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not hold us responsible for this sin by which we have turned out to be foolish, and by which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like a dead person, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb!” So Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “God, heal her, please!” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had only spit in her face, would she not be put to shame for seven days? Have her shut outside the camp for seven days, and afterward she may be received again.” So Miriam was shut outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again.

While the nature of Aaron’s and Miriam’s words no doubt contributed to the severity of Miriam’s punishment, I cannot help but notice the motivation behind Aaron and Miriam’s inquiry, which God knew about, and the fact that He did not put up with it.

I mean, if we interpret the Scriptures here to mean that Moses married an African woman, that should put an end to miscegenation lawsuits. In any event, these labels are meant to refer to people groups. It’s part of the information given by the historical narrative, and should not be easily cast aside, even if there are uncomfortable modern implications.

 

[FireDragon76]

I mean, if we interpret the Scriptures here to mean that Moses married an African woman, that should put an end to miscegenation lawsuits. In any event, these labels are meant to refer to people groups. It’s part of the information given by the historical narrative, and should not be easily cast aside, even if there are uncomfortable modern implications.

What is a "miscegination lawsuit"? Anti-miscegination laws were ruled unconstitutional years ago in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, as a form of racial discrimination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’ll take my well-deserved beating for my badly worded post. It’s pretty clear to me at this point the curse of Ham idea is markedly inconsistent with the rest of the Bible’s anti-racist themes.

The problem is that the Bible does use Noah’s sons as a way to refer to people groups, though, and apparently those people groups would have been recognizable:



Part of the modern day analysis to interpret this prophecy requires going back to Noah’s sons and the dispersion narrative (which I believe to be literal BTW) to identify who these people are who are coming to attack Israel. Including these markers to Noah’s family is supposed to identify who these people were.

Then there is this story, which is actually anti-racist when you think about it:



While the nature of Aaron’s and Miriam’s words no doubt contributed to the severity of Miriam’s punishment, I cannot help but notice the motivation behind Aaron and Miriam’s inquiry, which God knew about, and the fact that He did not put up with it.

I mean, if we interpret the Scriptures here to mean that Moses married an African woman, that should put an end to miscegenation lawsuits. In any event, these labels are meant to refer to people groups. It’s part of the information given by the historical narrative, and should not be easily cast aside, even if there are uncomfortable modern implications.

What in your view would be an "uncomfortable modern implication" of Genesis 9? Personally, I can't really think of any.

 

[linux.poet]

What is a "miscegination lawsuit"?

It’s when states or irate parents try to break up a marriage based on a person from one race marrying another. In the United States, as you have pointed out, it is illegal. Another post on this forum (not yours) mentioned earlier that the party trying to break up the marriage in Loving vs. Virginia tried to use the Bible as a reason to break them up.

What in your view would be an "uncomfortable modern implication" of Genesis 9?

That there are different people groups that were born from different sons of Noah who may have different distinguishable physical characteristics, and those people groups have been treated differently in the sovereignty of God through the ages of time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Another post on this forum (not yours) mentioned earlier that the party trying to break up the marriage in Loving vs. Virginia tried to use the Bible as a reason to break them up.

It was the lower court judge who quoted the Bible. And then was overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[Tinker Grey]

 

[The Barbarian]

It should be noted that the Crusades had nothing whatever to do with race; neither side cared much at all about it. It was entirely about religious doctrine. There were people of all colors on both sides of the conflict.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That there are different people groups that were born from different sons of Noah who may have different distinguishable physical characteristics, and those people groups have been treated differently in the sovereignty of God through the ages of time.

Do we have any actual examples of people groups in the Old Testament who were treated differently due to their distinguishable physical characteristics?

 

[MarkSB]

I should start off by saying that I tend to take a less literal approach to the pre-Abrahamic narratives in Genesis. I don't think they are meant to be taken strictly literally, but that's an entirely different discussion.

I'm of the same mind - I just didn't want to distract from the discussion at hand. I would even extend my non-literal interpretation of the bible beyond the pre-Abrahamic narratives. (Although I'm not sure to what extent.)

I'm not going to claim to know the bible cover to cover, but even with a literal interpretation of the Noah story, I think someone needs to read A LOT into the bible and make a lot of assumptions to equate the curse of Ham with slavery. And personally, the only reason that I can see for doing that (whether by conscious malicious intent or not), is to make the point that in some way the institution of African slavery was 'destined' to be. It's a means by which to escape accountability... if not fully, at least in part.

