While preparing an upcoming blog and podcast, I concluded this: there is no way to address God's Plan for all peoples until we define who the peoples actually are. In Adam and The Man I established that the man Adam, who was formed in the image of the Elohyim (Genesis 1:26), was not the first human being on planet Earth according to the Bible, good science and simple common sense.
There certainly is no way to present the answer to this question without offending someone. To even hold to the reality of pre-Adamic man is enough to raise the shields of not only secular do-gooders, but mainstream Christians alike. The expression of universality of humankind is one of the ways that mainstream Christianity has become indistinguishable from the secular world.
There are things that I have thought, and conclusions that I have drawn, which have not been published in THEKINGDOMNOW.ORG. Up until now, this challenging topic has been one of those things. If there is anything will rattle our understanding of where everyone fits in Creation, this is it.
What I'm about to say may raise the ire of both Christian Israel adherents as well as Judeo-Christians. The implications are enormous; they force us to back up and re-evaluate many of the ideas and doctrines we've clung to for generations. This is truly full-contact theology. A big thanks to Lawrence Blanchard for help with the Greek.
The Other Peoples in the Bible
To most professing Christians, one must believe that Adam was the first human being "because the Bible says so." Counter the common claims with some knowledge of the actual Hebrew or Greek, and appeal to the absolute harmony and Inspiration of Scripture, and you become a fish on the line. Although the idea that Adam was the first human being is a fairly recent idea, it appears the myth has become so pervasive that nearly every mainstream Christian believes it. Demonstrably, what disturbs them most are the implications of there being pre-Adamic humankind.
Quickly, let's look at some common claims made by mainstream Christianity that Adam was the first human being:
Claim: The Bible tells us that Adam was the first biological man—in Genesis 1–5; Deuteronomy 32:8; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13; and Jude 1:14. (Source)
Response: The Hebrew word Adam (aw-dam) - commonly translated as "man" - describes one who has the ability to blush or show blood in the face. This unique physiology also appears throughout the Bible in reference to Covenant man (ie: Jeremiah 6:15). None of the Old Testament passages provided in the claim have to do with any people other than Adam and his seed, and it is thus circular logic to attempt to use those passages. For instance: it is the sons of Adam referred to directly in Deuteronomy 32:8. Adam himself is the progenitor of the sons of Adam in 1 Chronicles 1:1. Since the Hebrew Adam is translated into the foundational Greek anthropos in the Septuagint, it follows that anthropos does not necessarily mean all human kind. Consequently, appeals to the New Testament books of Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Jude is also circular logic.
Claim: Where did Cain get his wife? The answer is simple: Cain married either his sister or a niece. (Source)
Response: The question "where did Cain get his wife?" will simply not go away. I refer the reader to my blog and podcast entitled Adam: the Bible does not record any sisters or nieces prior to the time of Seth. Worse, making the claim that Cain (and all other original male children of Adam) had sex with their sisters without question indicates that our changeless God changed His mind about what is right and what is wrong, as revealed in the Law. Even in our compromised culture today, such an act is reprehensible; but to ascribe such behavior to our (presumably more perfect forbears) is positively absurd.
In the 20th century, the claim that other-colored people originated from pre-Adamites has been a key pillar for theistically inclined ‘white’ racists. These have included British Israelites, Christian Identity, and some factions of the Ku Klux Klan. What an incredible legacy of hate derives from the failure of the leaders of these organizations to correctly answer the matter of who Cain’s wife was! (Source)
Regardless of the current breadth of its proliferation, there appears to be no accountability for desperate, irresponsible language like this within Christian scholarship today.
