Question 68 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks:

What is required in the sixth commandment?


The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

And question 69 asks:

What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?


The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.

Racial integration, Multiculturalism, Imperialism, and Propositional Nation Theory all clearly violate the Sixth Commandment.


Hebrews 12:7-16

Today’s reading is from Hebrews chapter 12:

7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

In verse 8 the word translated as ‘bastards’ is the Greek, nothos (Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon agrees with the Liddell & Scott Lexicon as they define it, “baseborn, adulterated, cross-bred”).

In the Old Latin Text A this word is rendered nothus (which the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary and Leverett’s Latin Dictionary define as, “of mixed-breed, a mongrel”).

The Old Latin Text J renders it as adulterinus (this, the Oxford Latin Dictionary defines as “Not thorough-bred, not full-blooded”).

And Old Latin Texts I and D use the term adulter (Oxford Latin Dictionary defines this as, “mixed, cross-bred”).

So it is that Thomas Holyoke’s Large Dictionary says that the Greek nothos and the Latin nothus are synonyms with the Hebrew word Mamzir and the Greek word moichikos. All of these words mean “mongrel”.

Luther therefore, being well aware of this, translated the word nothos in Hebrews 12:8 with the German word, bastarde and according to the English-Deutches, Deutsch-Englisches Worterbuch (1956), bastarde denotes “mongrels”.

Of course, as our modern English texts have conspicuously replaced the politically incorrect terms mongrel and bastard with the word illegitimate, the modern Luther bible has likewise replaced bastarde with the denatured term, Ausgestobene, meaning, “outcasts”.

Beyond the lexical matter however is the contextual reality that verse 9 appeals to an a fortiori argument from “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”. The author, arguing from lesser to greater, is substantiating the good of the lesser category, even if it is subservient to the greater category.

And the employ of such an argument is an obvious reference to and endorsement of the case Law of Deuteronomy 23:2. Far from nullifying or abrogating the prohibition against Bastards (mamzer/nothos/nothus/mischling/bastarde), the author calls upon it to justify his broader argument for purity in matters spiritual.

In short, the author of Hebrews presupposes the continuity of the national prohibition on bastards (mongrels) into the New Testament age as well as the reader’s responsibility to assume the same.

And Paul presupposes the same principle in II Corinthians chapter 2:

17For we are not as many, which corrupt [literally, adulterate] the word of God: but as of sincerity [literally, purely generated], but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

… and in II Corinthians chapter 6:

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And when one employs an a fortiori argument saying, “if A, how much more so B(?)”, this requires the reader to assume the validity of A first. Without that assumption, the a fortiori argument cannot work.

Which is to say that the New Testament Christians presupposed the continuing equity of the Old Testament Laws contra unequal yoking, ethnic adulteration, and racial mongrels.

And the author of Hebrews again undergirds this point as he continues (Heb.12):

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness [literally, separateness], without which no man shall see the Lord:15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled [literally, made impure]; 16Lest there be any fornicator[literally, sexually immoral] , or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

For what cause is Esau called a profane fornicator? Genesis 26 yields the answer:

34And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
 35Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

Of this, the footnote commentary of the Reformation Study Bible reads:

The story of the stolen blessing is framed by Esau’s marriage to Hittite women, and his parents’ resulting displeasure (27:46). Profane Esau showed his disregard for the covenant blessings by marrying daughters of the land …

So then, when we look back to the words of the author of Hebrews on the matter, it is clear that the entirety of the writer’s argument rests upon the assumption of the abiding equity and righteousness of the Old Testament prohibitions contra Miscegenation.
Hat-tip: the Lexical work of John Herrell was especially helpful to me in this study.

Leviticus 19:19

Today’s reading is from Leviticus 19.

