Faith & Heritage is pleased to announce the inauguration of Ehud Would’s new podcast, the first episode of which is “The White Christ.” See below for audio and transcription:
Hello again, Ehud here.
This is a podcast about Christ’s Kingdom, Kinism, and everything relative thereto. Kinism, of course, is the radical notion that the Great Commission does not abolish the nations, but rather, redeems them.
Today’s subject comes courtesy of all those Alienists who, crossing paths with troglodytes like us, reflexively bark, “Jesus wasn’t White, you know!”, “Jesus was a Brown Palestinian!”, “Jesus was a swarthy Jew,” or just as often, “Jesus was Black, you idiot!” And following close at the heels of this loving encouragement invariably come threats to life and limb and pronouncements of damnation and hellfire.
Remarkably, even if their positions on the matter are mutually exclusive of one another, these evangelists of the multicult seem to have little grievance amongst themselves. The one preaching a brown-Jewish Jesus has little apparent quarrel with the one preaching a Black Jesus, nor much the reverse. And neither seem to take qualm even with one preaching a Canaanite mongrel Jesus; and that despite being the substance of the Pharisees’ accusations against Christ’s claim as Messiah. Regardless, and in spite of these differences, they maintain a tepid ecumenism with respect to all but us. Their animus is principally reserved for one view–the same which happened to obtain throughout Christian history up to the last few years–that Jesus and the people of ancient Israel resembled Europeans. Not that they were Europeans, only that they resembled them. We, after all, have historically understood ourselves to be sons of Japheth rather than Shem.
The Alienists’ outrage at this thought suggests that they aren’t so much concerned with the question of what Israelites truly looked like as they are with the repudiation of what Christendom always believed them to have looked like.
And that realization implies much with respect to their motives as well, does it not? Failing all else, they are centrally committed to purging Whiteness from salvation history. They have come to presuppose Christianity to be at odds with Whiteness. Because, they have been converted from Christianity to the gnostic multicult, which holds Whiteness to be more or less synonymous with sin.
But let us test these spirits: does God’s Word teach Jesus and the folk from whom He physically descends to be brown, black, or any shade we would identify as non-White?
Suffice it to say, without plunging into any abstruse detail of Greek and Hebrew etymology, that the translators of our English Bibles have enjoyed an historical consensus in describing king David as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12 and 17:42).
Likewise is his son Solomon described as “white and ruddy” (Song 5:10), and the context compels this translation aggressively, further describing Solomon’s belly to have been “as bright ivory” (Song 5:14). And speaking of groups of Israelites as “purer than snow, whiter than milk, ruddy in body” (Lam. 4:7).
We are likewise told Ezra “blushed” before God at the sin of his people (Ezra 9:6). And Jeremiah rebuked Israel for not blushing at their sin (Jer. 6:15 and 8:12).
David beseeched God that none who seek the Lord might be caused to blush on account of David (Ps. 69:6).
Isaiah spoke redundantly about the Israelites being made to blush (Isa. 1:29 and 54:4).
God caused Israel to blush (Ps. 44:9).
And I hate to break it to all those who imagine Boaz and Ruth to have been an interracial union, but Boaz, come of a blushing people, spoke of Ruth as blushing too (Ruth 2:15).
And we note parenthetically that this would make sense whether she was of an Israelite colony in Moab, or an ethnic Moabitess, as Moab, being descended of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, makes Ruth of the same race as Boaz.
Blushing is referenced at least sixteen times in Scripture, making it a prominent theme. Ask yourself what blushing could possibly even mean to brown or black races? Blushing is in fact a meaningless concept except amongst the fairest peoples of earth.
No wonder, then, that when Samuel located God’s chosen king, David, he noted with admiration the boy’s regal appearance as he was “ruddy and fair” (1 Sam. 16:12).
But much like the Philistine giant Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:42, it would seem our modern Alienists despise young David’s “fair and ruddy” countenance. Indeed, they object to the idea as if David’s being fair-complected would be immoral somehow.
Add to this that there exist several eyewitness descriptions of the living Jesus, and though all were written by different people and came to notoriety at different times, all describe Him with a remarkable similarity.
The most famous eyewitness attestation to Christ’s appearance is found in the lengthy Letters of Herod and Pilate, wherein we read that “His golden colored hair and beard gave to His appearance a celestial aspect.”
Another is found in the Archko Volume, a symposium of first-century court documents, including excerpts from Gamaliel’s Interview, which reads, “‘He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure [which is to say, sunburn]. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy.'”
And another still, the Letter of Publius Lentrelus to Tiberius Caesar, relays Jesus’s appearance thus: “His hair of a color that can hardly be matched. . . . His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard, and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue.”
And any interested in a more in depth treatment on these references among others should refer to Peter Hammond’s lecture, “What Did Jesus Look Like?”
Of course, our opponents will be keen to remind us that as parabiblical texts, these aforesaid have no place in defining our doctrine. And some may be pseudepigraphical fabrications, besides.
On these points we find ourselves in agreement, albeit a qualified consensus: see, these parabiblical witnesses in question offer no new doctrine at all, and undermine none either. Rather, they only seem to reaffirm exactly what we would expect to find after having read the biblical descriptions of Israelites in general, and the Messiah’s ancestry in David and Solomon especially. Which is to say these texts merely offer a chorus of “amens” to the Scripture.
