The White Man’s Burden

The White Man’s Burden by Rudyard Kipling:

Take up the White Man’s burden, Send forth the best ye breed Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives’ need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. Take up the White Man’s burden–In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain, To seek another’s profit And work another’s gain. Take up the White Man’s burden–The savage wars of peace–Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought. Take up the White Man’s burden–No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper–The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living And mark them with your dead. Take up the White Man’s burden, And reap his old reward–The blame of those ye better The hate of those ye guard–The cry of hosts ye humour(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–“Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?” Take up the White Man’s burden–Ye dare not stoop to less–Nor call too loud on FreedomTo cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper,By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you. Take up the White Man’s burden! Have done with childish days–The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers.

Kipling well captures the dialectical tensions which have historically defined the question of Christian European interactions with outlying peoples. Despite the good missiological intention all philanthropic endeavor extended from Whites to other ethnicities has been regarded by Aboriginal peoples everywhere as racist usurpation and subjugation. Whether we’re speaking of Africa, Australia, the Near East, the Americas or what have you— Colonialization was taken up as the economic and social outworkings of the Great Commission. The White Man’s Burden is the impartation of civilization to all the other tribes of the earth as resulting from the Gospel itself.

This burden as unique to the White Man is of early biblical description in the prophecy of Noah over his sons and the nations which they were to sire (Gen. 9 & 10). The blessing of Japheth (progenitor of the White tribes of the earth) has orthodoxically been regarded as pertaining to the later “grafting in” of the Gentiles. While this “enlargement” (Gen. 9:27) spoken of is specific to the Japhethite peoples it includes atleast a portion of Hamitic descendants in a “servant” status. But that is not to say that they must everywhere be subjugated, just that it be the providential decree of God concerning the innate dispositions of a given people, which, by definition, are not subject to human contravention.

Infact, we have in scripture the precipitous example of such a sense of responsibility gone awry at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11) which expressed itself in the willful attempt to countermand the prophecy of their tripartite division of Humanity— establishing as it were, a “universal brotherhood of Man”. This is made clear by their collective declaration, “…let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” (vs.4) They thereby made known their own intention to nullify Noah’s prophecy, the fruition of which they understood to be the division and social stratification of the families of Men. Rather than the divisive distinctions of Shemites, Hamites and Japhethites, they sought an undifferentiated oneness of Humanity. This remains today the exact approach of Humanism’s egalitarian Soteriology: If some families be uniquely blessed of God, simply assert that all are one family without distinction.

But to the consternation of contemporary social engineers, God still responds, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” (Gen. 11:6-7). One of the well documented effects of cultural and racial amalgam is the rapid dilution of language. The less stable the ethnos, the less stable the linguistic moorings of a society. (Note the resilience of “Black dialects” in all White countries despite linguistic immersion amongst Whites. “Proper English” is achieved only among the most educated Blacks but even they tend to speak it with a certain sing-song rhythm which makes discernable inflections more illusive. Ethnographic and Morphological studies attribute such linguistic distinctions to breadth of sinus cavities in the skull, width of pallet, jaw shape, formation of lips, dexterity of tongue and language centers in the brain—which is to say that the reasons are manifold.) The less stable, the less cohesive. The less cohesive, the greater are social tensions. The greater the social tension, the more eminent is balkanization of common territories by all processes, including war. But currently the processes of division are tentatively limited to what’s known as “White Flight”, which, despite its harmlessness to others, is regarded as the very definition of evil.

But the issue of the White Man’s burden has always been a difficult one, especially for those of weaker conscience. It follows after the example of Luther, who said of his protection of kings that, “The greater blesses the lesser” (which he took from the exposition of Hebrews relative to the blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek who was a type of Christ). Aware as they were that with authority comes responsibility, European Colonialization was, as a matter of Christian conscience, self-scrutinizing. As in every human endeavor, there were abuses but as Thornwell echoed the American Puritans, “Shall the abuses of a few fathers justify the abolishment of the institution of family?” Despite incidents of injustice Colonialism was uniformly the best thing that ever happened to its Aboriginal populations around the world. Colonialism was only truly illegitimate to the extent that it was done in the pursuit of Empire rather than self-supportive Missionary endeavors or the lawful acquisition of land for White Christian Nations.