19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Of this, Henry says:

“Here is, I. A law against mixtures, v. 19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen. i. 25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Eccl. iii. 14. As what God has joined we must not separate, so what he has separated we must not join.” [Deut.32:8] ~M. Henry’s Comm. On Lev.19

Notice that he quotes Jesus (Mark 10:9) on the topic of human marriage as the corollary passage. And recall that St. Paul tells us that the laws regarding cattle haven’t chiefly to do with cattle, but with human relations (1 Cor. 9:9-10).

Sir William Blackstone informs us of the definition of the word ‘Monster’ as it is employed by Henry to refer to the offspring of diversely gendered unions:

“A monster … hath no heritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage … But our law will not admit a birth of this kind to be such an issue as shall entitle the husband to be tenant by the courtesy; because it is not capable of inheriting. And therefore, if there appears no other heir than such a prodigious birth, the land shall escheat to the lord.” ~Sir William Blackstone’s Comm. on the Law, Vol.II, Chpt.XV

As with the category of a ‘Bastard’, Blackstone tells us that Monsters are, legally speaking, “nullius filius, kin to nobody”.

Separate But Equal

How could the Brown v. Board of Education issue be concluded with the resolve that “separate is inherently unequal” if the American Declaration of Independence called upon the principle of ‘separate but equal’ inorder to establish the republic?

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the SEPARATE AND EQUAL station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The Heart of The Matter

In truth, this doctrine of European genocide goes back much further — all the way to A.D. 70 when Titus employed an army of Germanian mercenaries to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. The sparse remnant of Idumean/Judeans remaining swore vengeance upon Europeans generally and Germans especially. Marx just institutionalized the previously existing religious commitments of the Jews.

Anti-Semitism Defined?

Here’s an interesting bit of Facebook dialogue inwhich the term ‘Anti-Semitism’ is rendered as incoherent as the term ‘Racism’. I liked it.

ME: Michael Chertoff’s family were Russian Jews; and in Russian the name “Chertoff” actually means, “devil”.

FRIEND A: To be specific, it translates to “Son of the Devil”.

ME: Jesus said:

“You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

… connection?

FRIEND B: Hi, [Ehud], please don’t take this the wrong way, but I do wonder, are you anti-semitic?

ME: To be honest, —–, I’m not even sure what the term means. Currently, Jewish organizations of every stripe are in agreement that “the New Testament constitutes classic anti-semitism”. If that’s the definition of ‘anti-semitic’, that just means that most Jews hate Jesus and his followers.

FRIEND B: Where did you get your quoted text, truthtellers.org? There is a world of difference between hatred and disagreement, and personally, I find that entire statement absurd. All the Jewish people I know (and I know many) live their lives like anybody else, worship in their own way and don’t concern themselves with hating Jesus or his followers.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of anti-semitism is: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

ME: Well, Abe Foxman is the one who most recently defined the New Testament as ‘anti-semitic’:

“… [T]he anti-Jewish rhetoric that mars several books of the Christian New Testament has been shown to reflect not historical fact but the rivalry at the time the books were written between Jews who followed Jesus and those who did not…Although it is supposedly motivated by love for the Jews, this idea [that Jews should be converted] is inherently anti-Semitic in that it implicitly denigrates the value of Jewish belief.” (Foxman, NEVER AGAIN? THE THREAT OF THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM)

But he’s far from alone on the issue. Really, its the standard position of Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative Rabbis alike.

The recognition of this as the official position of Judaism is in fact so standardized that the U.S. State Department’s new “Department of Global Anti-Semitism[‘s]” 40 page report on Anti-semitism condemns the New Testament on the grounds that it is “inherently anti-semitic”.

But your Mirriam-Webster definition begs an interesting question: In Hebrew it is the classic quandary of “mehu yehudi(?)” — who is a Jew? Since the modern Jewish world is comprised roughly of six separate racial groups, its hard to speak of them as a distinct “race”. And seeing as how most self-identifying Jews are actually Atheists, or non-religious, they cannot exactly be categorized as a religious identity either.

With these facts in mind, I can safely say that I do not discriminate against Jews as a race (most of them are Ashkenazi anyway — Caucasian, generally speaking) and neither do I discriminate against them as a religion, because they have no single religion.