And though the sources in question only came to notoriety in the fourth century, this was contemporaneous with the foundational councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, and the confirmation of the received textual canon of Scripture; at which time the church fathers accepted these testimonies concerning the Lord’s appearance, if not as Scripture, as genuine historical record. Not just on account of their congruence with biblical doctrine, but as with biblical texts, also due internal indicators citing previous copies of the same manuscripts from the previous centuries. There was simply no conspicuous reason to declare them fraudulent.
Today, however, the skepticism which has sprang up around these documents originates not with any forensic invalidation, but merely with the fact that the testimonies describe Christ as having such an Aryan-like appearance. This, in the estimation of the Marxian zeitgeist, invalidates them, no further consideration required.
But realize what a rejection of these affidavits on such grounds assumes:
1) That the writers of each of these testimonies were set upon weaving the exact same false narrative of a flax-maned, blue-eyed, ruddy-complected Jesus.
2) That for lack of any objection, the church fathers were of one accord, institutionalizing this fabricated conception of Jesus as fair.
3) That such a coordinated and uniform misconstrual of His appearance would have to be malicious and based in a false narrative of White Supremacy.
4) And that all truth claims–even those congruent with Scripture–are to be measured and interpreted anachronistically through the modern anti-White paradigm.
We have been issued an ultimatum: the terms of which are, in essence, that we must concede that the universal assumptions over the past two millennia about the stock of old Israel amount to an organized conspiracy on behalf of virtually all Christian men of letters from the early Church to the past couple decades; and that, to subordinate the truth to a White Supremacist lie. And if we will not acquiesce to the the terms of the ultimatum, confessing all Christian history a “racist” conspiracy against the equatorial tribes of earth, the writ of anathema is already signed, and no fate is deemed too cruel for those who will not subordinate the Christian worldview to the gospel according to Marx.
But as theirs are the revolutionary and baseless assumptions at odds with Scripture and the entire Christian view of history and historiography, they epitomize unbiblical standards; and dare I say, subordinate the faith to anti-White and anti-Christian bigotry.
But the fact remains that these documents meet the normative bar of scrutiny in historiography as well as any document of antiquity. And they were never seen as incongruent with Christianity, or in any way unacceptable until very recent years under the jaundiced eye of PC revisionism.
And the funny thing about this is that we traditional Christians actually find the question of Jesus’s complexion and hair color rather beside the point with respect to the efficacy of His sacrifice for the nations. While we recognize a regal caste as befitting the King of all kings and Lord of all Lords, the Church has never suggested that Jesus’s sacrifice applied only to those who look like Him. For most Europeans don’t even have blond hair and light blue eyes. Fewer still share the luminous quality by which His is described.
No, it is actually the Alienists who, in their crazed denials of all biblical and para-biblical evidence alike, insist that Jesus’s Caucasic morphology would somehow limit His grace to Europeans and those fairer tribes of Yazidis, Persians, and like tribes of Asia Minor. They, the supposed egalitarian anti-racists, are the ones who insist that a White Jesus would have no interest in, and therefore no power to save, the Canaanite woman who contented herself with the crumbs which fell from the Master’s table, nor for the Ethiopian eunuch who hungered for Philip’s preaching. That is, they hold that if Jesus was of a ruddy people, it would make Him irrelevant to all the non-White peoples of the world.
Until recently, Black Liberation theology was denounced for heresy round about in the mainstream churches, but that changed at some point. And oblivious to the tectonic shift wrought so recently in their theology, the majority in Roman, Evangelical, and Reformed circles alike have embraced James Cone’s Liberationist doctrine that “God’s revelation on earth has always been black, red, or some other shocking shade, but never white. Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white even though white churches have portrayed him as white.” (J. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, 1970)
In so doing, they presume to arraign the Lord Himself, and imagining themselves to stand in judicature over Him, condemn Him anew, preferring a darker savior. With James Cone the White Alienists have concluded, “If God is not for us [non-Whites] and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.” (J. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, 1969)
So it is not the Kinist who obsesses over Christ’s appearance or made His color out to be a central tenet of the faith, but the Alienist. So far as they have resolved to destroy the White Christ, those who will not join in the mob to affect their planned deicide become in their eyes proxies on which to pour all their Stygian wrath.
No, Christ’s visage is not the gospel. A man could go his entire life never having considered the consistency of Christ’s hair, His eye color, or complexion, and it would not hinder his salvation in the least. And as a son of Calvin, Knox, and Dabney, I have no interest in vindicating icons. Pursuant of the Second Commandment against idols, and observant of the fact that His physical appearance is conspicuously not emphasized in the gospel accounts, I lobby not for frescos, statuary, nor casting calls to suit Him on stage; for even to follow said descriptions with the utmost precision possible would still be to mingle the truth with the imagination of men, and therefore, in some degree, present a false image of our Lord, God forbid it.
But we did not choose this particular battle; it chose us when Alienists determined to make denial of Jesus’s whiteness a new article of faith and anathematize all who decline to join them in this new creed. So neither dare we shrink from speaking the truth in regard to His every aspect. Even if His appearance is not the gospel, and not to be obsessed over in the imagination, were we, for the fear of men, to acquiesce to this newly imagined multicult dogma of a dusky Jesus, and demure from speaking the truth in regard to the information we have of it, we would be bowing to other lords as if they were over Him. And that would be a denial of the gospel.
With Luther then, we can say, “Here we stand, for we can do no other, God help us. Amen.”
Thank you for joining us again. This is Ehud signing out.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