And I'm not trying to imply that was the OP's intention, but some level of escape from accountability is one of the inevitable consequences of that interpretation of the Noah story. There were several instances (I know of at least one) in the gospels where Jesus stated that misfortune isn't necessarily the result of sin. And of course, the book of Job is based entirely on that theological premise.

Personally, I think Christians ought to avoid the Pat Robertson-like habit of trying to trace unfortunate events back to past sins at all costs. Those are typically very bad positions to take up, and will usually only result in strife. The truth is we are not God, and we just don't know. And I would even say that trying to make such connections, to a large extent, is rather futile.

But more to the point. The idea of attributing racial groups to Noah's children (or grandchildren) is a fairly modern--and often highly racist--method of interpretation. In the biblical story the point of the Table of Nations is really only to offer the information that, after the flood, Noah's family was responsible for repopulating the land. If anything it is an example (so is the story of Adam and Eve) of the universal kinship of the entire human family.

God made human beings in His Image, to reflect His own loving goodness in the world. The way the Jewish people were to act, rooted in the Torah, was to regard the sanctity of one's neighbor. Not only a fellow Israelite, but also the foreigner. The foreigner may not be part of the Covenant people, but the foreigner is a human being who bears the Divine Image, and just and good treatment of the foreigner, just as good and just treatment of a fellow Israelite, was essential to God's definition of justice and righteousness.

So important was justice to God that failure in this is what led to the rebuke from the Prophets time and time again. It's why Isaiah rebukes the people and their leaders and says that their sacrifices, their worship, was detestable to God. It's why Isaiah would also say that "They honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me", to have a heart that is near to God is not about feeling, it's about doing. This is why Jesus quotes this statement in Isaiah when He rebukes those Pharisees who believed that they could take money that was supposed to be used to care for the elderly and use it instead "for God". If we neglect the widow, the orphan, the poor, the hungry, the immigrant it doesn't matter what our "worship" looks like. God doesn't need sacrifice, God doesn't need money--people need food, people need clothes. The sacrifices weren't for God's benefit, but to teach the people about the need for true repentance and justice; the whole system of tithing in the Old Testament was to provide support for the least of these. And these same principles carry over for us in the New Testament. Though we don't offer sacrifices, except for the "sacrifice of praise" and while there is no command for "tithing" for us, we are still called to be "cheerful givers"--to be generous with our gifts out of love and service toward others who are in need.

So when we see that all people share common parentage in the Bible, the point is--in spite of all our superficial differences--we still share and partake in the one common humanity. And that humanity we share in is a gift from God.

When we racialize this, we aren't just missing the point, we are undermining and rejecting the point.

-CryptoLutheran

Well said.

 

[linux.poet]

Do we have any actual examples of people groups in the Old Testament who were treated differently due to their distinguishable physical characteristics?

No, they were treated differently in God’s sovereign plan based on which son of Noah they were born from, and also whether they were a part of Jacob’s family. “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated”, etc.

If I were born back in Old Testament times, as a full-blooded descendent of the line of Japheth I would have been cut off from salvation unless I happened to hear about what was going on in Israel, make a significant pilgrimage, and spend a lot of time learning the Mosaic law from someone who could read it to me, a mean feat since I probably wouldn’t even understand the Hebrew language. In ancient times where I would be very weighted down by the responsibilities of subsistence farming, such a trek would be close to impossible.

But Christ died and rose again, and so salvation has come to the Gentiles. In this season of the age of grace, it seems that the sovereignty of God has favored Japheth’s sons and daughters, for better and for worse. That does not mean that the sons of Japheth are superior to the Israelites or the Africans or any other group of people, as I expect that those in Asia may soon see God’s favor next so that they might be saved by the Gospel. It is simply God’s sovereign choice as time marches on.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, they were treated differently in God’s sovereign plan based on which son of Noah they were born from, and also whether they were a part of Jacob’s family. “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated”, etc.

If I were born back in Old Testament times, as a full-blooded descendent of the line of Japheth I would have been cut off from salvation unless I happened to hear about what was going on in Israel, make a significant pilgrimage, and spend a lot of time learning the Mosaic law from someone who could read it to me, a mean feat since I probably wouldn’t even understand the Hebrew language. In ancient times where I would be very weighted down by the responsibilities of subsistence farming, such a trek would be close to impossible.