I do however forthrightly admit to discriminating against JudaISM because I’m a serious Christian. I also freely admit to opposing the radical liberalism that self-described Jews promulgate in America and Europe.

This Ashkenazi tells the truth, people who call themselves ‘Jews’ are monolithically opposed to our Christian and American ideals:

He well admits that Judaism and the people who self-identify as Jews are naturally hostile to all races, nations and religions. The most noteworthy prerogatives of the people known as ‘Jews’ are infiltration, subversion, and destruction. Whatever ‘Jews’ are, they certainly aren’t friendly to our race, our country, nor to our King, Jesus. Such has been the case atleast since the Idumean infiltration and overthrow of Judea.

A friend recently inquired of me:

“Hey, [Ehud], on Deuteronomy 23:3, does that have anything to do with race? I was reading on stormfront where someone mentioned it but I’d like to get your commentary.”

Here’s my brief response:

Absolutely. The word “Illegitimate” in Deut. 23:2 used to be translated “Bastard”. In the Septuagint (Grk.) the word is “Nothos”, meaning generally, “a mongrel”. So too did the Vulgate (Latin) use the related term “Nothus”, meaning “Mongrel”. And In the Masoretic text (Heb.) its “Mamzer”, meaning, among other things, “a mongrel” as well.

Even Luther picked up on this by translating it as “Mischling” (German), which has only one definition: “A Mongrel, one of mixed race”. And I think he very appropriately translates “assembly” as “the body politic” because mongrels weren’t banned from heaven, only from the Israelite nation.

If one studies enough he sees that this is really the only position one can take on the topic of the Mamzer because the bible itself forces you into a corner on this subject:

First, if someone hopes to say a Mamzer is one born of an un-wed union or other forms of illicit sex, we find that though Jephthah was born of a harlot (Judges 11:1), the Law in nowise impeded his ascension to the highest office in Israel. And no one suggests that it should have.

And on the other side of the issue we find that the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah banished the mixed-children along with the foreign wives from the body politic. Matthew Henry says that this can only be explained by the case Law of Deuteronomy 23:2 and that the Prophets have given us the perfect interpretation of that Law by divine authority.

So if the Law didn’t lock out children of harlots but DID lock out mixed-race children, we are forced to accept that ‘Mamzer’ is in fact correctly defined as ‘a mixed-race Mongrel’.

And the truth is that most translators know this … but are unwilling to admit the fact. How do we know that they know it? Look at Zechariah 9:6; the same word (Mamzer/Nothos) is therein translated by our modern bibles as “mixed-race”, “mongrel-people”, etc. Its the SAME WORD but they translate it in a radically different way when the matter of ethnic exclusion is on the line.

And besides, the Septuagint (Grk.) gets pretty specific about what was going on in Ezra 9 where we read: “…they have not separated themselves from the allogenes (‘other races’) of this land, nor the akatharsia (‘both physical and mental impurity’) from the ethnoi (‘ethnicities’): the Canaanites, and Hittites, and Pheresites, and Jebusites, and Moabites, and Egyptians, and Edomites. For both they and their sons have lived with their daughters, and the separated seed is mixed with this ethne (‘ethnicity’) of allogenes (‘another race’) of this land…”

Ezra goes on and on in this sort of language, denouncing mixture with “allogenes”. Its important to note that Linguists agree that the word ‘allogenes’ is a composite of two other Greek words, allos (“other”) and genos (“races, lines of descent”).

and its also important to note that the list of ethnicities with which they are said to have mixed themselves includes many non-Canaanite peoples. This is important because people often argue that Israel was only supposed to remain separate from people “under the ban” of Canaan but that clearly isn’t true. Ezra states that Israelites mingling (maritally or nationally) with ANY other race was illicit.

That’s the best I can do off the top of my head – I hope it helps.

According to His Law, by His Grace,
~Ehud would