Claim: Word play between "Adam" and "ground" is unmistakable. It is important that Adam is identified with humankind rather than any particular nationality. The country from which the dust was taken is not specified. Rabbis believed it came from all over the earth so no one could say, "My father is greater than yours." (Source)
Response: Genesis 1:7 specifically says that Adam was formed from adamah (translated as ground or dust, Strongs H127). Any good Hebrew lexicon will confirm that adamah simply means dirt. It can mean a specific plot of land, a region, or the entire planet. How adamah is used - in context - helps us determine from what dirt Adam was formed. Since the Bible (or any other Semitic text that I'm aware of) does not tell us that God first gathered dirt from all over the planet in order to form Adam, it will not do to conclude that Adam came from everywhere.
Curiously, modern Jewry also has battled with the etymological demand for "redness" in Adam by investigating the color of various clay soils in the middle East. This kind of "damage control" is not mentioned by the "Bible experts" at biblestudytools.com, because it cannot also be true that all dirt from everywhere is red. Moreover, to appeal to the rabbis for direction in this matter is ill advised, for the rabbis also make no distinction between the non-Jewish man and an animal (Makkoth 7b). The rabbis teach that these people are " ...animals in the form of human beings...." (Midrasch Talpioth fol. 225d). More on this later.
Like so many other myths in Christianity, it's the rabbit trails that captivate us. We so desperately want to believe ideas that seem to support the views we grew up with. We want to believe that Adam was the first man, because - if he wasn't - the applicability of the mainstream view of promised salvation, redemption, restoration, justification and atonement to every human being is logically called into question.
Whether or not Adam was the first human being is surely foundational. Resolution of this problem is essential before the tough questions should be asked - let alone answered. Let's move on.
Eve: The Mother of All Human Beings?
Genesis 3:20 reads:
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living (chay, Strongs H2416).
It is often maintained by mainstream, Judeo-Christian, "young earth" Christians that Eve is the mother of all human beings, because the Bible says she "was the mother of all living." Case closed, right? It's the "plain language" of the Bible, right?
The Hebrew word translated as "living" - chay - does not mean human being. Chay means life itself, as found in any living thing (including vegetables). Of course, this should give us a clue, because Eve obviously did not beget giraffes, turtles and turnips.
But it gets worse! Chay is also very often translated as "beast" in our English translations! The earliest examples include Genesis 1:25 and Genesis 1:30. Was Eve the mother of the "beast of the field" (Genesis 2:20)? Of course not! Was she the mother of the Tree of Life (chay, Genesis 3:24)? Of course not!
There were "living (chay) creatures of all flesh" (Genesis 9:15) and since Eve physically could have represented only one specific kind of flesh, there obviously is something more meant in Genesis 3:20.
The chay (life) which Eve represents is not earthly (as Paul alluded to in 1st Corinthians 15). Indeed, it was through Eve that the Savior was born, who was the second Adam, which brought life eternal for the people of God. The life we attribute to Eve was prophecy; just as the writer of Genesis prophesied the 12 tribes of Israel as far back as Genesis 17:20.
Isaiah prophesied concerning a "land of the living (chay)" in Isaiah Chapter 53 in which a person could be cast out in judgment. When the person is cast out of the land, does he physically die? No! Eve represents those with the "breath of life (chay) who lived in the land; the better land that Abraham sought.
The Problem with Words
The word "beast" appears 180 times in the King James translation. In addition to chay, there are several other Greek and Hebrew words which are commonly rendered as "beast: behemah, b'iyr, ziyz, cheyva', trephah, nephesh, and ktenos. These words do not all mean "beast" as in multi-legged, creeping, non-sentient creatures. Nephesh (Strongs H5315) is a good example: it simply means "soul" or "being". Nephesh is what resulted when God breathed the Breath of Life (chay) into Adam, who "became a living soul" (chay nephesh). Surely, as much as we love translations like the King James, nephesh should never be translated as "beast".
Let's look at how very important it is to understand these Hebrew words:
O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul (nephesh) from the grave: thou hast kept me alive (chayah, the root of chay), that I should not go down to the pit. (Psalms 30:3)
The Psalmist did not say that his "beast" was brought up from the grave. Nor was he claiming that God kept him "beastly" that he should not perish in "the pit". Do you see how serious this problem is? If chay and nephesh should never be translated as "beast," are there other Hebrew words in the list that are also suspect?