But Christ died and rose again, and so salvation has come to the Gentiles. In this season of the age of grace, it seems that the sovereignty of God has favored Japheth’s sons and daughters, for better and for worse. That does not mean that the sons of Japheth are superior to the Israelites or the Africans or any other group of people, as I expect that those in Asia may soon see God’s favor next so that they might be saved by the Gospel. It is simply God’s sovereign choice as time marches on.

The fundamental problem here is that you are making racial what the Bible understands as Covenantal.

There are plenty of additional problems. For one, according to the New Testament there is no salvation in the Old Covenant. One wasn't saved by having the Law of Moses. This doesn't mean people weren't saved under the Old Covenant, because they were; but it wasn't what they received at Sinai that destroyed the power of death and brought justification to all men, that's what happened at Mt. Calvary. Further: To suggest that non-Israelites were "cut off from salvation" presents a narrative of God basically being perfectly okay with the majority of humanity not only not being saved, but entirely cut off and outside even the possibility of salvation. That's a pretty weird take, Scripture is pretty clear that God's will is salvation for literally everyone.

If salvation is basically just a cosmic lottery based on who your parents are then we no longer have the Gospel. That's hardly good news for anyone. Telling those who were born into generational wealth, "Good news! You have received a lot of money!" is a bit like putting a hat on a hat. The Good News is like telling a starving person who needs food, "Hey! Here's food!" or a person dying of thirst, "Hey! Here's some water!". Jesus literally compares the Gospel of the Kingdom to food and water, He's the bread of life, He offers living water, etc. He's the Good Shepherd, because, hey, good news to sheep, there's Someone who is going to watch over, protect them, and rescue them from lions, bears, and wolves.

It's not healthy people who need to see a doctor, but people who are sick. And Good News to sick people is they are healed.

I don't believe you are "a full-blooded descendant of Japheth", for a lot of reasons. For one, it again turns the sons of Noah into a racial thing. For another, nobody is a full-blooded anything. The whole idea of "full-blooded" or, let's use another word, "purebred" is pure racist tosh. It's a remnant from a very racist European and white-centric view of the world that has no basis in reality. We're all "mutts", every single human being is a hodgepodge of thousands of generations of people. My genes simply happen to exhibit certain expressions which makes my skin fair, my hair red, and my earwax sticky--and it basically has nothing to do with being "white" as though "being white" means anything at all (it doesn't), and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm Japheth's great-great-great ... great grandson. It just means that I have happened to inherit certain characteristics from the thousands of generations of people that have contributed to my gene pool. Go back far enough and my ancestors, just like yours, just like everybody's, were hanging out in East Africa. We're all Adam's kids.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

The fundamental problem here is that you are making racial what the Bible understands as Covenantal.

The deeper and more interesting question concerns the fact that the West has become enamored of extreme individualism, where causal input from inherited characteristics is routinely denied (e.g. sex, race, culture, religion...).* So this is the way many in the West approach racism:

1. No inherited characteristic is causally relevant
2. Race is an inherited characteristic
3. Therefore, racism is impermissible

This is a completely unsound argument, and yet these and other such arguments increasingly constitute the reasons we oppose racism in the West. This does much to give the lie to the idea that one can oppose racism without Judeo-Christian anthropology, namely without the imago dei and the notion of human dignity. Thus as our society becomes more secular, it becomes more opposed to racism, and it's opposition to racism becomes more and more irrational (which is also why racist counter-movements crop up). Ergo: Judeo-Christian religion is not only opposed to racism; it is the only thing that is fundamentally opposed to racism.

* Notwithstanding Wokeness and Intersectionality, which are strange beasts.

 

[linux.poet]

The fundamental problem here is that you are making racial what the Bible understands as Covenantal.

I’m a dispensationalist. I believe there was a dispensation of conscience that gave way to the dispensation of human government at the Flood and the dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai. It’s been a few years since I’ve read Major Bible Themes, but yes. This turned into the dispensation of grace when Christ died and rose again, which applies to everyone regardless of nationality.