The nature of the White Man’s interaction with other peoples was still squarely at issue in the lead up to the War Between the States. The Lincoln/ Douglas debates highlight the historic divide: Douglas, speaking for the Confederate States, argued that Blacks were perfectly welcome and dearly loved amongst Southerners but that they were by the design of God, created in such a way that they could not reasonably nor biblically be considered equal to Whites in a White country. He maintained however, in the tradition of colonial Christian thought that the continued servant status of the Negro was of “mutual benefit” to both White and Black. Blacks were liberated from the harshest of existences in their homelands where they all toiled under the cannibalistic rule of heathen warlords. They were evangelized, taught trade skills, honor, civility, and those which displayed unique aptitude and sensitivities were adoringly appointed to administrative positions over the estates of their masters. The exceptional were regularly granted their freedom, went on to become masters themselves and were not begrudged for it, save by other Blacks. This hatred of the decent and capable is a mainstay of Black culture still.
Lincoln on the other hand, lying about the matter throughout the course of all seven debates reassured the American people that he had “no lawful right, nor intention of freeing the Nigger Race”. Once in office however, he proved Douglas’s suspicions correct, with his “Emancipation Proclamation”. He would later go on to tell a crowd of freedmen that they should be “returned to their native continent or some other location removed from Whites… in close proximity our peoples are nothing but a curse to one another.” (Despite the Liberian return, most Blacks wanted nothing to do with Africa) While this statement is shown true by way of the FBI’s Black on White crime statistics and the massive tax levies of Black-aimed social programs, it would not be so aside from their Emancipation which had put to an end the history of “mutual benefit”.

The concept of “mutual benefit” was born of the Christian theory of citizenship known as “Freehold Suffrage” (abandoned in the Freehold Suffrage debates of 1846). This was the view of the Puritans back of which lies the biblical definition of nationhood, “ethne” (nation, grk.), from whence we derive the word ethnicity as is further demonstrated by the template of Israelite citizenship throughout the Law and Prophets. That is, foreign peoples could be retained at various levels of social stratification inside our borders but could never be considered citizens of their host nation as they were not of the same “ethne”. They were of a different nation by definition.

Lincoln later resolved that it was logistically impossible to relocate the freed Blacks. Such a declension rang hollow even to his supporters. But it was for this grand leveling of society that Karl Marx would later tout Lincoln as his hero after whom he would pattern himself. In their correspondence Marx and the Lincoln administration referred to each other as “allies… friends of liberty… of a common cause”.

Max Boot writes: “In the early twentieth century, Americans talked of spreading Anglo-Saxon civilization and taking up the ‘white man’s burden’; today they talk of spreading democracy and defending human rights. Whatever you call it, this represents an idealistic impulse that has always been a big part in America’s impetus for going to war.”

The American Union, the Soviet Union, the later European Union and the coming Pan-American Union are all one and the same movement aimed at one-world governance under the United Nations. Its aim is the return to the state of oneness achieved in the shadow of Babel from whence God originally scattered them. It is the ongoing sinful preoccupation of the blessed families of the earth to save all others by declaring all to be an undifferentiated one. Much may be said of non-Whites’ desire to crucify their benefactors in the pursuit of self-salvation but so too is their much to be said of the White Man’s self-flagellating Christ complex. Both are in their different ways the bricks of our own tower which “reaches into the heavens”, a perpetual spire of blasphemy.