There is a key point to be made here: when our Bible translations read "beast" it cannot always really mean "beast".
Man and Beast: The Distinctions
Adam was a man - not a beast - a distinction often made in the Bible. Here are a few of the many Old Testament verses that contrast the man (adam) with the beast (behemah).
And the LORD said, I will destroy man (adam) whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast (behemah), and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:7)
And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man (adam) and beast (behemah)... Exodus 9:25
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man (adam) and of beast (behemah): it is mine. (Exodus 13:2)
And if a man (adam) lie with a beast (behemah), he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast (behemah). (Leviticus 20:15)
Who smote the firstborn of Egypt, both of man (adam) and beast (behemah). (Psalms 135:8)
From the earliest accounts of Covenant man - from Creation, the Flood, the captivity in Egypt, the Exodus out of Egypt and the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai, we have both man (adam) and beast (behemah) together. Where there is adam, we will find behemah. Behemah suffers when adam suffers, is preserved when adam is preserved, and subscribes to the same observances of the Law when with adam.
Man and Beast: The Similarities
The behemah within the camp of Israel was cursed by losing their firstborn when Yahweh executed His Judgment upon Egypt (Exodus 12:12).
The firstborne of the behemah was to be sanctified along with the children of Israel (Exodus 13:2).
The behemah were warned to stay away from mount Sinai by Moses under threat of death (Exodus 9:19).
In their repentance, the behemah were to be covered with sackcloth and "cry mightly unto God" along with man (Adam). See Jonah 3:7-8 in a good interlinear.
The behemah has hands that they can touch forbidden things (Exodus 19:13).
The behemah can be hired (Zechariah 8:10).
They can suffer simultaneously with man (adam) from boils (Exodus 9:9).
behemah can live in tents (Zechariah 14:15) and inhabit a city (Jeremiah 21:6).
Solomon lamented that - in death - the fate of the behemah was the same as the sons of Adam (adam) who did not have preeminence over the behemah (Ecclesiastes 3:19)
Both adam and behemah - both having a soul (nephesh) - can be unclean enough to not eat temple sacrifices (Leviticus 7:21)
The Israelites set aside a portion of both adam and behemah for the service of the Levitical priests and were officiated over (Numbers 32:47-48)
The behemah which were among those set aside were considered part of the "men (enowsh, Strongs H582) of war" (Numbers 32:49). Note that the Hebrew word translated as "men" is not adam, but enowsh (Strongs H582). Enowsh means "mortal" and "mankind".
The life of the behemah is to be regarded with tenderness and mercy by adam (Proverbs 12:10).
In addition to adam, the behemah are distinct from the creeping thing (Genesis 1:25)
The desolation of a land is measured not only by the absence of adam, but also of behemah - in the contexts of both warfare and natural disaster (Jeremiah 32:43, Jeremiah 36:29, Ezekiel 14:13). When the land is desolate, the feet of both adam and behemah will not pass through it (Ezekiel 29:11).
What the Behemah is Not
By now, what is happening here should be obvious. The behema is not chay, even though both are commonly translated as "beast." Here are more interesting Bible facts concerning the behema:
It is not the Behemah which is caught and eaten, but the chay (Leviticus 17:13).
In Ezekiel 14:21, both man and behemah is cut off by the beast (chay).
In Genesis 7:23, both man adam and behemah was destroyed in the Flood.
The firstborne of the behemah is claimed by Yahweh, and never that of the chay. However, the seed of the behemah is uniquely contrasted with that of adam (Jeremiah 31:27) .
The beast in the pit that devours is chay - not behemah (Genesis 37:20).
