Facial reconstruction of a Galilean (BBC)
The traditional Western view of Jesus.
“Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah,
and it was necessary that he be of the original pure racial strain,
even as Noah was.”
Herbert W. Armstrong, “Mystery of the Ages”, 1985, p. 173.
The Chimera of Racial Purity
Most races that we define today stem from a historical confluence of peoples. For example, Western Europeans, including the British, are known to consist of three quite diverse groups: early Hunters and Gathers, later Agriculturalists and recent Steppe Pastoralists. Each of these groups is represented by a different haplogroup. A technical measure called “genetic distance” may be used to create racial categories but then how distant do two groups of people need to be? And genetic distance does not always correspond to appearance, the measure that most people understand and use.
Was, then, Christ of a pure racial background? Christ was a member of the Haplogroup J people who lived in the Middle East. Haplogroup J people have identifiable Neanderthal ancestry in their genomes. Neanderthals are beyond being another race – they are a different hominid species. Genetic studies of Arabs (“Indigenous Arabs are Descendants of the Earliest Split from Ancient Eurasian Populations,” Genome Research, 2016 Feb; 26(2): 151–162), a typical Haplogroup J people, indicate that they are less Neanderthal than Europeans and Asians but more Neanderthal than Africans. The haplogroup J people of the Middle East were mixed with Neanderthal ancestry long before Christ was born. Genetics tells the truth. We cannot look at the Biblical genealogies and assert that Jesus was racially pure on that basis. Just as you cannot look at your own personal genealogy and claim racial purity. If you doubt the veracity of this, then have yourself tested using a genetic service that identifies Neanderthal ancestry.
The Theology of Race in Armstrongism
Herbert W. Armstrong wrote of the importance of race in his beliefs in his book entitled “The Mystery of the Ages (MOA).” He explains that one of the credentials of Israel as the Chosen People was racial purity, whatever the term “race” meant to him. He states the very choosing of Israel by god was likely because they were “of the White racial strain, unchanged since creation” (MOA, P. 166). And racial intermarriage was forbidden to them by god. They were not to intermarry among “the dark Canaanites” then in the land. In a previous Op Ed, I discussed the incontrovertible evidence that Canaanites were not Blacks but were of the same haplogroup as Jews and would be indistinguishable in appearance from Jews. To make it clear, Jews and Canaanites are of the same race and all the scriptures HWA quotes to support the prohibition of racial intermarriage were really scriptures about marrying outside of religion. Black people within Armstrongism have been done a great and harmful disservice by this false theology.
With this background, it is not difficult to see why HWA would stipulate racial purity for Jesus. It is understood that Christ was supposed to be a Lamb without blemish. And Jesus was without physical defect. HWA’s extension to include racial purity in the concept of being “without blemish” is not based on scripture but likely derived from the viewpoints prevalent in right-leaning American society at the time.
New Testament Theology
HWA’s views on Jesus’ racial purity are in contradiction to Pauline theology. Paul wrote in Philippians 3:4–8:
“If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews … But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ … and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ …”Here Paul does not classify his own indisputable racial purity (a Hebrew of Hebrews) as an important attribute in his imitation of Christ. Christians are to pattern themselves after Jesus, yet Paul is willing to discard his own fleshly racial purity and count it as a loss in pursuit of that spiritual pattern. If racial purity were essential to Christ and, hence, Christians as followers of Christ, would Paul dare class it as “rubbish”? Paul’s view is rather that his own racial purity is a personal attribute that could stand between him and Christ. Racial purity in Pauline theology is clearly not a special kind of spiritual credential for godliness and righteousness or a condition that would validate Christ as a sacrifice.