It must then be asked, if it has led us back down the same road that we trod descending the mountains of Ararat, what possible place does the White Man’s burden have for the Christian White man? Before we answer the question we do well to survey the appraisal of those whose station we’ve elevated so loftily:

The Black Man’s Burden
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1903blackburden.html

The Brown Man’s Burden
http://www.guhsd.net/mcdowell/history/projects/wmburden/brownman.html

Though our presuppositions and affections devide us, oft muting our dialogue, these Aboriginal replies (written by White Men infected with the martyr-madness) to the White Man’s burden are discernable. They scream: “The better and more self-sacrificing you are, the more we will demand of you. Save us you White bastards!” We must realize that we cannot save them. Only God can do that. And we are not Him. We must allow them to take the stations commissioned them by their Creator. We must allow them to be “other” because they are not us. Let us live as Abraham did, by faith. By faith he sent Hagar and his beloved Ishmael into the wilderness as God commanded (Gen. 21: 10-14). He trusted that God was their true hope, not he.

Let us quit on this tower and return to “the boundaries of [our own] habitation” (Acts 17:26).

Read Full Post »

The Story of Gordon Kahl

Here’s another incident inwhich our benevolent dictatorship overstepped its bounds proving the prophetic foresight of Orwell who said: “If you want to know what the future looks like imagine a bootheel stamping on a human face…”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7020741932984905397&q=death+and+taxes&hl=en
The musical accompaniment of “Battle Hymn of The Republic” is quite fitting.

Read Full Post »

Totalitarianisn vs. Theonomy

If you don’t know the story of Ruby Ridge, you should.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4565369222910430105&q=ruby+ridge&hl=en

And here’s Rushdoony’s answer to the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPOrKVU_0dw

Read Full Post »

Realism: A Syllogistic Approach

Is it good to preserve your own heritage? This is clearly a yes or no question but few seem to answer it coherently, atleast when referencing European stock. Despite the simplicity of this question modern secular indoctrination demands that good “global citizens” answer in a self-contradictory manner. It usually goes alittle something like this:

Question #1:
“Is it good, as a Christian of European extraction, to preserve your own heritage and people?”

Answer #1:
“Well yeah, that’s a good thing.”

Question #2:
“If it’s a ‘good’ to preserve your heritage, would the opposite, y’know marrying outside your religion and race, be a negative thing?”

Answer #2:
“Yeah. No, wait a minute…no. That would be discrimination. I guess both are good things.”

Question #3:
“I’m sorry, could you explain to me how doing the exact opposite of ‘good’ is also ‘good’, ‘cause I thought that the opposite of good was bad (?)— or am I setting up a false dichotomy?”

Answer #3:
“That’s exactly what you’re doing.”

Question #4:
“Alright then, can you elaborate on how the preservation of our people is good but their decline is also good?”

Answer #4:
“I never said that their ‘decline’ was good. Now you’re just putting words in my mouth. All I mean is that it’s good that White people preserve themselves but that it’s okay if they don’t too.”

Question #5:
“By ‘its okay’ do you mean ‘good’ or are you intending to say ‘permissible’?”

Answer #5:
“Yes, it’s perfectly ‘permissible.’”

Question #6:
“But not ‘good’? Are you saying the opposite of good is ‘permissible’?”

Answer #6:
“I don’t think the words ‘good’ or ‘bad’ have a place in this conversation.”

Question #7:
“So then the issue of perpetuating one’s heritage or one’s people is now morally neutral; neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’? But didn’t you answer the very first question saying that such preservation was infact ‘good’?”

Answer #7:
“That was before I knew you were trying to get me to say that race-mixing is bad. In light of that I’ll change my answer— it’s immoral to ‘preserve’ your race.”

Question #8:
“Wow. Well, if you’re gonna go that route, doesn’t the whole issue cut back the other direction? Doesn’t saying, as you’ve now opted, that it’s bad or ‘immoral’ to preserve White people also mean consequently that it’s good and moral to destroy the White race?”