Important Observations Concerning the behemah
Though we see overwhelming evidence that behemah is mistranslated as "beast" in the Old Testament, there are a couple of potentially confusing passages:
Of every clean beast (behemah) thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts (behemah) that are not clean by two, the male and his female. (Genesis 7:2)
The use of behemah for both clean and unclean "beasts" seems to be specific to these early Hebrew texts. It may be that the clean and "beasts" which were preserved were distinguished by the behemah. For example:
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts (chay) which ye shall eat among all the beasts (behemah) that are on the earth. (Leviticus 11:2)
To be consistent with the Hebrew, we can conclude that the chay (living things) are not the behemah; they belong to, or are associated in some other way to the behemah. In other words: distinctive creatures are characteristic of lands where distinctive people live. The same "kind after kind" that is so obvious among human kind is reflected in the animal world.
Did Noah burn behemah on that altar after emerging from the ark?
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Genesis 8:20)
Of course, that doesn't make sense. It breaks what we have found the behemah to be. We know that the behemah were likely present at the altar for sacrifices, but were they were themselves killed; set on the altar and burned? Of course not! The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew dating three centuries before Christ, uses the Greek word ktēnos (Strongs G2934) where the later, rabbinically-inflenced Masoretic text uses the Hebrew behemah for Genesis 8:20. ktēnos means "beast of burden" or "four legged animals as opposed to fishes and birds".
There is another Greek word correctly translated as "beast" in our New Testament: tetrapous (Strongs G5074). We find tetrapous in Acts 10:12, Acts 11:6 and Romans 1:23 - all are (correctly) translated as "four footed beast." Note that either ktēnos or tetrapous was used in the oldest and most reliable Old Testament passages dealing with the clean beast to be sacrificed!
So, according to the Septuagint, it was the clean four footed beast that was placed on the alter. This isn't the only place we find such a translation problem. Consider this in the King James:
Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. (Leviticus 7:26)
The Septuagint translates the bulk of Leviticus Chapter 7 very differently, and specifies the unclean tetrapous (translated "quadrupeds") as being among the things not to be touched by the soul (nephesh).
This is a good place to make another very important point: the Hebrew adam is translated in the Greek Septuagint as anthropos. Since we know that adam cannot mean all human beings, neither does anthropos! Listen carefully: when Paul warned the first-century reader of the "evil men and seducers" he appealed to the reader's knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:14-16). That first-century reader knew what we call the Septuagint or LXX! Paul did not appeal to the knowledge of a translation , but of Holy Scripture. By the way: I have found "King James only" people in the Christian Israel movement, and it leaves me scratching my head. On one hand so many blame the Talmudic Jew for every ill, then overlook their documented contribution to the Hebrew text from which the King James translation came.
Also, I very much disagree with the common Christian Israel view that the "beast of the field" refers to non-Adamic people. The Hebrew always used in these instances is chay, which is sometimes grouped with the creeping thing, "fowl of the air" and the cattle (Genesis 2:20, Genesis 3:1, Genesis 8:19).
Can non-Adamic People be Saved?
We have seen that it is the Talmudic Jew which both openly and discreetly proclaims the behemah is their beast to be exploited and subdued (Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIII, Baba Bathra, 14b). They believe the non-Jew human was created to serve the Jew rather than the dumb beast alone (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225). Since the Judeo-Christian is aligned with Talmudic Jewry, it follows that they are the "racists" - however unwitting. Don't miss this: Judeo-Christianity holds to a form of racial supremacy, where today's Jews are not just distinctive from the other peoples, but superior in every sense. Their presumed distinctiveness rises above any covenantal responsibility for a compassionate and just priesthood. Until both the Jew and the Judeo-Christian leaders repudiate the clear language of Jewish supremacy over all peoples, the mainstream Judeo-Christian has no business teaching their universalist gospel of absolute equality. Neither should one turn to them for the answer to this crucial question: what about all the peoples? Can they be "saved?"