The Ethnocentric View of Christ as the Source of this Error
HWA is dead and cannot be asked about his motivations behind his heterodox belief about Jesus’ racial purity. A speculative answer is that HWA’s views have to do with the protection of the status of White people as pre-eminent above other people in Armstrongist beliefs. Armstrongists believe that god is racially White and that Adam was a White man who reflected the physical, bodily image of god. There is, perhaps, a fear that if Jesus is not White in his exemplary qualities, White privilege will be jeopardized. Jesus, in fact, was a Jew. He was not an Ashkenazi Jew. Ashkenazi Jews did not exist in Jesus’ day. Ashkenazi Jews are from 30% to 60% European and this shows in their appearance. Jesus was a first century Palestinian Jew. He was short, olive-skinned, brown eyed and had very curly hair. With this blatantly “Gentile” appearance, he probably would not have been admitted to Ambassador College and he probably would not have been appointed Spokesman Club President or Vice President. He might have even been compelled to attend the Spanish Fun Night at the Feast of Tabernacles.
Epilogue
NEO
Epilog
I do not advocate racial intermarriage but it is clearly not a sin. I think that marriage, the challenging union of two disparate human wills, is difficult enough without the burdens that interracial marriage brings. For further reading on genetics try Dr. David Reich’s (geneticist at the Harvard School of Medicine) book entitled “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”. I have heard HWA lauded from the pulpit in Big Sandy for being racially pure like Noah. HWA was from 1% to 3% Neanderthal based on studies of Western Europeans. The momentum behind this is so great that those who deny it hold a highly exceptional and idiosyncratic view and must shoulder the burden of proof that it is not so. If HWA has enough living descendants and other relatives, a genetic test that measures Neanderthal ancestry might be used to deduce this with the help of a genetic consultant.
23 comments:
How much of an authority was HWA on this topic? Apparently, he missed out on the fact that Manasseh and Ephraim’s mommy was Egyptian. (Gen. 46:20) Looks like he also did not consider that Ruth, a Moabitess, was one of Jesus’ ancestors either. (Matt. 1:5).
Hope this doesn’t come as too much of a shock to the Armstrongites who still hold to white supremacy. If so, it’s high time that you really knew the truth, although you can probably find some way of spiritualizing it away, so that “God’s Apostle” can still be right.
BB
It’s amazing we fell for this garbage. The Bible documents 2 gentile women in David’s and Jesus genealogy.
Plus all the unknown women who Jacob’s 12 sons married - and their children. It would have taken a few generations before the group was big enough to have intermarriage without problems.
" Christ was a member of the Haplogroup J people who lived in the Middle East. Haplogroup J people have identifiable Neanderthal ancestry in their genomes. Neanderthals are beyond being another race – they are a different hominid species."
True
"Hebrews 7:14 For it is clear that our LORD descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
True as the author of Hebrews needed then has to find a way around the theological problem he is apologizing for.
Would not then both of these realities work against the idea that God was literally Jesus father as is supposed in theology? If a God were Jesus literal father then ancestry would be moot and the genealogies of Jesus, contradictory as they are, be meaningless, if Jesus were literally begotten by the Holy Spirit on behalf of a God? Of course it would.
Is God's DNA from Halogroup J? Is God part Neanderthal? I think so! :)
Genealogy and Theology are not compatible but yes, a historical Jesus would have a smidge of Neanderthal in him as do all who came out of Africa. It's a compliment. :)
ancestry would be moot
All modern Jews are considered Jewish through maternal lineage, but biblical genealogies were through paternal lineage. Joseph's genealogy is listed because he adopted Jesus, who would have then been considered "descended from Judah" regardless of Mary's ancestry.
Great article! The study of genetics has already yielded some very interesting findings and has totally debunked former notions about race. In addition to those mentioned in the post, scientists have determined that the human race began in Africa and spread out from there to the rest of the world. Even more interesting, scientists have determined that we all have a common Y-chromosome ancestor and a common Mitochondrial ancestress (though they most probably were not a couple - living MANY generations apart).
If we focus on modern America, the old motto of e pluribus unum has been underscored by genetic test results. The reality is that most African Americans have significant European ancestry, and many White Americans have some African ancestry. My own family's genetic test results reflect this reality. Although most of my ancestry is European, genetic testing has demonstrated African, Native American and Ashkenazi elements as well. And it's high time that we all acknowledge that American culture (art, literature, music, food, holiday traditions) derive from many different influences.