Answer #8:
“There you go again…No, I don’t think its ‘moral’ to ‘destroy’ any race.”

Question #9:
“You just think its ‘immoral’ to prevent its destruction. How’s that any different?”

Answer #9:
“Y’know what? You sound like some kinda’ Nazi…I mean really racist. Seriously.”

Question #10:
“If you’re claiming that it’s either good to do away with the White race or that it’s immoral to prevent its destruction, how does my arguing for their well-being make me the Nazi? I’m not the one defending genocide— you are. Or maybe you’re finally being consistent on the matter by claiming I’m ‘immoral’ for opting for preservation over destruction?”

Answer #10:
“Maybe White people do need to disappear inorder to rid the world of your kind of hatefulness.”

Question #11:
“That certainly settles the matter doesn’t it? You think the expungement of our people, an act of genocide by anyone’s definition, is moral but my love for my family and my people makes me the ‘hateful’ one?! Talk about ‘calling evil good and good evil!’”

Answer #11:
“Stay away from me Hitler.”

While the preceding account has been a fictional one, it faithfully relays the character of discussion I’ve had with a number of Church-going Whites. It represents the mid-line thinking of popular ice-cream social Evangelicalism on the matter of heritage.

Of course there are those occasional few to both the left (who answer the first question with a “No”) and right (who conclude that it is in fact good to preserve our heritage) but what always remains the same is the logical structure of the argument which allows only three formal choices:

A) Our Heritage/ Race should be preserved.
B) Our Heritage/ Race should be destroyed.
C) The issue is unimportant or even imaginary and should therefore be ignored.

Choices A and B are clearly polarized but option C seems at first blush to be the moderate and judiciously impartial alternative to the squabble of extremes. But this is just a ruse because option C, someone claiming race ought to be ignored, will never argue against the decline or societal erasure of Whites. Conversely, the proponent of option C will always argue against the conservation of White Heritage as such. Really, option C will always work covertly toward the ends of option B— Destruction. The “Myth of Neutrality” strikes again. The three formal choices break down into only two actual choices: Preservation or Destruction.

What’s interesting about the dialogue above is that it shows a vacillation between all three formal positions on the part of Joe American. When asked if preservation of his heritage be a good thing, his candid conviction of filial love moves him to answer in the affirmative. But as he begins to see the implications of “honoring his mother and father” and the love of his family to be rather exclusionary and thereby in conflict with modern social theory, he changes his answer. He finally settles between the exact positions held by secular Academia— that European heritage should either be ignored or destroyed. But as we’ve established, the two are actually one position; directly or indirectly, both advocate genocide.

But all of this has been well understood by the social engineers of the secular University. Though certainly a slide into the absurd, their official resolution— that Race is imaginary, is not a hapless one. It may be patently false but it is nevertheless a well-crafted falsehood. This new social orthodoxy maintains that Whites are Racists unless completely “colorblind” in order to avoid our (Whites’) endemic prejudices; but we are to simultaneously afford non-Whites extra consideration and handicaps in all areas of life, recognizing that all other ethnicities have every right and duty to be race-conscious and no matter what they say or do against Whites it cannot be considered Racism because only Whites (and sometimes oriental Asians) can be Racists.

It’s all splendidly self-contradictory but reason and what they consider equity are two radically different things and they feel no compulsion to harmonize them. Irrationality is fine so long as it serves to disarm (figuratively as well as literally) Caucasians. The motivations of the reigning culture Lords for bringing down European Man are legion and beyond the scope of this article but suffice it to say that their objective is no secret. They are plainly committed to the eradication of Christianity in general but Christian Whites especially. They understand what Hillaire Belloc meant when he said, “The faith is Europe and Europe is the faith.” Chistianity found by the grace of God a heretofore unmatched fertility and potency uniquely amongst our people. The White Christian community, despite their comparatively small numbers, is still the single greatest force for social order in the world. Secular Anthropology abhors this fact and makes of it a one to one correspondence between The White Race and the Christian Faith. Consequently, they will exhaust all possible means to undermine the cohesion of our communities. For them, a strike against Whites is a strike against the Faith and vice versa.