I also believe that the people who did not pass into a greater dispensation are stuck in the previous one in their relationship with God until they move forward. So a Gentile unbeliever today is still under the dispensations of conscience and human government until they chose to accept the Gospel, whereas a Jewish person today is still under the dispensation of the Law until they chose to follow their Messiah. The Law was given to the Jewish people. This is indicated by Paul when he wrote:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

In this way, Gentile believers in Christ pass through the dispensation of the Law to accept the Gospel and receive eternal life through Jesus Christ, and thus enter the dispensation of grace.

There are plenty of additional problems. For one, according to the New Testament there is no salvation in the Old Covenant. One wasn't saved by having the Law of Moses. This doesn't mean people weren't saved under the Old Covenant, because they were; but it wasn't what they received at Sinai that destroyed the power of death and brought justification to all men, that's what happened at Mt. Calvary.

No, but one was made aware of sin by the Law. Without the Law I would be merrily on my way to Gehenna in complete ignorance of my need for a Savior.

During the OT period, in order for someone to be saved, they needed to be aware of both their own sin and the Genesis 3 prophecy for a future Savior that would be sent by God. Hence the many Psalms extolling the love of God and begging Him for mercy; those are acknowledgements that only God could save them and throwing themselves onto His sovereign plan of future redemption that they did not fully understand. Those were saved by the blood of Christ.

Further: To suggest that non-Israelites were "cut off from salvation" presents a narrative of God basically being perfectly okay with the majority of humanity not only not being saved, but entirely cut off and outside even the possibility of salvation. That's a pretty weird take, Scripture is pretty clear that God's will is salvation for literally everyone.

The context of 2 Peter 3:9 is the age of grace, though:

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The context of this letter is Christians who were suffering persecution and looking for the return of Christ to ease their suffering. Peter’s statement was an encouragement to those who were thinking that God had abandoned them and an explanation for the delay in Christ’s return. The Great Commission had not yet been fulfilled; there were more people whom God wanted to save and add to His Bride.

I’m pretty sure that all of the Gentiles during the dispensation of the Law who did not convert to Judaism and follow said Law will be going to the Lake of Fire. That’s a lot of vessels of Wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9), but the purpose of Gentile nations during that time was to antagonize and test the nation of Israel. All of those nations will be judged for their misdeeds towards God’s people.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, they were treated differently in God’s sovereign plan based on which son of Noah they were born from, and also whether they were a part of Jacob’s family. “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated”, etc.

If I were born back in Old Testament times, as a full-blooded descendent of the line of Japheth I would have been cut off from salvation unless I happened to hear about what was going on in Israel, make a significant pilgrimage, and spend a lot of time learning the Mosaic law from someone who could read it to me, a mean feat since I probably wouldn’t even understand the Hebrew language. In ancient times where I would be very weighted down by the responsibilities of subsistence farming, such a trek would be close to impossible.

But Christ died and rose again, and so salvation has come to the Gentiles. In this season of the age of grace, it seems that the sovereignty of God has favored Japheth’s sons and daughters, for better and for worse. That does not mean that the sons of Japheth are superior to the Israelites or the Africans or any other group of people, as I expect that those in Asia may soon see God’s favor next so that they might be saved by the Gospel. It is simply God’s sovereign choice as time marches on.

I'm sorry, but I think you're making a lot of interpretive assumptions that carry more weight than they should. Are you Calvinistic in your present view of how the Bible should be interpreted?

My underlying insinuation here is to say that I don't think there is any evidence that African peoples ended up in slavery as a form of biblical fulfillment. No, if anything, they ended up that way because people in the world, in all of their historical diversity among themselves in language, culture, and religion are treacherous with each other.

In fact, I don't even take the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis as offering anything in the way of literal history, fully reflective of what "actually" transpired in history in the A.N.E. during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th millennia B.C. .... those chapters may represent some level of ancient Israelite version of anthropological statements of their own time, however. My sources for the beginning of my considerations are below, and these are but a few:

Grisanti, Michael A. Giving the Sense: Understanding and using Old Testament historical texts. Kregel Academic, 2003.​

​

Hoffmeier, James K., Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks. Genesis: History, fiction, or neither?: Three views on the Bible’s earliest chapters. Zondervan Academic, 2015.​

History, along with assessing the actuality of the past, is a tricky thing, and we have to keep this in mind, especially when applying the Bible to what we think God is doing in the world and what that means, particularly when issues like racism and its outcomes are on the line socially. It also means that I'm not going to put all of my interpretive eggs into some one traditional basket, like that of Calvin. And what's more, no one has to.