As has been suggested in the article, Europeans are quite a hodgepodge themselves! And that mixture is reflected in a number of different Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial haplogroups. And, if you think about it, this should have been apparent to anyone with even a limited knowledge of European history - even in Herbert Armstrong's day. After all, we have known for many centuries that the British Isles were populated by Picts, Celts, Anglo-Saxons/Jutes, Vikings and Normans (French and Viking).
According to the Gospel of Matthew, as a descendant of David, Jesus Christ would have been the descendant of Rahab of Jericho and Ruth the Moabite - So much for his racial purity!
Finally, this should inform all of us that any squeamishness that we might retain about intermarriage should be abandoned. There has already been a great deal of intermarriage. It is an illusion to believe that there is any purity to protect. There is neither Gentile nor Jew within Christianity. Genetics has demonstrated that lust and love will find a way. If time goes on long enough, everyone on earth will one day be descendants of Genghis Khan!
I have based my views about Christ's ancestry on idea that Christ derived at least half of his genome from Mary. I do not know how the other half was provided. Mary could not have furnished a Y-chromosome haplogroup which is a property of males only. It may be that Jesus' entire genome was derived from Mary in some mysterious way.
That Christ came in the flesh is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. The term "flesh" is sometimes used as a figure of speech in the Bible but in regard to Jesus it was not a figure of speech. The Bible states explicitly that Jesus was "made flesh", that is to say, human flesh. Human flesh contains DNA - it derives its character and form from DNA.
This view of incarnation aligns with the creedal belief among Christians that Christ was fully god, and fully man. He would have had then a human genome. I have not heard of anybody, anywhere try to establish that Christ was disconnected from the biology of Mary, so to speak, his human side. Although there is a heresy that claims that Christ did not come in the flesh and was entirely spirit. This heresy would cancel the need for Jesus to have DNA. This heresy is condemned in John 4.
If we had given Jesus a genetic ancestry test, would he be haplogroup J? I am not sure he could be considered a Jew without Y-chromosome haplogroup J and scripture said he was a Jew. But this is a mystery.
For most of us, I think, the idea that Jesus was part Neanderthal is a non-issue. In this line of reasoning, it was not important to Jesus either. But it would be intensely alarming to Armstrongists who have been indoctrinated to see salvation (and theology, in general)in a racial context in contravention to scripture.
According to the picture post on the "Banned" page, Jesus had hair on his chest.
I demand Biblical evidence and proof for such an assertion and assumption! ;-)
Ruth, Bat-Sheba, Tamar and Rahab the Bark of were uncharacteristically included in the genealogy to show that God can work through foreign or fallen less than ideal women. The issue being addressed was Jesus being a Bastard and born of fornication. A common charge. "If God can work through these women...get off Mary's back," was part of the message. Lineage does not go back thru the woman. That's Christain apologetic. Long story on the problems with Jesus stated geneologies and later doctrine.
The Neanderthal part of Jesus came into play when he "lost it" at the temple dealing with the Money-changers.
Is it that difficult to understand that the Father injected into Mary's womb the 23 male chromosomes that bonded with her 23 female chromosomes that led to the conception of the Messiah? Does it really make any difference what DNA that involved? I'm certain that the Father could create/use any DNA He preferred.
I for one think it is really awesome that so many of us today have emerged from the darkness and have learned to love and appreciate fellow humans whom we were taught should have been exterminated. If we can emerge from error of that magnitude, there is hope for all mankind!
BB
Soooooo I'm God's eighth cousin? Ugh, dont want to draw up that family tree.
Very well written NEO. The focus on the physical is beyond belief sometimes in what is claimed as the church of God. How is it we are to seek a spiritual body or to not love this life unto death or knowing we are to be like angels who don't marry and yet many leaders try to reconstruct the membership into an example nation circa 2000 BC.