The easiest way to do this would be to convince the Church that the Civil Rights movement be a prime tenet of Christian orthodoxy and that the “color-blind society” be the summation of the second tablet of God’s Law. Largely, they have accomplished this goal. Employing the unified efforts of government, media, education and entertainment they have influenced the Church at large to dissolve our nations, communities and families from the inside.

They’ve persuaded the church to destroy the cohesion of their own community and they’ve made an idol of Multiculturalism. They’ve convinced the Church that the Multi-cult is Christianity come into its own. Concordantly, the Church has become as self-contradictory as the University in that the “color-blind society” ethos demands a blurring of societal responsibilities between people of close relation and those of the most remote relation. It would have every man to consider himself the brother of every other man—not just in the sotereological or heavenly sense but in the biological and social sense also. Machen was right when he wrote, “The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers…” (Gresham Machen—Christianity and Liberalism)

This Multi-cult ethos claims in essence, that “all is one” and that the one is indistinguishable in its parts, none more significant than the others— in fact, its parts are an illusion. Man as a collective entity, is therein ascribed attributes of simplicity which are only attributable to God Himself. Multiculturalism in and out of the Church is the deification of the human race— in all its parts bearing no differing relation to any other part.

Due to the extremely central nature of these concepts relative to our doctrine of Man, those with whom we broach such issues often arrive quickly at a metaphysical crossroads; in one direction lies the well-accepted path of Multicultural idealism. The other is the path cordoned off by the social taboos of the last fifty years— it is the road of biblical realism.

Read Full Post »

If Christian, A Theonomist Also

Is it possible to be a Non-Theonomic Christian?

“9 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 thy kingdom come. Thy will be done On earth as it is in heaven…”
(Excerpt from the Lord’s Prayer—Matt.6:9-10)

A non-theonomic Christian cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer and mean it because “doing on earth as is done in Heaven” means conformity to God’s expressed will— His Law.

“17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.[b]” (The Great Commission—Matt.28:17-20)

Neither can a non-theonomic Christian fulfill the Great Commission as Jesus therein charges believers to teach and extol God’s Law before the nations. And perhaps logically prior if not chronologically so, both The Lord’s Prayer and Great Commission come from the mouth of Christ as commands themselves, that is, as Law!

The alternative to Theonomy is nothing but the refusal of a man to bow the knee before his Creator. All such autonomous arrogations, no matter their genteel forms, are simply assertions of self-ownership and autonomy. The refusal to submit to God’s expressed will is to war against order itself and by extension, against God personally.

If consistently non-theonomic, Joe Catechumen cannot infact be a Christian at all.

Read Full Post »

Family and Jews

My response to a friend:

Friend:
“…the reason David could enter the assembly, even with a Moabite great-grandmother, was that the race of his mother was irrelevant. The inheritance that was vital was through the father. Same with Rahab.”

Me:
Three points: 1) Both Ruth and Rahab are found in the bible listed alongside Abraham and Moses in chpt.11 of a book the subject of which is “Hebrews”.

2) Heb.11 also addresses as a proof of faith the fact that “Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” If Matrilineal descent were of no import, why all the fuss about his surrogate mother? As an Egyptian, whether Mitzraite or Hyksos, she wouldn’t be considered a member of any people under “the Canaanite ban”. Moses clearly saw the issue of maternal heritage as important, as did the author of Hebrews.