Again, we need to define our terms. To be "saved" does not mean "go to Heaven when we die." Please see my blog and podcast for Salvation and Heaven. Also, to not be "saved" does not mean the facing of eternal conscious torment in Hell. Finally, the bulk of the Salvation promises found in the Bible are made to the children of Israel - the Bride - and are never promised to other peoples. Biblical Salvation concerns the reconciliation of His People to Him for His Glory as their inheritance.
So, what about all the peoples? Can they be "saved?" I believe the answer is "yes, conditionally."
The Covenant made with Noah was not just with him and his descendents, but "every living (chay) creature (soul or nephesh) that is with Noah, for perpetual generations." Since behemah are both chay (living) and have a nephesh (soul or being), those behemah that are with Covenant man are under the Covenant made with Covenant man. Conversely, those behemah that are not with Covenant man are not under the Covenant made with Covenant man.
As if being a "racist" isn't enough, let's now turn to being "sexist": the Apostle Paul - consistent with the Law - ties the woman's salvation to that of the man in 1st Corinthians Chapter 11. She is brought under the Covenant by being with Covenant man in and under subjection unto him (1 Timothy 2:9-15) - first through her father, and then through her husband.
Scripture tells us something that would enrage any modern sociologist: the Head of Covenant man is Christ, and everybody else is under Covenant man. The faith of Abraham is both covenantal and patriarchal, and it is the same, consistent demand for the adherence to the Covenants and the patriarchy that brings clarity to these issues, which have become so difficult to accept in today's culture. Although the Bible is clear on the role and purpose of Covenant man, it is repulsive to our increasingly matriarchal views.
We find both consistency in how one is brought into the Covenant blessings through what the Apostle taught concerning the woman. Both the non-Adamic people living in the land - and the woman under Covenant man - are required to place themselves under the Law and the observances. Conversely, neither the non-Adamic people - or the woman - who do not live in the land are required to place themselves under the Law and the observances.
When I found out that we were not living in the Last Days as prophesied by the prophets of Israel, I realized the implications were huge. When I found out that the literal seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is historically found within the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and kindred peoples, another deal-breaker became obvious. But neither the fulfilled eschatology movement (Preterism) or the "Identity" people sufficiently answered the question: what about the other peoples?
When one starts really questioning foundational doctrine, they start turning over rocks that have been carefully stepped around. You see, if we want to unconditionally love everyone, we build doctrine that encapsulates and demonstrates our love for all peoples. If we want to hate and despise people who are not like us (and blame everything that's wrong with us on them) there is doctrine for the haters as well. In the end, we pick our doctrine, build our fences, and stand our ground. It's our nature.
I love the peoples of this earth, so I do not hold to a Christian jihad as the "patriotic" race-hating Judeo-Christians do. The Bible does not teach that all peoples are all the same, and will ultimately recognize and worship Yahweh, Who is my God and my King. As Pulitzer Prize winning author and correspondent Chris Hedges has truthfully observed, all the peoples of earth are either potential converts or potential enemies to mainstream Christianity.
The Bible prescribes an order under the Law where Covenant man is not to antagonize or provoke other peoples (Exodus 12:49, 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, 25:35, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, 23:7, 24:17, 27:19). The Bible does demand recognition of (and obedience to) the King of Kings while in the land where Israel dwells.
This is the fundamental directive for everyone - man, woman & child of every genetic extraction: you want the blessings? Follow the rules.
It seems the biggest rule we've forgotten is this one: we don't make the rules! If you love the other peoples, you will not let them build their temples to their gods in your neighborhood. You will not do business with those who do not recognize your God. Not only will you not be blessed when you allow these things, but you affect the potential blessings of the other peoples in your disobedience! Truly, our national immigration policies, the constitutional right to worship one's god of choice and the numerous "Equal Opportunity" initiatives may be the "American way" but are not God's Way.
I have presented a lot of meat in a short time for those that love truth and have ears to hear. I pray that I have answered a question that is only asked by those who have gone down a path that only a few choose go down.