In my former congregation there was a young woman of Polynesian descent fully "Americanized", cute wonderful personality who was completely blocked off from any chance at marrying. She was not allowed to date any one who was white, black, yellow or.... no one because there was no one of her race. Her friend told me one day that she was very frustrated because the "whites" get to marry pretty much anyone no matter what country they come from as long as they are white. A sad story and witness to the insanity that still prevails unto this day.
It was said by one minister, that the greatest error the church made during the Divorce and Remarriage fiasco was that they tried to correct a "sin" from a persons past. He said there was no other sin that a person committed where the church would go to great extremes to correct when that person entered the church. And yet here we are in the 21st century and the churches with a recorded message of mixed genealogies right before their faces insist on trying to create the pure races once again.
It's true.
I saw the movie "Raiders of the Lost Rejection letter to Jesus from AC Correspondence department."
The Council of Nikodemon in 553 settled the issue on Jesus being part man and god. The Council of San Diego 2001 settled the issue on Jesus being part neanderthal-man-god and genderneutral possibly drag."
Wasn't ruth from Moab or something can't remember?
nck
We don't have Jesus' human DNA with us so we don't know what His Y or mtDNA haplogroups would be. So isn't this mere speculation?
Also, I agree with you NEO re interracial marriage. However, I'd probably add a clarification. It's not a sin, as you noted, and it's not the cohabitation of a man and woman of different color that is immoral. What is disapproved of in the Bible, however, according to my understanding is interreligious/intercultural marriages. It's not the color of a man and woman in love with each other that makes marital and familial bliss difficult, but the clash of opposing faiths, ideologies and cultures that do imo. And the Bible permits discrimination for religious and, by extension, cultural reasons, but not for racial reasons.
Hoss said: "All modern Jews are considered Jewish through maternal lineage, but biblical genealogies were through paternal lineage. Joseph's genealogy is listed because he adopted Jesus, who would have then been considered 'descended from Judah' regardless of Mary's ancestry."
True Hoss. However, there is much debate re Jesus' earthly ancestry, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_dynasty_in_Bible_prophecy states: "...to presume that Mary was of Davidic descent in Luke presents the problem that Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male line...(2) Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line."
I've read various theories like the genealogy in Matthew is actually Mary's or that both genealogies in Matthew and Luke are Joseph's (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw).
One interesting theory is that the "Jeconiah" in Christ's genealogy of Matthew is really Johanan the firstborn of Josiah and not Josiah's grandson Jehoiachin (aka Jeconiah or Coniah) who was cursed (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4v1UEZb3Z0).
In any case I've also read when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem the genealogical records of David proving Jesus' lineage were destroyed as well. Of course, it's also possible they were removed and remain in some underground vault like the Vatican library gathering dust to this day. Either way it's likely not until Christ returns will the facts be brought to light that answer all questions and we'll finally then see "eye to eye." :-)
Wasn't ruth from Moab or something can't remember?
Yes, A Moabite was expressly prohibited from participating in Israel’s worship for at least ten generations (Dt 23:3), or even forever (Neh 13:1)? But evidently you can you know what them for your self and for children. If a Moabite male has children with a Israelite woman evidently the child is a still a descendent of Judah according to some reasonings. However, ancestry went thru the males in Israel.
Numbers 1:
18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, BY THE HOUSE OF THEIR FATHERS, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls.
well, since all you had to do to become part of Israel was to be circumcised and obey God's law, you will probably find pretty much all haplogroups in Israel's ancestry....
so, what's you point?
Thanks!
I guess Queen Rania is kind of a Moabitess. I would marry her anytime. IF my wife would agree to succumb to Abrahamatic legalese. Besides, her husband is kind of a special forces man trained at Sandhurst, that would pose a problem.
Anyway. Interesting stuff and implications, knowing that jews only recognize the female line.
I'm very much into maternal societies. Some chinese tribes, some tribes in morocco where females get to choose their "shepperd". Deborah as perhaps daughter of the "Captain of the Host of the Lord" who was of course a HUMAN leader of the Chief Edomite tribe for whom Josuah grovelled..........as he passed over his territory.
nck
Ruth the Moabite and Rahab the Canaanite were both of the same race as Jesus. We do not know who the modern Moabites are but these tribes are all ancient Middle Easterners, not that far removed from Adam and were haplogroup J. The genealogy of Genesis 10 describes their close genetic connection.