3) And of course, there is the example set by the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their insistence upon bridegrooming strictly amongst kindred, back of which I believe to be the pursuit of conformity to the Creation Ordinance (Gen.1 & 2) wherein we read that Adam’s “appropriate helpmeet” is defined by God as being one coming from his own flesh. This is made clear over and against the way inwhich God created “appropriate” mates for all other creatures—from the dust. If this commonality of flesh weren’t important to the definition of an “appropriate Helpmeet” for Man, God would not have drawn such a distinction. If that’s opaque in any way let me be clear: God seems to define Man’s “appropriate Helpmeet” as one of close relation. Near of kin is near of ken. That’s the God-ordained localist nature of human tribalism.

Friend:
“Similarly, when the Israelites went out and conquered their enemies, beside Canaanite residents, they could take a Gentile wife. The text that allows this does not mention that the children are considered unclean or disinherited…nope… they are legit children of their father and have every right to their ancestral real estate. But alas, we are not bound to real property in Palestine are we? So, the concern becomes quite moot. No Abraham and no real estate issues to concern ourselves with being north Atlantic Islanders.”

Me:
You’re thinking of Deut. 21:10-14. What’s interesting about this passage is that it has classically been regarded as the case law tailored to correspond to the goings-on in Num.31:15 when the generals of Israel disobeyed the word of Moses, keeping alive the women from among the conquered Midianites, who, it must be noted, were Hebrews by way of Abraham’s wife Keturah (your modern Reformation Study Bible footnotes even express this view). So, when we read of this provision for bridegrooming amongst captives, it is referring specifically, if ostensibly, to the union of Israelites and Midianites which were another Hebrew tribe. But a reading of Num.31 shows us clearly that even the concordant provision for taking such war-brides in Deut. 21 was a concession to “the hardness of their hearts” because “it was not so from the beginning” (Matt. 19). It all seems to revolve around the Creation Ordinance.

If, on the other hand we say that Jesus’ reference to the Creation (Matt. 19) is irrelevant to the issue of war-brides (Deut.21:10-14), we likewise wind up excluding His commentary from the topic immediately following— Polygamy (Deut.21:15-17) If taking a war-bride is a moral equivalent with consentual marriage between a man and woman of allied kinsmen, then Polygamy is a moral equivalent to Monogamy.

The fact is that Jesus enjoins us to actively pursue conformity with the template for filial community set forth by God at the Creation. If one can differentiate between “kinds”, they are to pursue “like kind” in as much as is possible. Having things in common— “commonality” is definitely a good to community (this is so plainly true as to require no further explaination). The alternative is acquiescence to “un-equal yoking” (Deut.22:9-11 & II Cor.6:14-16) in one respect or another. For this reason St. Paul linked the laws regarding biology and horticulture (Deut. 22:9-11) to marriage and inheritance (Deut.22:13-23:8). He unifies the Law (which the Jews had atomized) into one controlling principle of Creation— the revealed intent of God in Eden. He explained the Decalogue as being wholly soluble and coterminous with, as the Confession puts it…“The Light of Nature”. The Natural Law and the Revealed Law are one, differing only in the mode of their transmission to Mankind, the latter being an authoritative guide to understanding the former.

Friend:
“Spoke to a rabbi today. He is orthodox and says that Judaism has always been patralineal. That is, converted women have always been accepted and their race is irrelevant. He stated unequivocally that she was a gentile Moabite. This all makes sense to me. As for Ezra, he believes that, consistent with past behavior and interpretation in Israel, that is these women had become truely Jews… they would not have been cast out. Interesting.”

Me:
I’m not going to say that all Jewish opinion is invalid— I leave room for the occasional Nicodemus but we must regard their religion overall as another pedigree of Paganism and acknowledge their ongoing role uniquely as a an enemy of our people, religiously and racially. You know that your counselor is as an Orthodox Rabbi as close as you can come to a first century Pharisee, the true “Christ-killers”. I know that’s an ad hominem but you know that in this case that it’s no fallacy.

You might ask what harm there be in your siding with the fellow regarding something as oblique as inheritance. My answer would be…alot. Here’s why: It directly invalidates Jesus’ claim to the throne of Israel and thereby, His stake as the Messiah!

The Jewish claim that inheritance and covenant be strictly Patrilineal is their primary argument against Christ as the Christian doctrine maintains his fleshly component to have been the contribution of Mary alone. Though both of the Gospel genealogies start from Joseph by name, St. Paul assures us that Jesus was “the seed of David after the flesh” (Rom.1:3). Therefore, the Church has always understood St. Luke’s account to trace the line of Mary, not Joseph. This is understandable in light of the fact that Luke cites Heli as Joseph’s father while Matthew records it as Jacob, among other discrepancies. Accordingly, the Church has always understood Luke’s version to refer to Joseph as a son-in-law.

Joseph’s role as father is a surrogate one and therefore primarily formal, while Mary’s tie to Jesus is a tangible matter of inheritance, that is— heritage. Though an upright man, Joseph’s role as a Father is muted in light of Christ’s true paternal heritage, God the Father. Whereas, His blood relatives— Mary, his brother James, his cousin John (the Baptist) and even John’s mother Elizabeth occupy Jesus’ family life with what can only be called greater priority than are those of Joseph’s family who are only noteworthy for their absence in the Gospels.

If, on the other hand, your friend the good Rabbi were right, Jesus would not be “of Israel” at all. Really, you were having two entirely separate conversations: You were talking about inheritance and he was explaining why you ought to reject Christ as Messiah.

Friend:
“The only blood line of any importance is Abraham’s…which is David’s…. which is Christ’s. God preserved that line by his word, all other lines at his whim.”

Me:
If you believe even Jesus’ bloodline to be of import, you’re contradicting your previous assertion—that covenant and inheritance be strictly a Paternal affair in which “the race of [the] mother is irrelevant” (supra); because Jesus’ only genetic connection to Abraham or David is via Mary.

Conversely, if you maintain the reality of the virgin birth, you’re constrained to acknowledge the importance of Matrilineal descent.

But up until their denial of Jesus the Jews had held both Paternal and Maternal lineage to be important just as the Christians would. Like the Christians, the Jews had regarded Ishmaelites to be divided from God’s people based upon their Matrilineal descent from Hagar rather than Sarah (Gen.16, 21:9-21). Paul affirms this (Gal.4:21-31) to the chagrin of the unbelieving Jews of his day who yearned to destroy Christ’s claim the throne.

But aside from all that, it’s just patently untrue that “Judaism has always been patralineal”. The writings of the Jews prior to Christ’s birth were unambiguous on the matter; here’s a handy example of Jewish thought during the Second Commonwealth:

“Beware of all whoredom, my son, and chiefly take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe: for we are the children of the prophets, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: remember, my son, that our fathers from the beginning, even that they all married wives of their own kindred, and were blessed in their children, and their seed shall inherit the land. Now therefore, my son, love thy brethren, and despise not in thy heart thy brethren, the sons and daughters of thy people, in not taking a wife of them: for in pride is destruction and much trouble, and in lewdness is decay and great want: for lewdness is the mother of famine.” (Tobit 4:12-13)

It seems as with so many of their doctrines, that the Jews’ view of inheritance turned an about-face at the time of Jesus inorder that they might maintain a harbor for their own cognitive dissonance. Such overtones of Matrilineal depreciation are manifest in the previously referenced dispute between Jesus and the Jews over marriage and divorce (Matt.19). They went so far in their discard of Christ’s claim to the throne via Mary that they even disinherited their own mothers, sisters and daughters.

But despite the fact, you’ll not find a self-respecting, religious Jew who regards their family as an ethnic-neutral concept. Liberal or “Reformed” Jews, Maybe but never an “Orthodox” as they regard all Goyim to be animals; rendering any and all mixing a form of beastiality. But that won’t stop them from undermining the cohesion of our families by encouraging such behaviors among us. Ain’t that neighborly of ‘em?

Read Full Post »