It is interesting that Charles V. Dorothy identified (erroneously) Rahab as Negroid in the a sermon in the Field House on the Big Sandy campus back in the Seventies. I thought this would stir up a big controversy but nothing ever really happened - there was no debate or retraction - at least in public. Years later Kenneth Hermann identified Rahab as a Moabite without explanation. I am still not sure why Dorothy's statement did not create a storm in the Big Sandy congregation. East Texas is a part of the Old South.
"I am still not sure why Dorothy's statement did not create a storm in the Big Sandy congregation. East Texas is a part of the Old South."
Could it be that the racism that you so vocally claim was prevalent in the WCG was merely your own prejudice and of those you kept company? That would be the Occam's razor answer to your above query.
Anonymous 8:39
That would not be the explanation. Both institutional and individual racism were quite prevalent in the WCG. At the time Dorothy gave this sermon, Blacks had only recently been permitted to enroll at AC/BS. Greg Doudna has formed a credible argument that this was so because of National Civil Rights legislation not because AC administrators suddenly acquired a kindly heart.
An even sharper Occam's Razor is that people in the WCG at that time were so heavily indoctrinated that they never questioned what a minister said from the pulpit.
A little sidebar: It is hard to believe in Armstrongist British-Israelism and not be a racist.
I agree with 5:39 although I do not believe in it.
Armstrongist BI had at its central thesis that ALTHOUGH ALL HUMANS ARE INNATELY BAD AND OF SATAN, God had made a promise to Abraham and he was going to keep it no matter what no matter who no matter how!!!!!
Through these promise other nations were going to be blessed aswell.
Man with its innate evil nature not attuned to god executed gods will in less than satisfactory manner by shipping workers from oversees by whip and killing natives off for instance by paying for each scalp of a red man.
God would have had it another way if man had chosen to to it another way.
It was God who had already put the shale gas in Texas acquivers or God had provided the Bracken basin and God had provided California sun, so tech companies and raisins could thrive there. Also God had provided for the auto lobby in California so that the evil people who in the 1930's designed a public transport system would not steal freedom as delivered through cars from the blessed people. And God provided the Remmington action bolt on the eight day so man could hunt the dinosaurs and the gays.
nck
"It was God who had already put the shale gas in Texas acquivers or God had provided the Bracken basin and God had provided California sun, so tech companies and raisins could thrive there. Also God had provided for the auto lobby in California so that the evil people who in the 1930's designed a public transport system..."
Exactly nck, it's actually funny watching all this radical anti-HWAism. It's much like what Ron Dart labelled "radical anti-paganism" back when folks were condemning him for acknowledging Jesus' birth on the first day of the feast of tabernacles.
One thing that I've found is that no matter what someone does there's always going to be someone bitching. Trump could give citizenship to all the illegals, raise minimum wage to $20 an hour, fix social security and the radical anti-Trumpers would still hate the man.
The thing about BI is that if true it would mean the white race is not any more special than any others, if it weren't for God's promise to Abraham we'd probably be way behind Asians at the very least. We're well on our way there now, if not already there in many ways. Again I say, if true.
So why all the hatred for BI? Because if BI is really false, and Britain and the U.S. has/had become the greatest empires in human history, it would be because whites are the "master race", and we all should know that just isn't true.
Isn't it more non-racist to conclude that the only reason whites have succeeded as we have, is not because we're better than anyone else, but because of one man's obedience, God promised to bless his worthless kids?
In really thinking about it, and the wealth that we've attained, imo that's one more feather in the hat of BI. We don't deserve what we've had, we're no better than anyone else on earth. BI proves that. We needed Gods help!!!!
Nothing to be proud of imo.
It's not really BIism that needs to be attacked but the way HWA and the acogs teach it as something to be proud of. It's really something to be embarrassed about. We needed daddy to help us win the race. If true that is!
km
Post a Comment